Talk:Lewis Padgett

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

(Stubby; C. Moore)

This is not shown as a stub, but certainly should be. The bibliography is particularly inadequate for Catherine Moore, as she wrote two popular series not mentioned, SF about a megabusinessman named Artur Blord, and a quasi-fantasy series about Northwest Smith.Tham153 (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above having passed 8 years without comment, i see only benefits flowing from my decision to respond to it as two refactored comments on two related sub-topics, esp'ly as the colleague forwent their prerogative of setting the section title.
--Jerzy•t 07:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stubby

This is not shown as a stub, but certainly should be.... ( part of 04:54, 21 March 2008 contrib from Tham153 (talk) )^{Refactoring by Jerzy•t 07:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

If you share that concern, consult Wikipedia:Stub#How_big_is_too_big?
--Jerzy•t 07:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. Moore

.... The bibliography is particularly inadequate for Catherine Moore, as she wrote two popular series not mentioned, SF about a megabusinessman named Artur Blord, and a quasi-fantasy series about Northwest Smith ( part of 04:54, 21 March 2008 contrib from Tham153 (talk) )^{Refactoring by Jerzy•t 07:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

Perhaps this concern has been responded to without comment here; i haven't examined our individual bios on them, but as the accompanying .article is currently framed, non-collaborative works are not within its scope. Perhaps someone with the interest will comment here on the evidence elsewhere w/in WP.
--Jerzy•t 07:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-descriptive title

   Current title is Lewis Padgett, which apparently has the virtue of been the most prolific of their pseudonyms. On the other hand, it is not descriptive of the content, which seems better described by Collaboration of More and Kuttner or Collaboration of Kuttner and More (drawing our attention to their joint career) or Collaborations of More and Kuttner or Collaborations of Kuttner and More (emphasizing the works they produced together).
   Of course, any of those four could be a better title than Lewis Padgett, unless the scholarship (or less formal coverage) on them has treated that apparently most prolific tranche as providing the standard name for the body of work.(...perhaps bcz it was the Padgett phase that first evoked a body of criticism on their work; in that case a ref should make the fact clear. I note, however, that only C. H. Liddell is a Rdr to the accompanying LP article.) IMO, the focus of the article should determine the title (which criterion, IMO, the LP title fails to meet, as far as current content is concerned). And if there is no consensus on a single focus, two articles, with names more distinctive than those "Collab..." titles, should be appropriate and workable.
   In any case, for now i can imagine no harm in additional Rdrs to the accompanying article; the longer term will clarify which should be Rdrs and which title(s), and changing from the current title is hardly urgent after these years.
--Jerzy•t 07:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably confusing the picture more than helping, but my pb copies of Mutant and Fury, both apparently published as by Padgett, show the author as Kuttner alone.
Ian (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order of sections

The order i found is consistent with the logic "in decreasing order of the frequency of their use of the names". But IMO users will find a more natural and informative ordering more useful: namely, oldest name first, which facilitates comparing and contrasting the evolution of various aspects of the works as a function of time. Note that even tho the periods of use overlap, there is a pretty clear pattern of gradually retiring an early pseudonym and phasing in a new one; one must suspect that this reflects either changing tastes of their readers or increasing ability to discern and "tune" the implicit personae that would elicit a larger, or otherwise more desirable, demographic market in the form of "readers who'll come back for my works attributed to good ol' [X or Y]".
--Jerzy•t 20:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this kind of thinking is reflected by the various pseudonyms that (the fictional SF writer) Jubal Harshaw used within his oeuvres, aiming at his distinctively different audiences.
--Jerzy•t 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]