Talk:Inversions (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Novels (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things this article needs[edit]

  • Details about edition(s) such as date, publisher, ISBN
  • References such as a link to a review
Elonka 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Date is already there. Other details will follow. Guinnog 15:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. You may wish to check other book articles on Wikipedia (Stranger in a Strange Land, Starship Troopers, Flight of Eagles) to get an idea of possible format, as well as checking Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books or Template_talk:Infobox_Book for ideas. :) Elonka 16:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hard to be a god?[edit]

The plot of of the novel has several similarities with Hard to Be a God by Strugatsky brothers; but right now I'm having trouble finding a non-OR source (better than Amazon reviews etc.) for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New section[edit]

The new section on whether or not this is a Culture novel is a bit long I think. It's practically dominating the article for what is, essentially, a fairly minor point (that's not in dispute). The text that was there before connecting the novel to the Culture universe was plenty. My POV of course, but I think the new text is unnecessary article bloat. Care to discuss? --Plumbago 15:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I slimmed it down somewhat. --Guinnog 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool. But it's still like ~4 times as long as it needs to be. Although its author clearly took some time over it (and it's well-written), my gut feeling was to slim it down to, well, nothing. What was there already summed it up nicely (although I suppose a few points in the new text might be worth retaining). Cheers, --Plumbago 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL, yes I was tempted to do the same. But, as you say, it's quite good stuff. Maybe we can integrate the old and the new a bit more? --Guinnog 16:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind remarks. Reading the phrase "Some have debated whether Inversions was a Culture novel", I thought maybe there was some dispute regarding this point, and probably went a little overboard trying to defend a view that doesn't need defending. My general feeling is that if a section on the question "Is Inversions a Culture novel?" is required at all, it may as well be reasonably comprehensive, however. Mujokan 05:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mujokan. You've won me over somewhat. The changes made have improved and shortened the section. Needless to say, I've been unable to resist tweaking it myself. Anyway, I think I'm alright with it now. It was just a shock all that text appearing at once! Cheers, --Plumbago 11:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Plumbago. If you guys do decide to cut it down in the future, in my opinion the most "Culture-specific" references are the harback edition preface that capitalizes the word "Culture", the reference to "special circumstances", and DeWar's evident reluctance to use the word "culture". Also, I guess the stories DeWar tells are so close to Banks' other depictions of the "post-scarcity" economy of the Culture that any other interpretation would be somewhat strained. My two cents! Mujokan 07:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Then again DeWar seems unfamiliar with projectile weapons. Remember he's suspicious of them but admits that UrLeyn used them effectively.. sounds more Luddite than futuristic sophisticate. Pez00 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought about adding a sentence mentioning that the torturers were killed in a manner strongly reminiscent of the knife-missile attack described in Use of Weapons, as that was what alerted me to the possibility of this being a Culture novel in disguise. I wasn't sure if it would just get deleted though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:13, 9 April 2007

Having just read this novel without reading any other Culture novels beforehand, I found this article helpful as it stands, setting the novel in the larger context of the series. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that as it currently stands, this section of the article is essentially original research. It should be trimmed drastically to conform with WP:RS. --John (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC) (NB that I am also Guinnog from the posts above; I changed my user name)
I've done the deed. It saddened me as I pretty much agree with what I removed. Nevertheless, unless there was a valid source for it, we can't really have it. --John (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth noting, I showed this book to a friend once who had never read a culture novel, and she didn't realize it was a science fiction book at all. Her best guess was that the woman was a witch who accomplished what she did through magic. So while the book is instantly recognizable as a Culture book to those familiar with the Culture, others can have a wildly different viewpoint. Maybe it's worth the extra detail. BobThePirate (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That agrees with my take. It obviously is a Culture novel if you've read the others, if not then I'd say the murders were inexplicable and puzzling. Greglocock (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


This article could really do with a "Reception" section or something. Geez what an embarrasing installment to an otherwise flawless series. Pez00 (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know, you want to survey reviews and so forth, you certainly can. I'm not inclined to agree with either of the critical judgements you express. Inversions was a particularly extreme structural experiment from an author given to structural experimentation: the Culture novel that won't admit to being a Culture novel. I don't think it was embarrasing, or that the Culture series proper is flawless. It was perhaps Banks' purest meditation on one of the central questions he poses: In a confusing and broken world, what is right action?--Craigkbryant (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Seems rather clumsy. -- (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Drezen / Dra'Azon[edit]

I wonder if it's just unintentional similarity... (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Identity of the "Master"[edit]

'but privately a spy for an individual identified only as "Master"'

As the Master is later identified as Adlain, this should maybe read:

'but privately a spy for an individual initially identified only as "Master"' TristramBrelstaff (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Note on the Text"[edit]

I am looking at the paperback Orbit edition, which does, indeed, have the quoted "Note on the Text". It is not correct to say, as the article currently does, that this appears only in the hardback edition. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inversions (novel). 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)