Talk:Greg Bear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gaia theory[edit]

I was surprised to read in the article that in The Forge of God Greg Bear makes use of the Gaia theory. From my recollection of the book Gaia has no relevance whatsoever. I read a book in the Eon/Eternity (Legacy?)series where the life on the planet Lamarckia is somewhat different to Earth's - but I'm not convinced either that the Gaia hypothesis is being used - just that evolution took a different course which on the face of it was non-Darwinian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.60.137 (talkcontribs) attribute comment

The "planetism" concept - that ecosystems eventually evolve creatures capable of spreading to other worlds, other star systems, and ultimately other galaxies - is very much based on Gaia theory, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.254.58 (talkcontribs)
Having just read the book I can say that the Gaia Theory is used in the book but as far as I can see on a cosmic scale ie not just in terms of the Earth. One of the characters theorises that the Killers' process of destroying planets is part of how the Universe preserves balance. Or something like that. Its pretty unconvincing as far as I can see.
That aside I found FORGE OF GOD an extaordinary book, brilliantly imagined. The genius of having the Earth destroyed by an enemy we never even see and tracking the process whereby the planet copes with an inevitable end which nevertheless has to be waited for is amazing. What I love about Greg Bear's work is his humanity - although almost every book of his I've read deals in some way with the end of the Human Race - EON's nuclear destruction of earth, BLOOD MUSIC's transformation of humanity, FORGE OF GOD's annihilation of the planet - his sense of loss as mankind faces insuperable odds is deeply moving. You could say his work is tragic on a global scale.
I read FORGE OF GOD weeks before people started predicting the crossing of the threshold of global warming we now face. The sense of the human race's inability to conceive of its own extinction despite constant warning rang a very real bell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.6 (talkcontribs)

Removal[edit]

I removed the complaint that bacteria developing conscioussness was scientifically dubious, because we don't possess a scientific theory of consciousness. Instead I point out that the math in Eon is pretty bogus. Gene Ward Smith 22:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Commenting on which parts of books are bogus is Original Research. And personal opinion. go find a forum for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.145.33 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, he did that five years ago. Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For future article expansion.[edit]

Have fun! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vagina Dentata[edit]

I've read in a book, and I'm fairly sure that it's either Neil Stephenson, Greg Bear or Dan Simmons, a Native American legend involving vagina dentatas belonging to three "spider women". I wanted to add this to the Vagina Dentata article. Does anyone know if this comes from Bear? Tomandlu (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Chronology[edit]

I'm a bit confused by the following quote:

"In later works, beginning with Queen of Angels and continuing with its sequel, Slant, Bear gives a detailed description of a near-future nanotechnological society. This historical sequence continues with Heads — which may contain the first description of a so-called "quantum logic computer" — and with Moving Mars"

This makes it sound as though the order the books were written in is Queen of Angels, Slant, Heads, and then Moving Mars. But the list of books further down has the order as Queen of Angels, Heads, Moving Mars, and then Slant. I haven't read any of these books myself, so I'm not sure if one of these is incorrect, or if it's just a case of awkward wording in the quote above. Jcb9 (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Signed Up for 3 new Halo Novels[edit]

Tor have annouced that he is to write; 3 Halo Novels based in the Forerunner era. Should we add it? SPARTAN-J024(Talk) 16:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Let's wait till they're out. Much of this page seems to come from the horse's mouth, with all due respect for the accompanying pic, so it's bound to be added as and when.Sartoresartus (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Poul Anderson (Astrid's father), his short story "Call Me Joe" and it's similarity to the movie "Avatar"[edit]

Anybody know if Astrid and Greg Bear are planning a lawsuit against James Cameron's movie "Avatar" for ripping off Astrid's father's (Poul Anderson) short sci fi story "Call Me Joe"? The statute of limitations on civil copyright infringement cases is three years, as I recall. Thanks.69.104.54.170 (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

Listing Quantico and Mariposa under "Quantico ("Queen of Angels" prequels)"...[edit]

I think it's clear that Quantico and Mariposa should be included under the heading of Series: Quantico (Queen of Angels prequels), since Mariposa, by including "Mind Design, Inc.", a depiction of Mary Choy at the age of 5 years old, and relating how President Raphkind comes to power, clearly indicates that the events in those books precede those in the "Queen of Angels" series.

So I'm adding "(Queen of Angels prequels)" to that heading...

bonze blayk 10:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzesaunders (talkcontribs)

Missing awards[edit]

Article should include the fact that the Novella Hardfought, contained in 'The Wind from the Burning Woman' won a the 1984 Nebula

Maccheek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

Darwin's Radio[edit]

Article had this section:

Such recent works as Darwin's Radio and Darwin's Children stick closely to the known facts of molecular biology of viruses and evolution. While some fairly speculative ideas are entertained, they are introduced in such a rigorous and disciplined way that Darwin's Radio gained praise in the science journal Nature.

Really? No citation for this supposed praise was given, nothing in the linked articles about the books. And having read the books in question, the science is ludicrous if you know anything about evolution. It's basically Intelligent Design -- that our evolution is following a program in our DNA. It's just the standard superman mutant story, like Van Vogt's Slan. So I think that Nature would "praise" these books is unlikely. If I'm wrong, supply the cite and restore it. 202.81.243.211 (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greg Bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)