Talk:1632 (novel)

Discussion

RickK: "it's fantasy, not SF, and 1781 IS a part of the universe, as Flint himself says on his website"

Alternate history and time-travel are conventionally classed as SF ( unless there's, you know, magic involved).

Agreed. It is no fantasy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In reality, the Grantville Disaster was the result of what humans of the day would have called criminal negligence. Caused by a shard of cosmic garbage, a discarded fragment of what, for lack of a better term, could be called a work of art. A shaving, you might say, from a sculpture. The Assiti fancied their solipsist amusements with the fabric of spacetime. They were quite oblivious to the impact of their "art" on the rest of the universe.

The Assiti would be exterminated, eighty-five million years later, by the Fta Tei. Ironically, the Fta Tei were a collateral branch of one of the human race's multitude of descendant species. Their motive, however, was not revenge. The Fta Tei knew nothing of their origins on a distant planet once called Earth, much less a minor disaster which had occurred there. The Fta Tei exterminated the Assiti simply because, after many stern warnings, they persisted in practicing their dangerous and irresponsible art.
http://www.baen.com/library/0671319728/0671319728.htm

And 1781 is an "Assiti Shard" story, as his website says, but it's not part of the 163x universe -- the 1781 from which George Washington disappeared can't happen in that world and his appearance in classical Roman times didn't.

Yep. The 1632 (or 163x) universe is aare a diffrent parts (series) of Assiti Shard universe, not the other way around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another volume in the Assiti Shards universe is entitled 1781. That novel has the same "starting point" as the 1632verse -- an "Assiti shard" striking the Earth and causing a time transposition -- but the actual story is completely different. In 1781, a "shower" of Assiti shards strikes the Earth during the 18th century and sends (in separate incidents) both Frederick the Great (and his army) and George Washington (along with all the forces gathered at the battle of Yorktown) back in time to the Roman Empire during the "third century crisis" when the Empire was falling apart. In essence, the story is about two alternate approaches to rebuilding Roman society.
http://www.ericflint.net/wip.htm

--wwoods 06:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't recognize the title, but By Any Other Name is also not a 163x book.

Finally, there’s been a new development regarding the novel I’ve been under contract with for time -- yet another separate Assiti Shards novel -- which had the working title of "Shaxpur." That title has now been changed to By Any Other Name. Both titles are something of an in-joke between Jim Baen and myself, which derives from the fact that the Earl of Oxford — whom both Jim and I think was the real author of Shakespeare's plays — will figure as a major character in the novel.

By Any Other Name will be a rather different novel from the others, in that in this novel humans and Assiti actually come into direct contact (and conflict) with each other. Although part of the novel will take place in Elizabethan England, it's really more of a straight science fiction novel than alternate history as such.
http://www.ericflint.net/wip.htm

--wwoods 06:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I think that the first two sections need to be wikified.--Hannu 14:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Reads more like a review than an encyclopedia article

The lead para, especially, is rather glowing. Any phrasing like "1632 is a hugely popular, entertaining, thought provoking, educational, and extremely successful upbeat novel", in my view, either needs rewording to return to PW:NPOV or to be a quote with a cite. This tone seems to continue throughout the article, at least in spots. Comparing it to Tolkien smacks of literary criticism, a kind of original research. If there are cites for these comparisions, include them, but even then it should be worded as a cite. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Response and re-Response

cc from Lar: Thanks for your comment, btw, talk: 1632 (novel). I'll think on your input, lean that way myself. Personally, enclopedic standard would eliminate most Pop entries in entirety, so the article would be speedy vote in WP:AFD fm me philosophically speaking. Not 'mature' enough to be noteworthy historically speaking. Unless I see some hope (and examples) that this sort of thing has chance at WP:FA, the book involves too much work to expand much farther. I feel like its waste of time. Got any answers on that concern? (FA examples)  ::FrankB 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I will respond later... One other tip is that {{inuse}} typically is only placed on articles for a short time. and when a date is given it's usually good to adhere to that date... the date given is now 2-3 days or so in the past so it's not totally unforgivable that the anon reverted the change (although I don't agree). Also your edit comment could have been a bit more charitable, I think. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Answers and Templates

Articles about popular culture stand as a good a chance of receiving FA status as any other (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Featured_articles for a long list of Beatles-related FAs). It's article quality that matters. This article is very promising, but it needs to be made neutral. It's currently gushing and unencyclopedic in tone, hence my tag additions. The subject matter itself is not unencyclopedic per se. --kingboyk 11:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Responses to Above Feedback

1. 1. Glad to hear the FA news. Could really use a novel article that made that status for an example, or a cite to a specific guideline on this type article. Suspect there aren't any. At the moment, I'm loosely using the Honor Harrington novels articles.
   2. My revert tone (I presume you mean using 'clown') is because the action was by IP. See my post to JimboW on that last week for more. In sum, call it merciless comtempt. Discarding hours of work was hardly the 'ethically right' action either! N'est pas? Inserted after, Comments on User_talk:85.182.9.116#Thanks_But_ No_Thanks_on_the_Vandalism are refered to here and below. FrankB 05:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
   3. The 'Inuse' was duly changed to the 'underconstruction' when I did finish the lengthy edit. Note that 90% of the text came from that single effort. (more below)
   4. A character list and synopsis seem to be the most needed things at this time— A big Time consuming task... starting with hardcopy, not keyboards and monitor.
      1. Building a character list for this is taking a lot of off-line old fashioned pen and paper work,
      2. as will a decent synopsis, both of which
      3. I am proceding with side by side. Note however that both sets of notes must fit in between life and other mattters (e.g 35 quality edits yester-night just cleaning up one 'thread of topics' (sic) I originated last summer.)... Weights and Measures, I don't normally bother with Pop stuff like this article at all.
      4. Add Two teens, and a tax accountant wife leaving me as cook, cleaner, taxi-dad, and dog walker this time of year, plus factor seven months away... an I hope you'll agree your expectations of progress are unduly unrealistic.
      5. Of course if you (COLLECTIVELY) and others are VOLUNTEERING to take the two big sections... I welcome the reduced load. Volunteers?
      6. I've just spent most of 6 months picking up after Katrina, and my time planner was to ease back into wikiculture, absorb the many changes (e.g. footnoting, etc., Personnel turnover Radiant!, etc., ad nauseum) ... which btw, has been more of a 'Plunge' than an 'ease'
   5. As far as my experience goes these 51 years, I've rarely found it unwise to set things aside after initial composition, so as to look w/fresh eyes when resume. Things need to settle in my mind some, or the quality suffers. So even with the prod (re:Lar exchanges) I wasn't about to rush to make a hasty change; besides there were other priorities. Other things need dealt with (Like a 20 hour mediation effort). Generally, I find it a good practice, and this IS a Wiki, so there always the merciless edits by others. I opened that door with:
      1. Last I looked, 'underconstruction template' means precisely go ahead in pee in it, but major changes are still coming. I don't see how misuse can possibly misconstrued there whatever. It's very different that 'INUSE', or I can't read and comprehend guidelines worth a damn. Wouldn't you agree (Part 1, not the latter!) <G>
      2. I admit I wish I'd written the book, but to misconstrue a 'fair beginning' as 'groomed text' (Yet another reason to leave the underconstruction temp, IMHO. It's also appropriately cautionary.) (more)
      3. Had the anom made some changes, I have no gripes. If anyone changes it, again, no gripes. 'merciless edits' and all that. I do believe the CLEAN is premature and the Underconstruction is the better choice at this time. We can put a post on the village pump asking for people familiar with the novel if mobilizing manpower is a need. But that need is on pen and paper first. The article was left for copyeditting and such with the undercontstruction, which obviously connotes the article is unfinished. A better message than NPOV. Anyone can polish that out. I wasn't that gushy in individual sections, just additively, I think. (really haven't taken a good hard re-read yet for the reason above.) Also see others are doing this smoothing already. As it should be.
   6. Last but not least, I make no claim to owning the article in any manner. I grabbed this unimportant task because it was pretty much orphaned and I love the scope of the series. I'm not generally into fandom, totally disrespect and disdain the American Cult Culture with it's hero worship and all that crap. Everyone puts their pants on one leg at time. I admire good work when I find it though, and am quite likely to drop a compliment. So I'm not adverse to tooting someone elses horn, just my own. POV? I agreed with Lar (above), however badly, that it needed adjusted. Others are already doing that.
   7. I probably won't be adding or editing it until midweek, thanks to the paper effort. I'd suggest removing the clean, or at least placing it here in the talk. No reason to trash the article that is underconstruction.
   8. I do hope whomever put the NPOV tag on continually monitors to take it off ASAP. I've a thing about taking responsibility on that sort of template. Ditto for Clean... again, which I think is premature here.

Right now, real life needs serviced. I'll be checking back in three hours, give or take. ttfn

Reactions? FrankB 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Above Responses

Much of the stuff on this page probably should be moved to 1632 series since it isn't specific to this one book. If it grows, the list of characters should be spun off to List of characters in the 163x-verse or some such.

—wwoods 20:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the anon who did the rv yesterday. I have also read the book (and the others in the series) and liked it. Nevertheless, the article as it is now not only has NPOV and tone issues (it stinks of unadorned fandom) but also has amazing problems with its factual accuracy. I didn't know wether to laugh or cry reading about the popes in Avalon, for example. Please get your facts straight and try to explain things in a way more suited to an encyclopedia.

Aditionally, as correctly mentioned by Wwoods, a lot of the stuff belongs in 1632 series, not here. The maps that you put in are also irrelevant. The one from 1512 neither has Grantville nor even Thuringia mentioned in it. The other one is just confusing as it shows the very different borders of today's Germany and doesn't really help people interested in the novel. If you are familiar with that 'Village pump' website why don't you ask if Wikipedia can use the maps from the book?  :http://www.baen.com/library/0671319728/0671319728__63.htm

Late Posted Specific Answers, FrankB Says:

• I'll try to do this, preferably as individual files. They were mostly unreadable to these tired ole eyes in the PB, but getting the WikiCommonsPrefered HighRes file from Baen would allow us to locate thumbs where ever, so good idea. Disagree on the current maps, as covered below. Having a fictional Badenburg and Grantville on a real historical map doesn't work, as these are not purpose generated for this project. Mutating some Map to get to better maps is certainly on my menu, but graphics are fluff in an encycl. much of the time. See a Compton's (SP?) in the local library. All this simply means, low priority if I'm either writing or editing writing. FrankB 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the rv or edit discussion: If I edited the article and took out everything irrelevant, wrong or NPOV it would be rather short. Similar to the one before your contributions. I think you'd have raved about such an edit all the same.

Late Post, FrankB says: (Not prone to hyperbole, are we? <G>) I agree it will be much shortened, and am in basic agreement with user: Wwoods on the moves, but redundancy (as repetition) is at the heart of educational theory, and education is our WikiPurpose. SO I think we can do a bit better than shortening it to the same size. An article must needs be standalone reading as well. Properly managed, I'd guess we'll end up at least 2X to 3X with the suggested cut out and moves, while retaining some of the adds I made in part, linked to 'more on the history behind' or some such. The problem at hand is deciding on a strategy that everyone, even Anoms. with 4 edits total can live with. I made a mistake of taking the length as an indication of an neglected topic, and it had no series link I could see in the history, which means to me that it has been neglected in that there has been little put up except in the 1632 series article without any aim to make it FA quality like Starship Troopers, i.e. 13 printed pages in medium font size. I didn't start my initial edit with any intention except to add some historical background. But then text flowed out, and much later, I was reworking the intro as well. Just the lack of historical background made me amazed and a little angry. If I stepped on some toes here, I apologize as I certainly didn't mean to in any way. I just think the novel deserves a lot fairer treatment than the teaser generated heretofore. FrankB 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I will go on to improve the article soon if noone else does. rv-clown aka 85.182.9.116 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

FrankB replies:

Let's get some headings and subheadings and subsubheadings as we go folks! A lot easier to post to a section.

Like the List of characters... concept. Good Thought. I was thinking more along the lines of a sub-page, but that maybe better, or a sub-page for each book with a list of in this book, with a reference link to the main directory (sic), which would have some biographical and discriptive text as well. That's a lot to organize! (One thought is to snag the Character Compendium available from the 1632 Baen's Bar crowd, Virginia DeMarce is maintaining that, and it tracks each 'uptimer' chronologically as well. I'll check into that. We can always use the link, and it's on one of the mirrors at least.)

Much of the material was infact written under the assumption that writing a new series article as well was going to be necessary, as the stub that was here was insufficient (to be kind). I do think enough of the (I call it an) 'Historical Hook' must be retained here to explain the popularity of the book+series, and I liked the opening sentence very much. The tone can be less glossy otherwhere, as I think the cumulative effect is what is the POV Problem, which I agree needs adjusting. (I'm still inside my 72 hr self-imposed limit on big compositions, so whittle away, I can't and be true to meself!)

Regarding "wether to laugh or cry reading about the popes in Avalon", I may have mis-spelled that, or misremembered the name, but the Papal seat was moved for a long period, around 150-180 years, off the top of my head. And further, Eric Flint/David Freer place at least one of the three Cardinals (Pope's relatives) therein in 1634: The Galeleo Affair (SP?), and iirc, the Pope as well by inference... then he later goes to Rome for that finale. So does one of the Cardinals. Moreover, so do some of the GG boks and Ring of Fire (novel) short-stories as well— esp. with Mazzarini's affairs.

I left additional points on our anom's talk page, but will cross file and transport such later (tonight), as there were other matters that need covered here as the more appropriate venue.

I probably won't personally edit the article before Wednesday, at the earliest. Take a crack at whatever, I can be reached very quickly at email if you have a hot query. fabartus@comcast.net (with audible alarm). Fixing up the redlinks above would be appreciated! gtgn!

I will also be checking in here a lot. FrankB 02:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the underconstruction, I wouldn't say you were "misusing" it, rather that it was no longer necessary. It's no big deal, tagging and untagging of articles and minor disagreements over which tags are appropriate is all par for the course. I'm also happy that you took some encouragement from my words on articles about popular culture. Your work is most welcome and I look forward to seeing it on the front page some day! --kingboyk 08:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for a couple of months. I changed some of the language that was not grammatical. More to the point, I removed "advertisement language" from the synopsis. There was also non-factual information in the synopsis. (Not once did the Spanish Inquisition hunt down witches in Germany.)Rocklaura 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Gelling In Time

1. Apologies for not being more specific in my responses to our friendly Anom. As of the moment, I'm mulling over actually following your lead and reverting as you did.
2. Apologies for all involved as well across the series, but my initial impression was this was very under edited and in need of a lot of TLC. I either totally missed, or a link didn't exist to the series article, but I should have thought to poke around more before clicking edit. I've been out of WikiP for most of Seven months as I went as a volunteer for Hurricane Katrina disaster relief. Maybe living in a tent for half that time, including the follow up hurricane has muddled the brain. In any event, my apologies are heartfelt. As I pointed out on [ this], this kind of article is outside my normal group of wide interests; 51 is a bit old to be doing what is essentially a book report!
3. I have taken the liberty of consulting with a total stranger to the series, as immediately follows, as where and how to untangle this is unclear to me at this writing. I will continue to evolve my 'Ooopsie' freeflowing output today, hopefully w/o the minor crises which interupted my want to do lists the past half-week.

Project Proposal

1. I also want to look into, and propose that we make a series project group, however informally or formally as may be the case, and will spend the next little while in tracking down whether one has already been formed, or if not, how one sets up a project page and initiate one. After that, I will boil out the users that have worked on any of the series related articles in any way.
2. I had an overnight thought after belatedly realizing a lot more people had been involved with this series than I'd first realized. Apologies again for plunging in where angels fear to tread, but that is one of the handicap aspects of ADD—ADHD that is an unfortunate theme in my life. It has it's compensations, but I do occasionally run people over like this example. Going back is impossible, so how to go forward, hopefully together, is the question of moment. FrankB

Outsider Invitation

You can help me: Apply your editor's eye to the problems in 1632 (novel), in that: Some insensitive SOB came in and made a mountainous change to the article (that unfortunately didn't link to the series), nor w/o really reading much less perusing the history file for the article. (So he assumed the whole was woefully neglected.) This is called a major error in assumption! (I can put me foot in me mouth quite well as this demonstrates) Now he needs to split out his input into a separate article or sub-page but needs to retain a good encylopediaish article for the novel article, fixing up concurrently the other individual articles and the series article at relatively the same time. Hopefully with a lot of forgiving helpers... But doesn't want to steamroller over the other (estimated) 20 editors that had worked the series, which his assumptions inadvertently will have indubitably offended, albeit, inadvertently in typical ADD/ADHD style (of impulsive disasters). Or potentially so, I now see. (This crystallized last night at twoish, when I got back to the project, and belatedly looked at the contribs and histories for the 1632 series and 1632 Novel). Sorry to have made this gaff folks! The poor SOB is looking for ideas of what to keep and what is good for the novel, but not the series, and what is good for the series, but not the novel. And does the concept of a unified character list fly, and what format should it have. Strikes me that you'd be a good 'Resource' in this as you are fan neutral - you haven't read the first work, much less the whole corpus as has yours truly. Interested? Your real world editors experience should be of real use. If my first output proves anything, it shows my 'text is flowing' mode is not naturally encyclopediaish! Converting that will take some time. Would you be interested for something you haven't read? (This is really a nefarious plot to get you to read one of me favorite books, but I would enjoy (I hope!) a unbiased insight untarnished by understanding of the novel. What better input for deciding such an article was written properly for the WikiP!)

I have a real world commitment and will be back to finish my post in an hour or so... so hold your answers!

Avalon-is Avignon w/cite FrankB

Much later...

• I've just given this article a top to middle re-read. My first, since I saved it. The critical comments are pretty good. It's not that the writing sucks, it's def. not encylopedic enough. Does read more like a review which is very bad, I don't have much respect for critics. As a writer I'd rather give them to the inquisition!

We need to figure what to keep, and what to export, and how to kill the gloss. Probably throw 3 sentences out of 4 in the historical intro away and tighten that up. They should probably be smoothed some and transfered to the series article as well.

Avalon is probably Avignon... re Section Title: Avignon and its Popes

"In 1309 the city was chosen by Pope Clement V as his residence..."

However, the seven popes that resided there returned to Rome well B4 1632 by a wide margin; I did suspect and think I recollect the 1634 book references it as a summer home.

• Just so you know. Mutate as you see fit. I'm too bed. Five consequtive nights up past two at my age!

Not a good idea! FrankB 07:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

FrankB Says:

I didn't get very far, as was mostly searching for good examples to follow, though did make some fiddling changes (partial at that). The system is very slow. I'll clean this up mauch further starting about 22 or 23:00 UTC (5-6 EDST) FrankB 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I started an section edit this morning, but one interuption and the other dragged my effort to next to nothing. I'm trying to settle it enough to save, but was just reminded of the maps issue raise above in my edit.

My view on maps is simple, a bad map that sheds some light on the matter is better than none, which leaves no clues for people to use to start their own researches with. The two I put in here are period correct, in that thuringia is shown within the present German state in the proper relation to other federal states, and the 1512 Map shows the major political players (the seven princes) in the fractured map that Germany was a the time. This Map shows the state of fragmentation much better, were it not poor quality, and copywrited to boot. I have also coresponded with the professor for whom this is part of an online sylabus, and gotten source information. In due course, better maps may be found, but for the time being, these need to be tolerated, if only as place holders until replaced with something better. FrankB 05:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

ChronoAlert: See Series re cat change 163x--->1632-163x alternate history series FrankB

• Chrono-post Alert: See Question and Answer on 'category: 163x' --> 'category: 1632-163x alternate history series'

FrankB 21:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

Added as the tone of much of the text is too close to advertising. Major change of tone required to make this encyclopedic in style. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

United States of Europe

Currently, the entry states that in 1631 a United States of Europe (USE) is formed from cities neighboring Grantville. This is not entirely accurate. Mike Stearns and company do form a small nation from the local towns, but it is simply called the United States.

The United States of Europe isn't formed until the autumn of 1633 after the Battle of Wismar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.242.117.59 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Valley of Saale River

The Text speaks of Weimar, Jena, Saalfeld, Erfurt, Arnstadt and Eisenach being located in the valley of Saale River. This is not true, except for Jena and Saalfeld (as the name implies). Erfurt and Arnstadt lie at Gera River, Weimar at Ilm River and Eisenach at Werra River. So I propose to delete this phrase. All towns are mentioned to lie in Thuringia and this is the smallest region for which that holds true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.176.80 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "About the Series" section

Since there is a linked page for the 1632 series as a whole, I think the The "About the Series" section needs to be drastically shortened. I'm tempted to just go do it, since there are no 2008 comments on this page, and it looks like all of the previous wranglers have gone away.Sherrold (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Decision

Sadly, I never edited the plot threads article so I didn't know about the deletion discussion nor the merge decision. This 1632(novel) article is not the place for the series plot threads, because only one thread was touched upon in this particular novel. The series plot threads belong in ... the 1632 series article (since the plot thread article was deleted). Some of them are already mentioned under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632_series#Published_books , but not in in the same way - it divides them out by books. And the 1632 series article is gonna get NASTY long if we kill every other 1632 article and fold it into that one. :(

I don't want to just jump in here and delete the info - but it genuinely doesn't apply to this individual novel. Tkech (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Moving this information here was a mistake. It should have been moved to the 1632 series article, as it was suggested in the deletion discussion. The admin who closed it sent it to the wrong place. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Now I want to prune it within an inch of its life, that's a LOT of cruft in there, lol! I'll wait until another time since we are both online atm. Tkech (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Better a few meters beyond. Jack Merridew 13:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Um. Can you also work your magic on the redirect for 1632 writers which was deleted? It should point to The Grantville Gazettes (plural) article. Tkech (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Also I think the entire 1632 series article needs to be cut down. Its currently around 70k in length and should be at least only half that long. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps deleted altogether? On what basis does this stuff deserve an encyclopaedia article at all?? 86.150.255.77 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacy section needs work

No sources, possible POV or original research. Add sources or it should be deleted/replaced. WesPhil (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)