Talk:Jack Vance

The Situation of this Wikipedia Page

Yesterday Hayford Pierce removed the following comment from the Links section on the article page, for the reason, given in the history, that it belong here. Fine. Here it is:

"As Editor-in-Chief of the Vance Integral Edition, and as someone whose has published articles on all aspects of Vance, both in the traditional press (see: Appreciations and Bibliography, Cunningham, British Library) as well as in electronic publications (see: Cosmopolis and Extant), I am distressed that the situation on this page remains uncorrected. It is being exploited to by persons pursuing absurd and groundless aggressions against the VIE project and personal vendettas. Wikipedia, so I am informed, is not the place for such things, of which the Internet provides an abundance of other locals. I would like to know why this links page cannot be corrected, at minimum, to remove the Gaean Reach and the Wannek foolishness? Who is blocking such obvious fixes, and why? If this matter, and others, cannot be resolved though civilized discussions among those who are interested in this page I will pursue the matter relentlessly in higher spheres."

I propose that the Gaean Reach, and the Wannek carping, be removed from the links page. I will do so tomarow. If there is any objection to this, let us discuss it.

Paul Rhoads

I have absolutely no horse in this race. I like the works of Jack Vance, I used to know him, and I've made some contributions to the main article about him here at Wiki. I've never seen the VIE and know very little about it except that it exists and that it seems both a labor of love and a worthwhile project. That said, I have just looked, for the second or third time over the last six months, at both of the links that Mr. Rhoads objects to. I can see that there is material therein that he may find offensive. But I don't see any reason for deleting the links to them. Both links concern Jack Vance. Both appear to me to be legitimate. They may not say things that Mr. Rhoads likes, but, I fear, that's what lots of criticism and free speech comes down to. Given all the other Jack Vance links and material here, I think that these links should be allowed to remain. Perhaps a better description of each link could be attached.

I suggest that Mr. Rhoads not delete them as he threatens to do. Other people have contributed to this discussion in the past, and I'm sure that if the links are deleted they will pop up again and the whole revert war will start all over. At some point we may have to have a formal poll about this, with an Administrator looking things over.... Hayford Peirce 19:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hayford, if you have 'no horse' in this race, why bother to oppose me in this? The question is not whether I like the links, or even if they are legitimate--obviously they are not--the question is: who is insisting that such obviously non-wikipedia standard stuff remain here, and why will you not get together with me to correct the situation? I am BEWILDERED by your failer to see that the 'Gaean Reach' board is the work of 2 slanderous trouble-makers, who have been using 'discussion of Jack Vance' as a cover for intentions having nothing to do with anything that could possible be of interest to anyone seeking wikipedia type information about Vance. After the last clash between these fellow 2 months ago their board has been dead. As for the link to the 'Wannek' business, it is sheer irresponsible nonsense. It raises a non-issue and accuses innocent people of absurd misdoings regarding the editing of Vance texts, as well as calling the whole VIE into question. Such stuff has no place here; it is not the only matter which needs correction, but it is the obvious place to start.

Asside from their inapropos nature, but also because such links reflect on the VIE, and because the VIE is a fully documented and public object about which comment here--beyond the proper VIE section now in place--is not appropos, and because Jack Vance himself supported and partisipated in the VIE, and because VIE texts are the source not only of all new publications (including translations) but are also a factor in promoting new publications, the foolishness promoted by these links (quite apart from not meeting wikipedea stardards) is detrimental to the subject of this page.

I will not only engage in relentless 'revert war' on this issue; if I cannot gain the support of people like you and R. Letson, I will carry this matter to the wikipedia mediators.

Sincerely

--PaulRhoads 09:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links guidelines includes the stipulation that sites which are not the official site of any article, organization, person, or other entity, if they have one, are excluded. The VIE, and Paul Rhoads, have official sites. The Gaean Reach, which pretends to be about Vance, but is actually about the VIE and Paul Rhoads, has no place here. Please note that pages of the new post-project VIE site are currently using copyrighted material without permission. This situation is being treated in cooperation with the Vance family. Until it is corrected no links should be made to these pages. If any VIE link is to be currently used, it should be to: http://www.vanceintegral.com/

Regarding ‘VIE controversy’: its whole substance is in the imaginations of a tiny group of disgruntled out-siders. However, even if this ‘controversy’ were legitimate, it is simply not relevant to Jack Vance. That the Editor-in-Chief of the VIE (which is to say, myself) is, or is not, a maniac who ought to have been driven out of the project, has nothing to do with Jack Vance, at least as far as wikipedia is concerned. As for the VIE texts, VIE editorial work was done under the aegis of Jack Vance himself, following his instructions in all things, such as what titles to use for what books. PaulRhoads 11:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that deleting a link until the Cosmopolis link is available is not ideal. Paul, can you say how long it will be till that link is available? If it's a matter of a couple of days, I suppose it's not very harmful. If it is longer than that I'd suggest it's best to put the other link back in and add the Cosmopolis one when it's ready. Can you also explain what you meant by "illegal" in the edit summary? Do you mean contrary to Wikipedia standards? Mike Christie 20:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike, Cosmopolis will indeed be avalable again in a few days. But the site to which wikipedia was recently linked uses copyright material without permission. Some of this copyright material is in the Cosmopolis issues themselves. Wikipedia is clear on this point: links must be to official sites of the material in question, if avalable. There is, or will shortly be, an 'official' site for VIE material, one which has permission to make use of the copyright material, including images and texts. I assume that, even if the new site, called 'Foreverness', would not soon be avalable, you would not approve a link to a site which in not in legal conformity.

I would like, now, to propose to Mike Christie, as well as Hayford Pierce and Russel Letson, who seem to be the persons most concerned, that we tidy up this discussion page of matter which has become out-dated, or which is inappropriate. I note that, per wikipedia standards, many 'articles' are too long. I propose that the 'VIE: Crucial for Properly Appreciating Vance?' discussion be deleted. The authors accuse the VIE of making an error without saying what it is, or giving any evedence except their say so. This, at best, is 'original research'. There are indeed some 'errors' in the VIE, which have been discussed fully in Cosmopolis. They are extreemly trivial. The VIE has nothing to hide; but what revelance does such discussion have on the wikipedia page about Vance? It might have revelance if the authors adresed the subject of the VIE's relevance to appreciating Vance, but they do not! They are only slandering the edition. So, is there any objection to deletion of this section? --PaulRhoads 15:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I myself am absolutely against ever deleting any discussions anywhere at all for any reason at all. I think that they are both interesting in themselves and vital (sometimes) for understanding the article in question, particularly when parts of the article have been fought about. I am willing, however, to see parts of the discussion page moved to Archives -- I don't know how to do it myself, but I'm sure that someone else here does know how. Hayford Peirce 16:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I can archive the talk page. I suggest that I move everything except this section, which is clearly still active, to the archive. I'll do so in the next couple of days; or Paul, please do so if you're comfortable with how to do it. Instructions and some discussion are at WP:Archive. I agree with Hayford that it would be better not to delete anything, but I think everything can be archived except this discussion. This one should stay because we haven't really got a consensus yet on what links are suitable. Mike Christie 00:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

May I ask exactly what the point of archiving this discussion, as opposed to leaving it right here, is supposed to be? To me it unfortunately appears as if we are dealing, in Paul Rhoads, with a person who 1) wishes to set himself up as the final arbiter of what can go in this article, and 2) wishes to remove all evidence that there has even been any discussion of this matter. Am I really the only one who finds this strange?Baphomet V 00:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be archived unless it is no longer relevant. I was hoping that the relevant discussions were now only in this section, so we could archive the rest of the page, which is getting a bit long. If the consensus is not to archive, we should not archive. In either case WP policy says nothing should be deleted. Mike Christie 01:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I didn't mean archiving *this* particular discussion. I meant that, if this whole section gets too long, parts of it that are no longer on-going could be archived. And yes, I do agree, that it appears as if Mr. Rhoads may think that he may have more rights to Jack and his works than some others. I may be wrong about this, and hope that I am. As far as I know, there's nothing in the Constitution, the Wiki rules, Internet conventions, or anything else, that constrains the citizens from commenting freely about Jack, his works, various editions of his works, and even the VIE.... Hayford Peirce 02:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not surpised that certain persons are suggesting I have questionable motives. In my 6 years as editor-in-chief of the VIE I have grown extreemly used to that; if I mentioned my vancian creditials it was certainly not to claim any exclusive rights, but, as a fair reading of my statements will confirm, only to claim a respectful hearing, which for the last few months it has been difficult to get here, as a reading of various discussion forums can testify.

My opinions about the nature of the matter in question, and about the motivations of those who post it, is no secret; but my argument, here, is based strictly on wikipedia standards, which I see no reason not to support fully. Wikipedia's mission, recently called into question in a New York times article, can only succeed if its contributing editors cleave to its sensible standards. I have nowhere seen any wikipedia policy calling for preservation of everything posted on a subject, no matter what. Advocacy of such pack-ratism would seem to be a personal preference of certain editors, without any more standing than my personal feelings about a 'discussion board' like the GR. For example, I find it hard to imagine wikipedia would support even archiving the slanderous murder charges against Secretary Schlesinger, mentioned in the Time's article. This, to the contrary, might be apropos on a page about the history of wikipedia itself, or on a page devoted to the phenomenon of the Internet as a vector of slander. So I am not advocating the absolute liquification of the material in question, which in any case is impossible, but a wikipedia page about Jack Vance, per wikipedia standards. A wikipedia page about the VIE, or about its controversial editor 'Paul Rhoads', might, concievably, be places where allegations that the VIE introduced an error into Maske:Thaery, without explaining what that error is, in a context calling into question the validity of the whole 44 book set on which 300 volunteers worked, in conjunction with Jack Vance himself, for 6 years, could be reasonably considered for archiving, though I think even in such places their relevance would be questionable. Here, however, they are simply off-topic. Rather that archiving such material on this page, I suggest that those who wish to see it preserved find another wikipedia page where it might be apropos, or that they create one, and move it there. Here it has no more revelance than vague chit-chat about moving commas around in this or that article, and I hope no one dreams of permenant archive of such stuff, which, though of real temporary interest, but can only eventually contribute to making this page a monument of irrelevance. Let's start clearing up this discussion page please!--PaulRhoads 12:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure there is an explicit policy that talk pages should never have information simply deleted, unless it is unambiguously vandalism (page blanking, obscenities, etc.). I had a quick look and the closest statement to this that I could find is the Controversy paragraph in WP:REFACTOR#Concerns, which makes it clear that the original talk page should be preserved when it is refactored for clarity or to shorten the discussion. I think the principle is transferrable to archiving too, but will look further for an appropriate policy if Paul still feels that some of the page should simply be deleted rather than archived.

At the bottom of this page, RLetson noted that he was against archiving at this point as there were unfinished discussions. I would prefer not to archive while there's an interested editor who still feels it is not the right time, so I think we must wait to archive.

In case anyone missed it in the recent edits to this talk page, I'd like to ask those interested to take a look at the "Attempted Recap" section at the end of this page. I tried to pull together what I was hearing and would be glad to get feedback from Hayford, Paul, Baphomet and anyone else with an interest in the page. Mike Christie 13:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Merchant Marine

IIRC Vance was in the merchant marine for some time, I always wondered if his descriptions were in part based on places that he had been or situations in world politics of which he had heard, although his worlds seem fairly detached from Earth on the whole I sometimes felt that his descriptions of alien cultures had some similarity to east asian or african cultures???

REPLY TO QUESTION ABOVE: A good example of how exotic places visited in Vance's life (esp. South Pacific islands) influenced his protrayal of the Gaean Reach and Alastor Cluster can be seen in his mystery novel The Deadly Isles (1969), which is set in Tahiti. I believe he used the name John Holbrook Vance in this one. As to his utilization of situations in world politics: See "The Brains of Earth," a wicked satire on the Cold War. Also see "The Gray Prince," which appears to be inspired in part by racial problems in the United States, Southern Africa and elsewhere, including in Vance's own Oakland, Cal. (The complex quasi-villain in this novel bears a certain resemblance to the late Oakland Black Panther leader Huey P. Newton.) The ending of "The Gray Prince" will be especially amusing to anyone who has ever been involved in Native American tribal rights issues or has ever observed the bottomless pit of ethnic rivalries in the Balkans.

---

Re: The Gray Prince. It's believed that events occuring in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) directly influenced Vance. Of course, it's not discounting anything else postulated here. Peter1968 09:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Events in the then Rhodesia were probably one of the source of Vance's plot, I agree. It should be noted, however, that the latest of the colonizing races in The Gray Prince are ranchers, not farmers. There are no great powers to interfere in the struggle over land. The galactic ranchers, unlike the Rhodesian settler regime, don't go around torturing people. And the Gray Prince, the putative villain, lacks the obsessive ruthlessness of a Robert Mugabe. In Vance there is never a direct one to one relationship with current events or issues. Oh, and by the way, Vance borrowed much of the setting and plot from a Jose Farmer novel, "The Green Odyssey," written many years before the beginning of the war in what is now Zimbabwe.

---

Sorry, should've put "Rhodesia in the 70's" influenced The Gray Prince. Peter1968 15:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

The statement that Vance graduated from Berkeley in 1942 may be wrong; there is no record of his ever graduating, according to a U Cal archivist I consulted. Of course the archivist may have been wrong. This should be checked with Mr. and Mrs. Vance. -- 10-17-05

---Vance has made it clear that the inspiration for Domains of Koryphon was reflection on the nature of property, not any specific historical event. In fact there are too many to choose from. He is catagorical about this. Furthermore it is highly probable that he has never read 'The Green Odyssey', or any other Farmer work for that matter. He says that he 'never reads science fiction'. PWR

Cugel the Rapist

Cugel didn't rape anyone in Eyes of the Overworld. To be sure, he coerces Marlinka to conjugate with him after he abducts her in Vull Village, but he definitely doesn't rape her, i.e has forcible sex with her against her will. If you want to look at it in terms of "poetic justice", Cugel married her in good faith and was cuckolded and misled by her (as misled by Vull Village as a whole). So, Cugel probably assumed he was getting what was owed to him, as vile as that may sound to some people.

But I object to the rapist tag, for it implies things about Cugel's character and perhaps the mindset of Vance himself, that simply aren't true. Peter1968 06:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

---Coercing your kidnapped victim to have sex with you is indeed rape, in most jurisdictions. And don't forget Soldinck's daughters in Cugel's Saga, though it's arguable they consented in order to let their mother redirect the ship while Cugel was busy. I wouldn't want to rely on that defense to keep me out of prison however. Andersonblog

Well, Cugel should be thankful he lives in the Dying Earth rather than the legal minefields of the age of the 21st century and their blood-sucking lawyers. Since the books take place in what could be argued to be a world of mediaevalist legislation (where it exists), he probably would be in the right. Women's rights, especially pertaining to conjugations, were practically non-existant and most laws favoured the man. Some religions/societies still see things that way.

Coercing sex out of one's partner is rape by modern definition, and wouldn't have held water in any court in Cugel's time, had they been of a mind to hear it. (Given the somewhat lawless and rakehelly nature of his world, do you think there'd be any?)

Trying to interpret a work of fantasy fiction using modern legal thinking is inherently silly. Sure, the Mark Geragos's and Lord Goodman's of this world will tell you it's rape. The dictionaries, however, will tell you differently.

I mean the word rape in its "purest" sense, that is; sexual penetration of a woman against her will. Peter1968 04:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

To say that "Cugel the Clever" is ironically misnamed is likewise objectionable. The character of Cugel is nothing if not clever. He is a perfect sociopath, but he is very clever indeed.

Cugel is certainly very clever, and resourceful, but he's the kind of character who is also sometimes 'too clever for his own good' and sometimes 'not as clever as he thinks', which is why many of the characters that he meets are able to put one over on him, though he usually turns the tables in the end. Two bad instances of 'not being as clever as he thinks' are getting caught in Ioccunu's maze at the start of Eyes of the Overworld and doing the spell wrong at the end of that book, so he ends up in exactly the same predicament where he started. So 'Cugel the Clever' is a somewhat ironic apellation.Cenedi 09:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

VIE discussion

Clearly, the Vance Integral Edition is an intriguing project, one built on the premises that Jack Vance's editors have marred his works, and that both Vance and his readers will benefit by having these edits removed from his texts. I've only read one of the VIE books, that of "Maske: Thaery," and discovered the VIE volunteers restored at least one error that the original editor had corrected prior to publication of the book in the 1970s. It's possible, of course, that the VIE volunteers have instead improved rather than injured other Vance texts. But the claim in Wikipedia, that one needs the VIE to "properly appreciate Vance," is obviously absurd. Most (if not all) of Vance's fans developed an appreciation for his writing long before the VIE was published. Irrespective of the VIE's merits, the works of Vance published by others are still well worth reading. In the case of "Maske: Thaery," the original is superior to the VIE edition. 71.142.251.172 15:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Some of Vance's own titles for his works, such as Clarges for To Live Forever and Cugel the Clever for Eyes of the Overworld are, quite frankly, bland and unappealing. Despite popular belief out there, most publishing house editors actually know what they're doing. Eyes of the Overworld is a beautifully evocative title and it suits the book (a fix-up) to a T. Summarises the book perfectly without giving anything away. To be honest, the VIE plug that exists on the Vance page comes awfully close to advertising or self-promotion. Peter1968 14:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming the error mentioned by User:71.142.251.172 actually exists, one such error in a text would not make the VIE version inferior to the 'original', whichever that might be, because of the many errors corrected by the VIE. The VIE editors would be happy to comment on this matter if details were given.

Regarding VIE titles; whether or not a given reader preferes the published titles (which are always mentioned on the title pages of VIE volumes) Vance cannot be adiquately assessed, for good or ill, without assessing his actual work.--PaulRhoads 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it sounds like a plug and folk on Wikipedia frown on that sort of thing. I'd be starting some sort of edit war if I removed the VIE entry, so I'll let it stand. Peter1968 15:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The article presumably needs a VIE section since the project is notable for a number of reasons:

• it is uncommon in the SF/F field -- Lovecraft and Howard are the closest parallels I can think of;
• it is an all volunteer effort that 300 people contributed to, which is notable in itself;
• it introduced a number of new titles for well known books, which may be confusing to new and old readers alike, so we need to explain what happened here.

On the other hand, the current version could use some tweaking by making it:

• more factual -- for starters, when did the project start? when did it end?
• less repetitive -- do we need to say that editors had changed Vance's text quite so many times?
• less POV -- "simplified" instead of "dummed down", etc.
• flow better -- e.g. "Some of Vance's texts are difficult to acquire" needs to be linked to the rest of the paragraph which it is currently found in

As far as which version of which text is "superior" or "inferior", well, that's just opinion/original research. The only parts of this discussion that would pass WP:NOR and WP:NPOV muster would be which version is preferred by the author and what professional critics have to say abotu them. The latter is explicitly allowed by WP:NOR and the former would be encyclopedic as well, although we all know that an author's opinion doesn't prevent other people from disagreeing re: the merits of individual versions. (Sometimes violently so, as in the case of Keith Laumer's post-stroke rewriting of his earlier stories.) Ahasuerus 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What books are Gaean Reach?

I asterisked the series that appear to be set in the Gaean Reach/Alastor Cluster universe. I'm not entirely sure about the Planet of Adventure series, but gave it an asterisk anyway. I created a pre-Gaean Reach category for Ridolph and Parlier to continue to cavort in, because Vance's manner of portrayal of the worlds in these stories is very similar to how he portrays the Gaean Reach worlds. I personally think that the Joe Bain detective novels are Gaean Reach in that Vance was I believe writing about a present out of which he KNEW the Gaean Reach would evolve (was evolving?) in his imaginary future history. This of course is just my POV.--dking 23 March 2006

It's intreresting that you class the Planet of Adventure as a Gaean Reach series. The Grafton (now Harper-Collins) omnibus edition I bought in the 80's omitted the first chapter, with Paul Waunder and Adam Reith struggling to deal with the impending crash of their scout boat. The singleton version of City of the Chasch includes this chapter, and with it included, there would be a strong case for the books' inclusion as a Gaeaen Reach series. Reith doesn't give much away about himself during the course of four books, so it's totally speculative and one would have to rely on that first chapter. I'm not sure if anyone's put the question to Vance himself - my sole conversation with him years ago dealt entirely with Cugel's Saga and Eyes of the Overworld. Peter1968 08:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it was strange to classify Planet of Adventure as a Gaean Reach story. Tschai is only 740 light-years from Earth, which is a very short distance by the standards of the Gaean Reach or even the Oikumene. And yet the Explorator is very far from Earth by the standards of its time, deep, deep in unexplored space, investigating a mysterious radio signal. Which would mean that Planet of Adventure was very early in the history of that universe. But if so, where have the Wankh, the Chasch, and the Dirdir disappeared to in the later stories, in which teh Gaean Reach is, as far as we can tell, wholly human? What characteristic features of the Gaean Reach are found in Planet of Adventure? Agemegos 11:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While Vance fans do like to amuse themselves by figuring ways of fitting as many books as possible into a single future-historical framework, there's no consensus on which books not explicitly marked by Vance or including clear cues (e.g., mentions of Narvath or Unspiek, Baron Boddissey) might fit the Gaean future history. There is a book of amateur scholarship by Michael Andre-Driussi, Vance Space: A Rough Guide to the Planets of Alastor Cluster, the Gaean Reach, the Oikumene, & other exotic sectors from the Science Fiction of Jack Vance (Sirius Fiction, c. 1998), that offers an Oikumene-Gaean Reach timeline that includes PoA (along with Emphyrio, The Languages of Pao, The Five Gold Bands, Big Planet, and To Live Forever), but without any supporting evidence. I don't buy it, and see no reason to assert connections where there is no evidence. (No snub of Driussi intended--just distinguishing his work from professional or academic scholarship.) RLetson 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd accept that, for sure. I don't personally consider the PoA books to be Gaean Reach, and it's probably best we don't classify them as such. Peter1968 06:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that the Gaean Reach and Alastor Cluster are "wholly human." For instance, Malagate the Woe was a Star King (a non-human race). Although humans are clearly the dominant species, there are many others, including the two alien (host and parasite) species that invade Durdane. (The Durdane trilogy, since it involves the Historical Society, is clearly a Gaean/Alastor series.) And what about the ur-race that exists only in the zoo in The Grey Prince?--dking 25 April 06 P.S. I forgot about the merlings--an undersea folk at war with humans--in Trullion.

Good points all. I overstated my case to call the Oikumene and Gaean Reach "wholly human". I still think, though, that the non-appearance of the Chasch, Wankh, and especially the Dirdir in the O/GA setting is a strong point against a claim that Tschai is part of that setting. Agemegos 03:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Selected Bibliography's assignment of some books to the Oikumene-Gaean Reach future history remains questionable and ought to be adjusted to reflect what commentators agree on--see my comments above; and add Terry Dowling's two somewhat different takes in different versions of his essay "Jack Vance's 'General Culture' Novels: A Synoptic Survey." RLetson 17:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A proper discussion of this question is given in Extant #14, which may be downloaded at: http://www.integralarchive.org/download.htm --PaulRhoads 11:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To Live Forever

I am astonished that in this lengthy appraisal of Vance and his works not a single word is devoted to his first novel, To Live Forever, which is an astonishingly competent first work, and still, in my opinion, as good as anything he ever wrote afterwards. Hayford Peirce 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To Live Forever wasn't his first book, that honour goes to The Dying Earth. He wrote a number of books before To Live Forever:, Big Planet, Five Gold Bands, Son of the Tree, etc. Peter1968 08:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I guess I think of it as being his first big-time novel that was published in a hardback format. To make up for my stupidity, I'll put in a pic of Jack simultaneously playing the banjo and the kazoo.... Hayford Peirce 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a valid point that there should be something about this novel, though. I've attempted to provide it. Cenedi

The link to To Live Forever lead only to a music album. Unsure how to do that disambiguation thing. - calyban

Is he still writing

The article says he is still writing with special software. I regret to say that our mutual friend David M. Alexander told me a few weeks ago after a visit to Jack's that Jack declared that he no longer could/would write. That he had now done everything he could.... I dunno if this could/should be worked into the article. Of if the article should be slightly amended about his current status. Hayford Peirce 18:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly worth noting that he has retired from writing, but a more permanent (e.g. printed or electronic) reference would be nice. Have Vance and/or Alexander made this fact public in some way? Ahasuerus 18:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It was over-dinner talk. I ran into this problem in the Heinlein article when I put in that RAH had told me that "Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" was his best book. There was then all sorts of hoo-hah about "original research." I fought it for a while, but finally gave up. I've been thinking about that lately. Suppose I got an email, or a phone call, from Jack, in which he said, let's say: "'The Blue World'" is my best book." Is that "original research"? Jack's still alive; he could, I suppose, verify what he said. The Heinlein fuss made me so grouchy about City Hall that I took a Wikivacation of about 6 months.... Hayford Peirce 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a well known and rather thorny problem. Sometimes all we have to go on is what some historians rather dismissively call "the oral tradition". Back when most Soviet/Chinese/East European archives were closed and much of what we thought we knew about Communist history had come from refugees, defectors, etc, it was a particularly controversial subject in some circles. Anyway, some writers (like Jack Williamson), once they decide to retire, make public statements to the effect that they have "no current plans to continue writing novels/stories/at all". If Vance could do something similar, it might help his many fans adjust their expectations and make Wikipedia editors' life easier. Otherwise the statement would read something like "Science fiction writer Hayford Peirce claims in his blog [URL] that another science fiction writer David M. Alexander has told him that Jack Vance is done writing." Ahasuerus 22:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you've given me another perspective on the problem. I see a little more of the other side's point of view now. My own take on it was: "Hey, ho! I'm probably the only guy among you characters writing about Heinlein who actually *knew* him. You don't think it's a valuable bit of info what he *himself* thought was his best book? I got it straight from him. What's the difference between that and seeing it in a letter that he wrote to Bob Silverberg that Silverberg published in his Collected Letters?" Your blog suggestion would be valid, I guess, except Dave Alexander and I (and Jack, of course) must be the only three S.F. writers in the world without blogs -- and with no intentions of starting any. Lemme think about how we could get this info in.... In the meantime, I've found the old banjo/kazoo pic and am gonna stick it in. Hayford Peirce 22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hayford, I share your frustration with the no-original-research protocol--there are points about Jack and his work that I evolved during the time I spent with him and Norma years back (while working on an unpublished and now for various reasons unpublishable book on his work) that can't be included here because they never got into print. I find it a little ironic that web-based factoids have an easier time being included, even though that particular data-pool is badly polluted by distortion, error buildup, and uncritically-repeated gossip. As for the matter of telling the public whether Jack is still writing, I would approach it by pointing out his age, his blindness, and how long it took Lurulu (the second half of a narrative that begins with Ports of Call) to get finished. The implication that there is unlikely to be anything more can just hang there, unexpressed but unavoidable. RLetson 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a real can of worms. The thought experiment I always use concerns Arthur C. Clarke but it could apply equally well to Jack. Here we have an *elderly*, esteemed, famous writer who has a long Wiki article about him. It is unlikely that he will be around for another 20 years or so. Suppose Mr. Clarke logged on, went to his article, and started putting in additional biographical info in a third-person, Wiki-approved style. "Contrary to widespread belief, Clarke spent August of 1941 in a monastery in Wales instead of the RAF. It was only on September 2nd that he was inducted." And so forth. Straight fact. Wiki-acceptable. Suppose he then writes: "In 1939, he read a book, 'How to Raise Mushrooms,' that profoundly influenced the course of his life and his writing." Since no one else has ever written about this, it is less clear that this is Wiki-acceptable. Then suppose that under the Literary Appraisals section of the article he writes: "As of March, 2006, Clarke believes that 'Sands of Mars' is his finest work. And, perhaps surprisingly to many of his readers, he feels that 'The City and the Stars' is a greatly inferior book. Moreover, he has long felt that Stanley Kubrick received far more credit for his work of '2001' than he actually deserved." Also certainly, I gather, this would NOT be acceptable to Wiki. Or would it? Geez, here's The Word, straight from the Source -- Wiki isn't gonna accept it!? If not, there's something seriously wrong here.... Hayford Peirce 20:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

For better or for worse, Wikipedia has no way to authenticate the identity of its editors, which works fine as long as they are just compilers of otherwise recorded statements, research, etc, but almost instantly breaks down when they try to contribute privileged information that is otherwise unverifiable. For example, at one point I was editing the Wikipedia article that Bob Tucker had written about The Planetoid and I was really torn over whether to keep the privileged information. It was quite harmless and there was no reason to think that "71.113.152.181" was not Tucker's IP address, but how could one be sure? There has to be an authentication mechanism in place to thwart doppelgängers if we are to start including that kind of (admittedly, potentially valuable) data on a regular basis. Ahasuerus 23:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Picking nits and more serious matters

Can this section be deleted? It seems like so much clutter.--PaulRhoads 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the "Output and Characteristics" section, the phrase "Vance later rejected the former term" (of Oikumene) is troublesome. Maybe it's just a bad word choice, but it implies something more than a change of name for a polity that is many thousands of years farther along in a common future. And I wonder what the source for Spengler as inspiration for the Institute is--? Ditto that the Rigel Concourse "may be an artificial solar system"; or that the villain of The Gray Prince is "apparently based on Vance's fellow Oakland resident, the late Huey Newton." And Space Opera is not "Vance's idea of space opera" but an episodic Wodehousean farce--unless someone can cite Vance in support of the original assertion.

The whole section needs a copy-edit to make the punctuation consistent (are we using US or UK conventions?) and to fix misspellings (purvue, for example) and other glitches (for example the publisher of Locus is, per the masthead, Charles N. Brown, not "Charlie," at least not to his face). And so on.

In fact, despite the existence of three annotated Vance bibliographies (one of which is also a festschrift), a volume of critical essays, and articles in several standard reference works, there's no list of print authorities here. This is a more significant issue than whether a given discussion board is "about" Vance or the VIE.

Much of the copy here describes Vance's work accurately, but much also seems POV and lacks the critical distance and the grounding in established scholarship and commentary that one expects of an encyclopedia entry--it's more like an appreciation. I admire Jack as much as the next guy, but this entry needs some toning down and a corresponding addition of sources. (I'd take care of some of this myself but I've got a deadline to near-miss.) RLetson 17:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above: I modified the paragraph in question. The information provided comes from my conversations with the author. Regarding the term 'oikumene', the facts are as stated. In the early 1960s Vance used began using that term (which is a greek word) for the future universe he had developed, but later changed his mind in favor of the better known term. There is no question of these terms indicating separate things, as the previous text suggested. Regarding the Gray Prince being inspired by Huey Newton, I have never encounted that theory but I am sure it is wrong. Vance always rejects the idea that that book is based American or Algerian history, affirming that it is based only on the idea about property which the text exposes. As for your point about 'Space Opera', I fail to understand it. As for the style, if that of the second paragraph doesn't suit you, I can only appologize most humbly. Some do, other complain. As for whether or not a given discussion board is 'about' Vance or something else; this issue, whatever you may think about it, seem quite significant to me. This wikipedia page is lending whatever authority it has to a very small group who exploited the pretention of being a Vance discussion board to facilitate its scurrilous attacks the VIE project and its managers. Verification of this assertion is simplisity itself: inspect the board and see what is discussed. I can only conclude that whoever is making sure that the 'GR' remains billed as a 'Vance Discussion board' on wikipedia sympathises with it's ignoble goals. As for the rest of the article, I am indifferent to any considerations of 'established scholaship', whatever that is, but I agree that much of it is just someone's enthusiastic but often half-baked opinions. This fact motivated me to correct the second paragraph.

To be "indifferent to any considerations of 'established scholaship'" is to be indifferent to what I take to be the Wiki approach, which is precisely to consolidate whatever information authoritative sources have established on a topic--not to promote ideas or interpretations that are not in public view, or to take sides in wrangles and feuds. (There is a standard for what I called "established scholarship": it's covered in the "reliable sources" guidelines [[1]].) And, as frustrating as it can be, we can't include information gained directly from the author unless we have also published it in some venue where it can be evaluated by others--this matter has already been discussed on this page--in fact, immediately above this section.

I am troubled by the line about the change from Oikumene to Gaean Reach because the verb ("rejected") implies a repudiation of one term in favor of the other--that is, there is the suggestion of an emotional charge or valence to the change. Neither the primary texts nor any published interview with or article about Vance that I have seen (and I've seen a great deal of Vanceana) suggest that the change of wording carries such a charge or motive. The fact is that "Oikumene" is used in the Demon Princes books, and "Gaean Reach" in the later novels, which are also set tens of thousands of years later in this future history. The reason for the change is not (as of now) visible to the public. That is why I thought it might be just an unfortunate choice of words--and word choice matters. In the absence of testimony about motives, a neutral verb is preferable to one that implies a motive.

About Space Opera: That term has a specific meaning in the context of SF history and indicates a fairly well-defined subgenre, which makes it unlikely that Vance would present the novel as even a parody of actual space opera. And in any case, the suggestion that it is "Vance's idea of space opera" is not supported by any source I know of. (Somewhere I recall that there is a published anecdote about how the book came to be written and titled as a joke, and if I can find it, I'll post the reference.)

As for "doing," I'll go ahead and do a quick copy-edit to clean up the various usage errors I spotted. But I thought I'd point out the substantial problems rather than just charging in and editing them to my taste.

Did so--got through the first seven paragraphs of the "Output and Characteristics" section, both copy-editing and reworking some of the content to diminish POV and sharpen factual points. I've got some doubts about some of the evaluative language from para. 6 onward (e.g., comparing JV's "throwaway paragraphs" to some other writer's "doorstop-thick volume"), but I'm not strong enough to deal with it at the moment. I do urge someone to look at this material with a cool eye, though. RLetson 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't--my editing must have collided with Hayford's and then my computer locked, so it's all in the aether now. Oh, excrement. Hayford caught two items of substance I was after, as well as some of the copy-edits. I'll try to reconstruct the rest when I feel stronger. RLetson 23:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that! That's happened to me a couple of times, too, and it's infuriating! Now when I edit, I try to remember to do a COPY of the new material every now of then, so that if this happens at least I have my own original material to go back to. In any case, I agree with all of your earlier comments. A lot of this article has obviously been written by Vance fans who have had trouble curbing their enthusiasms when writing about him. It's a problem I initially had myself when I started with Wiki and it takes a while to get into that old NPOV groove for everything we write. But there's definitely a lot of speculative stuff here that should be edited.... Hayford Peirce 23:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Further comments from PR: I can't be bothered about wikipedia standards when this whole Vance page seems like an amateurish mess to me. Regarding the word 'rejected', that is the right term. Do you count 'Comopolis' and 'Extant' among 'published sources'? If so you me be comforted by the fact this matter has been discussed there. Jack decided he did not like the term, and 'rejected' it in favor of of the other. The article is question, apart from my ammendations, is, in my opinion, useless as anything but someone's enthusiastic ideas. The author is clearly not as familliar with all the work as, in my opinion, he should be to take on the subject. As for 'Space Opera': Vance was asked to write a 'Space Opera'. He then wrote the book in question and called it 'Space Opera', which is obviously a rather elaborate joke, considering the story's lenght. it is also, obviously, an homage to Wodehouse. Vance has not told me this, but it is not the sort of thing he would say. He does assert that Wodehouse is his favorite 20th century author.

If there's a published account of the process by which Jack changed the Oikumene to Gaean Reach, then by all means cite it--I have all of Cosmopolis and Extant, but why should I need to hunt down the reference if you have it available?

I tracked down one account of the genesis of Space Opera and inserted the reference. You might do the same about any item that seems non-obvious or questionable.

And if you "can't be bothered about wikipedia standards," whatever are you doing here? RLetson 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to what RLetson stated, if you feel JV's Wikipedia article is an amateurish mess, you're encouraged to create an account and contribute in a way that'd add to the article positively. Peter1968 11:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what he *has* done -- some excellent rewriting of a lot of the article.... Hayford Peirce 14:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Who? 62.34.76.67 or RLetson? I'm talking about 62.34.76.67 here. No edits to the article that I can see. Peter1968 07:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously right -- I read the first message in haste and replied incorrectly. RLetson, of course, has done some great editing. The other guy has none nothing but carp anonymously. If he's as knowledgeable as he claims, why doesn't he put something in -- along with citations? And an identity? Hayford Peirce 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

PWR: I would take this constipated carping about wikipedia standards more seriously if, to say nothing of other things, the 'Geaen Reach' board-link were not obstinately billed as a 'Vance discussion board'. Who is enforcing this and what does that enforcement have to do with the famous and wonderful wikipedia standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.194.159.50 (talk • contribs)

Why are you even here then? Sounds like trolling to me. Peter1968 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

PWR: in what way, exactly, is pointing out that false information is being stubbornly maintained on this site 'trolling'? I come here and try to contribute by making things more factual and more about Jack Vance--instead of being about other things, and I'm crabbed at...and now it is hinted that I am 'trolling'. Is this the famous 'wikipedia attitude', or whatever it is? I saw a TV report about wikipedea yesterday, with boasting about how it's so full of accurate information and is even self-correcting...

Contribute to your heart's content, but if you think Wikipedia is such a piece of crap and not worth your apparent magnanimous time, then again: why are you here? Your own words state you don't take this encyclopedia seriously. So I think you're trolling. Peter1968 10:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PWR: Peter, you say: 'contribute to your heart's content'. Ok, so when I try to either delete the link to the Gaean Reach as irrelivant to a wikipedia page on Vance (because it's not about Vance), or explain what it is about, the link is quickly restored, or it's definition returned to 'A Vance dissucussion board'. This, combined with harmless but unhelpful opinion pieces, to say nothing of your own not-exactly friendly attitude, make this wikipedia Vance page hard to take seriously. Furthermore, I have indeed made some efforts here, correcting some of the more blatant errors about Vance's work, filling in some important facts, and engaging in some dialoge with whoever you are. So now I'm a troll. Sigh...

You say that link is irrelevant to Vance. Do you mean pub117.ezboard.com/bthegaeanreach ? I just checked it, and I can see two categories that mention his name explicitly, and one category that's named after a book of his. Is this the one you mean? In reference to your other comments, read your posts here in the talk page. You do come across as someone who couldn't be bothered dickering with this article, like it isn't worthy of your time or something. Create an account and sign your posts too - it's worth it. Peter1968 14:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PWR[=Paul Rhoads]: That is indeed the link I mean, and if you think putting Vance's name on some forums and using his term 'Gaean Reach' makes it a 'Vance discussion' board then you have not looked beyond the first page. The site was created as the result of a controversy, in 2002, surounding the VIE (of which I was the 'Editor-in-Chief') and the purpose of its creators--who were people banned from the VanceBBS--was always and only to attack the VIE and its managers. This site includes slanders not meerly of the VIE project, but of the Vance familly. There may be a few posts which present themselves as being about about Vance, but they never sparked any discussion and all are covers for slander. If you don't want to take my word for this, verify it for yourself. Since I, presonally, am probably the main target of the 'GR', I am well informed on this matter. As for how I come across; why don't you consider how you come across? I am not here in a hostil way. I happen to know a great deal about Jack Vance and his work, and I have done my best to make positive efforts here--for which I get lectured at in an unfriendly way. Would it not be more pleasant and more constructive for us to cooperate in a friendly way?

I'm not being hostile. I'm being honest. I've explained how you have come across (twice). Actually, I went and read some of that EzBoard and found it to be basically a much ado about nothing. Maybe you have a point and its link doesn't need to be here. I'll grant you that. I'll remove the link and add something to the talk page about it.

However, it seems to me (and maybe to a few others) that the increase in reverts and vandalisms to this article and this talk page is a direct result of the "conflict" that is going on between these two camps you've described. Naturally, Wikipedia is not a battlefield of any description and it's hoped the respective parties can take their brouhaha somewhere else. Peter1968 16:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PWR: Your 'honesty', at the very least, has lacked cordiality. You insist on how I 'come across', but what about how you yourself come across? The 'GR' may be 'much ado about nothing', in your eyes. In the judgement of several people it is grounds for slander litigation along several lines, and since I have been one of its major targets, and since, as I insist, it is no 'Vance discussion board', you will perhaps appreciate that I do not regard it, or its being linked here, as a matter 'without importance'. However this may be, if you now see that it should not be dignified with a link from the wikipedia Vance page, I am content. (I note that it is still there). As for wikipedia being a battle field, if that has happened is certainly not at my initiative. You may appreciate that the link in question, and even more certain falsehoods about the Vance Integral Edition and its product texts, which were posted on this page a few weeks ago, might be a source of concern for me that is both personal and disinterested. As for 'vandalism', I hope you are not suggesting that I have engaged in any? If so, please be specific.

OK, here's how it is. I'm a Wikipedia editor, signed in and all, I make edits and I sign them. I don't slam Wikipeida in any way. If I was to do that, there'd be little point of me being here.

You edit articles as an anonymous user, contribute here as an anonymous user and yet, go and slam Wikipedia as not being worthy of your time or that you don't take it seriously. Does that sound logical as to you what you are doing?

As for the much ado about nothing, I can assure you that it is exactly that. Compared to bulletin board flamewars that are out there, it's quite tame and docile. Again, you're right about it's relevance here as a valid JV link. Peter1968 11:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

PWR: ...you seem determined to be disagreable. I do have a wikipedia sign in, but I also have a 36kb internet connection (and no current possibility to improve on that); my house is under renovation and I keep losing my password, so dispite 'good' intentions I have mostly not been signed in, but sign-in or no sign-in I am no 'anonymous user'; it is no secret that name is Paul W. Rhoads, and that I am the editor-in-chief of the VIE. I'm not hiding from anyone. As to my 'slaming' wikipedia; where do I do that? I come in here because of my interest in Vance, and what do I find? Links to several discussions boards either about slandering me or which happen to be busy doing so--I may thereby be less slandered than others, but I hope you will permit me to remain concerned about it anyway?--which are billed 'Vance disscussion board'. As to the contents of the wikipedia page itself, I find contentious, not to say inacurate statements about the VIE, and masses of not very serious commentary on Vance's work (unobjectionable as such, but not helpful to anyone). I try to remove the GR link, and it is restored. I provide a more accurate perspective on the VIE and correct some information regarding the nature and content of Vance's work, and I get lectured on standards--very fine ones, but clearly not respected for much of the material here. I mention that I saw an interview with the founder of wikipedia who boasted about the super-accurate self-correcting nature of wikipedia, and I mention how, in view of the situation I find here, that I am permitting myself to have some doubts, and it is hinted I am a vandal. And where did I say wikipedia is not 'worth my time'? It may not be, but I here, am I not? Sheesh. I see that the GR link is now removed. Will it remain removed? Who was restoring it before? Has it been alleged that I am a vandal for having removed this link previously? If so, will this allegation now be lifted? Double sheesh.

*boggle* Anyhow, I've said all I need to say on al lthis and I'll just go back to watching out for errant changes and vandalism. Peter1968 14:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasels

"Weasles" certainly are mentioned in the Demon Prince books, which transpire in the "Oikumene." But are they specifically mentioned by name in any of the Gaean Reach books? If so, which ones? Hayford Peirce 04:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

PWR: Certainly in 'Killing Machine', where Gersen himself is a weasle, but probably in all of them. weasles are also mentioned in 'Lurulu', where Captain Maloof was an IPCC opperative in his youth, and did a 'stint of weasling', which is how he came to be captain of the Glicca. In Cadwal the hero is an IPCC officer.

It's "weasel"...just thought I'd point that out. :) Peter1968 10:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PWR: ok, I can't spell.

More overlap

I've run into you again, Hayford, and this time I also changed some of your copy (though not the substance): I found the reference to the genesis of Space Opera and amended your amendation and added a footnote. Hope I haven't stepped on your toes. My edit goes about 8 paras into the "Output" section. And I agree about weasels but don't have time to dig around right now--there's some IPCC-like activity in the Cadwal books, but I don't think it's specifically IPCC. RLetson 05:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't get that footnote after all--I've brute-forced the biblio reference into the text and will dope out how to do a proper note later. The data's there if anybody with better Wiki skills than mine wants to fix it. Still learning, clearly. RLetson 05:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Print authorities

I've added a category to the Bibliography, 'Books About Vance', with four of the five volumes I physically have to hand (the omission is the early Underwood-Miller Bibliography: I could put that in also but it's comprehensively superseded by Hewett & Mallett, I believe). Anyone want to add more, they're welcome.Cenedi 12:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography rework

Added non-series novels and collections to the list and made a start on a consistent format. (Do we want chronological or alphabetical order in the sub-lists? Do we want pub dates? Book or magazine? All the VIE titles?) I also went ahead and removed the doubtful or undocumented "Gaean Reach" attributions. I hope this doesn't turn into an editing war, but I can't see asserting series connections without real, published evidence. I left (for now) the Big Planet asterisk because I can't recall not seeing some Reach allusion in Showboat World--but if no reference shows up, I'm for not making the assertion. RLetson 18:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Vance's influence on other writers

Is anyone knowledgeable enough (and willing to quote sources and give citations) to write a paragraph about Vance's influence on other writers? I think I've read a ton of stuff about this on various Web sites but I don't know if I've seen any in hard print. For instance, I know that Silverberg, who lives practically next door to Vance, admires his works greatly. Have I seen something years ago that said that at least the first book in the Marjipoor series was very Vancian? And I think I've read that Jack himself felt at one point (bitterly) that "Zim-Zim" as he used to call her, had imitated his stuff outrageously -- and also made a lot more money than he had by doing so. And, of course, we've already got 4 or 5 books in the "Emulating Vance" place.... Hayford Peirce 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bob has said that Majipoor is partly based on Big Planet: see the 1997 [Hour of the Wolf interview]. He has said the same sort of thing in other interviews as well, so this is not a hard point to nail down. RLetson 04:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So I thought. The question is: will someone write a couple of paragraphs about this? (Not me!) Hayford Peirce 04:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

the gaean reach board

Removed this link as it appears its sole purpose is to slam members of a different EzBoard as opposed to being topical on Jack Vance in any real way. Peter1968 16:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PWR: some of the people being 'slammed', as Peter delicately puts it, were not 'members' of other boards. Among the slanders sponsored by this board include the contention that the work of Jack Vance is being betrayed by his own wife and son.

I saw that the link has been re-added. I think that there are several external links that could be removed; the criteria for external links at Wikipedia:External links are quite restrictive and do not include links that are simply related or of interest. I don't think the Gaean Reach board link belongs here; however, rather than just revert, perhaps we can reach a consensus on which, if any, if the external links belong here, and remove or leave it in as part of that consensus. Mike Christie 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Gaean Reach, just like the Jack Vance Message Board, is a message board dealing with the works of Jack Vance and related matters, as can easily be verified by looking at what has been posted there---so if the one link is included, clearly the other should also be. The Gaean Reach is also, owing to complex matters having to do with VIE management, at present the only Vance-related message board where the VIE may be freely discussed, including critically. The Gaean Reach was launched in 2003 in response to the banning of several members of the Jack Vance Message Board for having expressed critical views of the VIE. Its purpose is to provide an environment for discussion of Jack Vance entirely without connection to VIE management. Baphomet V 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any horses in this race; I don't care one way or another if it remains or goes. But I think that its inclusion ought to be made on the actual merits of the case, not yelling and screaming. 1.) Is it a link to a valid site dealing with Jack Vance and his writings? 2.) The fact that some people may find that site offensive, or inaccurate, is immaterial. There are millions of offensive and inaccurate sites that are linked to via Wiki. 3.) Are there other sites to which it can be compared for relevance? 4.) Is any "offensive" or "inaccurate" info from this site being incorporated into the Vance article here in Wiki without due attribution and warnings? 5.) Are there references to the site in the Vance article that are either false or misleading? Taking all of the above into consideration, I have at least glanced at the site, and it seems to me to be a legitimate candidate being having a link. What I do object to, however, is an editor who apparently has made no other contribution to Wiki at all, coming in under a number and simply reverting the site. The editors who have deleted it have at least identified themselves and stated their reasons for making the deletion. They may be wrong in doing so, but I think that if you want the site to be listed you're going to have to state your reasoning. Hayford Peirce 16:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with BaphometV's view. The board is only of peripheral concern to the works of Vance and the fandom thereof. Have a look at it. Most of the stuff in there are flames and jibes, primarily at people who post at another EzBoard. Not only that, it gets minimal traffic and posts aren't frequent, so I doubt it has much relevance to Vance. Unless somebody is studying the sociology behind rifts in fandom, of course. Peter1968 06:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are the Wikipedia:External links guidelines as to what should be linked to. I've added a comment about which of the existing links fall under these categories, in my opinion; I'd like to hear other opinions.

• Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.

(Comment): As far as I can tell none of the sites are in this category. The first link looks as if it might be sanctioned by Vance but I can't find a definite statement to that effect so I suspect it is not. In any case this criterion would apply only to a site that Vance himself took primary responsiblity for as the website for himself or his work. So I would say nothing qualifies under this.

• Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources.

(Comment): some of these cites are likely references, particularly in discussion of both the VIE and the controversy around it. However, this explicitly says that that alone does not qualify a link for an external links section.

• An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.

(Comment): Not applicable in this case.

• On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first.

(Comment): this is the only section which I believe might include some of these links. If it is agreed that the VIE should be linked, and if it is true that it is controversial, as it appears to be, then it might be justified to link both to the VIE and to a site giving an alternative point of view. However, I think that a better approach would be for the content of the article to include a discussion of both the VIE and (if appropriate) the related controversy, and for those links to appear as references. This might lead to a link to the Gaean Reach message board, but it should then be a link specifically to comments cited in the article to reference the discussion of the controversy. (I am not a Vance or VIE (or anti-VIE) partisan in any way, and have no opinion on the value of the controversy in this article; I'm just trying to get the external links to conform to Wikipedia policy.)

• Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

(Comment): Given the qualifying phrases in this criterion, I don't believe this applies to any of the sites.

• Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

(Comment): Again I don't believe this applies.

The Wikipedia:External links guidelines also indicate that a link to a representative fansite, or to a site which is a fansite link farm, may be appropriate. I don't know which would be the best choice; perhaps The Jack Vance Information page would be suitable, judging from its description, but the link appears to be broken.

To summarize, my suggestion would be that the desirable number of links is zero, or one - a link site. I think the VIE and Gaean reach are not needed as external links and should be referenced instead. Mike Christie 17:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed my link - Jack Vance, an appreciation - as I no longer update any of it and is probably now highly irrelevant. Since the site in question is something I own and operate, I doubt there'll be too much dissention. Peter1968 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Durdane

I restored the asterisk designating Durdane as a Gaean Reach series. Although there are good reasons not to include "Planet of Adventure" (the main source of controversy), this does not hold true for the Durdane books, since one of the important characters is a representative of the Historical Institute from Earth.--27 May 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.16 (talk • contribs)

Is the Historical Institute the same organization as the [no-modifier] Institute of the Oikumene? As I recall Durdane, the H.I. is based on Earth and has an official policy of non-interference in local matters (despite their calling in the marines in the case of the asutra slaving operation). The Oikumene's Institute is dedicated to some sort of program of maintaining humanity's humanity by opposing technologies and the wrong kind of progress. I've always taken the similiar names as an example of JV's tendency to recycle such items. Are there any other clues or cues to tie Durdane into the Oikumene/Gaean future? RLetson 04:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There will be a full discussion of such questions in Extant #14, soon to be published. This is no proposition that Extant be linked to wikipedea, it is simply notification for those interested in this particular issue.--PaulRhoads 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Attempted recap

I have gone back and had a look at the older versions of the page. I'd like to see if I can summarize the issues; I am pretty sure I've misconstrued something here, but here's my best guess at the discussions. I'm using external links to mean the section headed "External Links", and "References" to mean footnotes listed because of a <ref> tag. They are different and I think our criteria for them are different. By the way, are any of the active participants in this discussion among the critics of the VIE? That would be best if we're going to get to a stable consensus. Also, those interested might see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources which refers to an example arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Sources_for_popular_culture which in turn cites Talk:James_Dean#Removal_of_.22Rumors.22_section as an example of unreasonable removal of material from a popular culture page.

• There are four websites under discussion, as follows:
  • vanceintegral.com - The VIE official site. Paul feels it should be listed in the external links or from the body of the article since the VIE is discussed; the discussion is clearly appropriate for the article. The website may also be cited in the article and so could also appear in the references section.
  • starling.us/wankh_vs_wannek.html Critical of the VIE; Paul feels it is nonsense and should not be linked to, but there is no concern about copyright.
  • www.vie-tracking.com This is the link Paul removed; I'm a bit confused because the main page redirects to vanceintegral.com, which I gather is the official site, so I'm surprised he says this site is breaking copyright. Anyway, there was an old issue of Cosmopolis linked to as a reference; Paul indicated it breaks copyright. I'm not sure this strictly breaks Wikipedia rules (I'd have to research it). Paul is apparently planning to relink to the identical text from a copyright page shortly.
  • pub117.ezboard.com/bthegaeanreach A bulletin board that has both discussions of VIE (much of it negative, and in Paul's opinion nonsense), and also discussions of Vance. I've looked on it enough to find both, in about equal amounts; that proportion might not hold up on further reading. Paul feels this should not be linked to.

I'd suggest the following statements are true. I've listed this with the least controversial at the top.

• The VIE is clearly relevant and should be described in the article. An reference to the VIE page is clearly appropriate.
• An external link to the VIE is reasonable. However, it's not necessary to include one if the relevant information is included in the article, and particularly if a link to the VIE is cited in the references.
• The non-copyright version of the website containing the cited Cosmopolis issue should be replaced by a copyright-compliant one if possible.
• If that link is not available soon (7 days?), the old link should be temporarily reintroduced as long as this conforms with Wikipedia policy, and if the reference is in fact valuable to the article.
• There was controversy and internal strife in the VIE, though the importance of this to the VIE texts is disputed.
• WP readers interested in the VIE would also be interested in verifiable information about the controversies.
• Because the sites critical of the VIE do not meet the criteria for reliability listed in the link I posted above, they should not be used as external links.
• Sites critical of the VIE can be used as sources for the statement that controversy existed, and for a short (i.e. one or two sentence) summary of the controversy. The VIE's position on the controversy can also be cited directly from the VIE website.
• Neither the VIE nor sites critical of the VIE should be used as sources for incorporating any assertions about the actual effectiveness, value, accuracy or quality of the VIE, though controversy about these points can be reported as above if relevant within the article. A source for these things would have to be something like a review published in a professional magazine such as Analog or F&SF.

If we can figure out which of the above are controversial and which are not, we might be able to narrow the focus of our discussion. And Paul, please verify that my list of four websites is the right list. Thanks. Mike Christie 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Brief response: I don't have time right now to deal with all the issues Paul Rhoads raises, but I do not like the idea of archiving most of the discussion material. While I suppose we could do without up-front display of some of the wrangles over the VIE and its various insiders and outsiders, there remain topics that have not been resolved--for example, how various series are connected; To Live Forever; and bibliographic and influence issues. And with other topics I've found that the discussion pages, main or archived, tell me much about the community that has worked on the article--what the hot-button topics are, how they've been dealt with, what not to say and now not to say it. On the whole, Mike Christie's recap and proposals strike me as reasonable--certainly as a starting point in getting the article into respectable condition. RLetson 04:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A little later: I've been going over the Wiki policies on external links and reliable sources (again--and feeling like I've been the instructions that come with my tax forms). As far as I can tell, the main reason not to link to sites such as the Gaean Reach or the Jack Vance Message Board would be that they are fan discussion sites rather than authoritative information sites--whether they offend Mr. Rhoads or anyone else is beside the point. (Fan sites are "occasionally acceptable," though, which gets us back to the question of which, if any, might be useful.)

As far as controversial content goes, I note that point 4 of "What Should Be Linked To" includes this advice: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." Thus in the (unlikely) event that this community decides that some of the wrangling over the VIE is relevant to an understanding of the work of Jack Vance, we would be expected to point to sites dedicated to the opposing factions. But while the existence and nature of the VIE are clearly relevant, the circumstances and internal conflicts connected with its creation seem to me not to be. (But the fact that some editors are willing to make a fuss on the discussion page should remain in the record--when I walk into a bar, I want to know who I can have a quiet drink with and who's going to engage in a rant.)

A couple of specifics in the current links list: The "Deserted by Mine Enemies" document is (as far as I can tell) a self-published essay; and the print-on-demand VIE books link amounts to a promotional announcement. RLetson 04:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Mike Christie and R Letson for their constructive approche to this matter. I have no intention of hiding my personal opinions, which, I claim, are in harmony with the interest of the work of Jack Vance to which I have devoted myself as a volunteer for 6 years, but I intend to try to resolve this matter strictly on the basis of wikipedia policy.

Regarding Mike's points, I am in accord with everything, except for the following points:

• If the new VIE resource link is not available soon (7 days?), the old link should be temporarily reintroduced as long as this conforms with Wikipedia policy, and if the reference is in fact valuable to the article.
  • The new VIE resource site may or may not be ready in 7 days, but I cannot sanction intermediate use of a site violating copy-right, particularly since it is my copy-rights which are being violated. If wikipedia readers must wait 8, or more, days for a link to this matter, so be it. There is something called 'respect for the law'.

I've been referred to a link that gives a clear ruling on this: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. The statement is quite clear; we need to remove the link; I don't believe anyone in this debate has asserted that copyright is not being breached, so there is no ambiguity. I will remove the link and restore the references section. Mike Christie 15:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• There was controversy and internal strife in the VIE, though the importance of this to the VIE texts is disputed.
  • This is like saying that 'some people believe the holocaust took place, and others do not'. Controversy certainly existed; it was mainly an effort to drive me out of the project, and sometimes attacked the texts in support of this offensive. Amoung the accusations brought was that the VIE editors were so incompetant that 2 professionals working alone could do a better job, and that the Vatican was directing a re-write of the texts. Since the VIE is fully transparant, since its texts are now avalable to hundreds of subscribers, as well as in dozens of libraries, and also being used for all republications of Vance's work, such allegations have no standing since they are demonstrably false. As for the importance or non-importance of driving me out of the project, the matter is moot, since the VIE project is over, and such foolishness, which is the main thrust of the GR, certainly has no interest whatsoever for the wikipedea page on Vance. Please note that, until I forced Bruce Y., the owner of the GR, to remove it, that site had a rubric devoted exclusively to this effort. I might add that there has been very little activity on that board for several years, all of which has either been discussion of George Bush, in the 'political velosity' forum, advant-guard rock music, in the 'ear' forum, or attacks against me peronally, disguised as discussion of Vance. But don't take my word for this, bore yourseleves to death checking it out! R. Letson's point that both the GR and the VanceBBS are essentially fan sites is a good one. It is my view that the VanceBBS, if it is of interest, is only marginally so, but that may be adressed later. The GR, in any case, has no interest whatsoever, except for socio-pathologists.
• WP readers interested in the VIE would also be interested in verifiable information about the controversies.
  • Such information is given with fullness and fairness in Cosmopolis and Extant, and need not be vaguely and prejudicially hinted at here. Furthermore, such interest can only be sanctioned here if there is substance to the controversy relevant to Jack Vance or his work. But, regarding the texts, actual controversy fails to exist. I am not saying that it might never exist! Anyone who takes a close interest in the project will know that many hard editorial choices had to be taken, with texts like Gold and Iron, The Face or Durdane for example. There is certainly room for discussion, or even 'controversy', regarding such VIE choices, but, while there has indeed been fullsome discussion about them in the VIE newsletters, soon to be made integrally avalable on a proper and well indexed site, there has, so far, been no 'controversy' about these interesting matters. As for the tempist in a tea pot regarding 'Paul Rhoads', I hope no one following this discussion will pretend it has the silghtest relevance on this wikipedea page!
• Sites critical of the VIE can be used as sources for the statement that controversy existed, and for a short (i.e. one or two sentence) summary of the controversy. The VIE's position on the controversy can also be cited directly from the VIE website.
  • If and when such sites come into existance, I would certainly not advocate blocking reference or links to them. The actual sites, however, are of the nature I have indicated. The summery suggested by Mike would read as follows; 'About a half dozen non-VIE volunteers spent much effort carping about the fitness of the VIE e-in-c, and making vauge, impossible to verify at the time allegations regarding VIE texts; the project, however, was carried to a successful conclusion under the leadership of the 'controversialy' e-in-c, and the accusations of editorial wrong-doing made by these people are now demonstrable non-sense, not to say slander.'
• Neither the VIE nor sites critical of the VIE should be used as sources for incorporating any assertions about the actual effectiveness, value, accuracy or quality of the VIE, though controversy about these points can be reported as above if relevant within the article. A source for these things would have to be something like a review published in a professional magazine such as Analog or F&SF.
  • I will only add that, regarding the Wannek site, the allegation is that Alun Hughes, the head of VIE Textual Integrity, tricked Jack Vance into changing the title of the book in question. Since this is arrant non-sense, for reasons I have explained fully elsewhere, not the least being that Hughes partisipated in no way in this matter, which was initiated by Vance himself months later than the time indicated though telephone calls to me, as explained in Cosmopolis, there is no reason for wikipedea to take any note of this non-issue, promoted by irresonsible parties.

To resume: the GR and Wannek links should remain removed. I have no objection to the removal of the Editions Andreas Irle link (why is no one proposing it be archived??), and I continue to urge the removal of the irresposible attack on the VIE on this discussion page, which, failing even to mention the alleged error in Maske:Thaery, can have no possible purpose but exploitation of wikipedia for anti-VIE purposes.--PaulRhoads 13:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning links to the message boards, the matter should be simple enough. Either it is the case that Wikipedia standards suggest that links to related message boards are not appropriate, in which case neither message board should be linked to, or it is the case that they allow for such links, in which case both The Jack Vance Message Board and The Gaean Reach should be linked to. There seems to be no reason to give one precendence over the other, particularly in light of the history of the boards and the fact that they are closely related. As far as current activity goes, neither one of them sees much action at present, but both are large repositories of old discussions that should be of historical interest.

Here is a capsule history of the two message boards. The Jack Vance Message Board, run by Mike Berro, has a long history, and, in particular, predates the VIE project. There was, for a while, an official VIE message board, but it was closed down by VIE management after there had been critical discussion of, e.g., design aspects of the VIE volumes (such as the "Amiante" typeface invented for the VIE). When discussion continued unabated on The Jack Vance Message Board, pressure was put on Berro to disallow it. Berro's solution was to hand over administration of the board to a new group of moderators. At the same time, Bruce Yurgil, a long-time regular of the JVMB, started The Gaean Reach specifically in order to provide an environment where all matters relevant to Vance fandom, including criticism of the VIE, might be discussed. Given the historical origin of the GR, it is hardly surprising if VIE-critical discussion is a central feature of it. Since such discussion is entirely absent from the JVMB, the boards should be seen as complementing one another in this regard.

One might also raise the issue of whether the VIE should be such a central focus of the Wikipedia Jack Vance article. It was, after all, a commercial project (I understand that the VIE is registered as a non-profit corporation in California, but the fact remains that it sold books), involving the production of an expensive, limited edition set of books, which is furthermore no longer available. Do other Wikipedia articles on authors devote so much space to the specific conditions under which their works have been published, including what is clearly advertisement for forthcoming commercial products?--Baphomet V 15:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The VIE's most significant characteristic is that it is as close to a "complete works" or "standard edition" of Vance that we're going to get. Academic treatments of writers cite standard editions as a a matter of course. That the set has Vance's approval and cooperation and its texts are intended to serve as the bases for future commercial editions make it even more noteworthy. FWIW, I don't consider VIE commercial for two reasons: it's a non-profit venture; and it's long sold out (so promotion is irrelevant). There are tender egos involved and bad feelings left over from infighting, but as I've written before, those needn't be part of the story. But the publishing history of a writer's work is part the story--for example, publication of "uncut" versions of several of Heinlein's books; or the discovery and publication of an early draft of Farmer's original Riverworld novel. A bunch of volunteers taking on the job of establishing a writer's preferred texts and getting them published in a uniform edition (which has been acquired by a number of libraries, apparently) is certainly worth including in any account of Vance's career. We can choose to omit the soap operatics, though. RLetson 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The process whereby the VIE has come into being makes it something very far from a standard edition of Vance's work. No academic Vance scholars have, as far as I know, been involved---there may not be any. Instead, the project was undertaken by hundreds of people whose only specific qualifications were that they had volunteered, and was led by a person who himself admits he has a faulty grasp of the written English language. That the project has Vance's approval unfortunately means very little, since Vance is completely blind since many years and could hardly have checked the details of the finished product.

Furthermore, quite apart from any infighting in the VIE project, there are those of us who are simply concerned outsiders who feel that the VIE book set because of its idiosyncratic design and such things as arbitrary changes of novel titles in fact does Vance a great disservice. When Mr Letson says that a number of libraries have "acquired" VIE sets, it is important to realize that they received them free of charge.--Baphomet V 20:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me say once again that I couldn't care less about the VIE -- I own about the whole set of Vance books already and I will never try to obtain any of the VIE books. And I don't give a hoot about the origins of the VIE, the editorial process, or the in-fighting that went on then and apparently continues. I'm completely neutral about the whole thing. But I think simple fairness compels me to make two points about the two above paragraphs: 1.) Jack has indeed been about 99% blind for many years -- but his wife, Norma, is not blind. For many years she has been his secretary, editor, and reader for the books that Jack has written since going blind. She is also an extremely literate, intelligent, strong-minded, and clear-headed woman. It seems extremely improbable to me that she was not 100% aware of what was going on with the VIE process and that she did not communicate all of this to her husband. (You might check the article on Robert Heinlein and see what it says about Ginny's contribution to his works.) 2.) In what ways does it do Vance "a great disservice" by revising his works and changing some of the titles? Evelyn Waugh once lamented (in The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold) that writers did not enjoy the great privilege of artists -- the ability to return to the same work and rework it over and over until they had it perfect. After the war he wrote three fine novels about World War II, beginning, I believe, with Men at Arms. They were all well received. Later, however, he collected the three of them into a single volumn, Sword of Honour, rewrote it slightly, and reissued it as what he called a "rescansion". It was received even more warmly than the three individual works. Today it is considered one of the highlights of his later works and has certainly not harmed his reputation. Why should the reversions to the original texts of what Vance wrote harm him either? Just wondering.... Hayford Peirce 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said, of course, that going back to Vance's original texts harms him. (Although I do admit that the desirability of this seems to be predicated on a view of professional editors that make them at best redundant.) I was referring to the arbitrary changes of titles, and, most importantly, to the amateurish and bizarre design of the books produced by the VIE, which is not apt to make anyone not already acquainted with Vance take him seriously. Have you seen these books? Did you know, for instance, that they are typeset in a peculiar amateur typeface developed for the project without the help of a professional typographer?--Baphomet V 21:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know, but I don't think that the aesthetics are worth including in the article. If there is verifiable criticism about the books' content that would be of interest to a reader of the WP article, it is worth mentioning. That would include claims that the texts are not as authorized by Vance or do not reflect the original version, or that they have a notable number of errors. I don't think aesthetic judgements on the books are appropriate for the WP article, at least without widespread mention in e..g professional media. Mike Christie 21:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything about including such material in the article.--Baphomet V 21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood; sorry about that. I've made a separate note below about the consensus I think this implies; I believe there's only one outstanding issue now. Mike Christie 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the VIE to judge, but I think RLetson is right to imply that the VIE will be treated as a standard edition; or that academic work on Vance is very likely at least to refer to it. That makes it worth mentioning, but I believe it also means that criticisms of it are legitimately referenced in the article.Mike Christie 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What needs done

I would love to see the fussing over the importance of VIE, which-links-are-kosher, and whose-owie-is-worse put to bed so that we can get on with the task of making this into a respectable article on Jack Vance. The "Output and Characteristics" section, for example, still contains questionable material (the Huey Newton reference, and a footnote pointing to the self-published "Deserted by Mine Enemies" essay, for example), and it could also use a through-edit to make some of the prose less purple and less POV. My writing schedule for the next month or more is full, but I can fact-check, spot-edit, and cheerlead in some of my uncopious free time. Meanwhile, I suggest that we admit that the VIE exists, that Jack authorized it and its approach, and leave aside (for now at least) questions of whether it was a Good Thing or The End of Civilization As We Know It or a tempest in a chamber-pot. And that we leave this entire discussion, warts, ennui, and all, right here for an admiring world to see and be warned by.

Hear! Hear! I'll second that! Hayford Peirce 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Hayford posted while I was composing, and I can second his account of the Vances' working relationship, at least in the years I was visiting them. RLetson 21:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Restatement of what needs to be done to close controversy

I agree we should put this to bed and get on with improving the article; I think we should try to resolve this now we have everyone's attention, and I think (hope?) we're getting closer. Here's a new version of the list of statements; I've tried to incorporate comments and suggest compromises here. I've put comments in italics after each one, stating what I think the current consensus (if we have one yet) is. I've deleted the item referring to the non-copyright link.

• The VIE is clearly relevant and should be described in the article. An reference to the VIE page is clearly appropriate. Consensus: Baphomet has demurred but not said outright that it should not be mentioned. Without a direct objection I'll assert that this has consensus.
• An external link to the VIE is reasonable. However, it's not necessary to include one if the relevant information is included in the article, and particularly if a link to the VIE is cited in the references. Consensus: I have heard no objections; I think this will be consensus if the first point above is also.
• The non-copyright version of the website containing the cited Cosmopolis issue should be replaced by a copyright-compliant one if possible. Not controversial; governed by WP policy.
• There was controversy and internal strife in the VIE, though the importance of this to the VIE texts is disputed. Agreed by all.
• WP readers interested in the VIE would also be interested in verifiable information about the controversies. I believe this is the main point of contention. I'll post a specific note about this point below the list.
• Because the sites critical of the VIE do not meet the criteria for reliability listed in the link I posted above, they should not be used as external links. Consensus: agreed on, I believe; I saw no disagreement with this point -- and I'll stress that this only refers to their use as links, not as references.
• Sites critical of the VIE can be used as sources for the statement that controversy existed, and for a short (i.e. one or two sentence) summary of the controversy. The VIE's position on the controversy can also be cited directly from the VIE website. In the form this point is stated, there is consensus; Paul would deny, however, that sites such as GR are in fact "sites critical of VIE" and describes them instead as representative of "an effort to drive me out of the project". I'll try to address this below too.
• Neither the VIE nor sites critical of the VIE should be used as sources for incorporating any assertions about the actual effectiveness, value, accuracy or quality of the VIE, though controversy about these points can be reported as above if relevant within the article. A source for these things would have to be something like a review published in a professional magazine such as Analog or F&SF. I believe we have consensus here; Paul's objections are again of the nature of "this is not a valid critical site", rather than "criticisms should not be linked to".

If the above is accurate, we are left with the following:

• Is there controversy about the VIE of a nature that is appropriate to mention within the article on Jack Vance?
• If so, are the sites mentioned (GR and Wankh/Wannek) citeable as references for the controversy?

If the answer is no to the first question (as Paul has argued) then we remove any references to GR and the Wankh/Wannek site, and remove them from the external links section. There is no need to add text to the VIE section mentioning these issues.

If the answer is yes to both, then we add text to the VIE section summarizing the controversy and linking to both VIE, GR and W/W as appropriate references. External links are deleted in either case as unnecessary given the references.

If the answer is yes to the first and no to the second, we're stuck for references -- I'd have to think about what to do then, since we really would need verifiable sources to add something like this.

How does this restatement sound to everyone? And what's your opinion on those two questions?

Mike Christie 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel you frame the problem very strangely. As far as I know, nobody has argued that criticism of the VIE should be mentioned or discussed in the article. On the contrary, I think discussion of the VIE in general should be minimized.

Nor has anybody argued that a link to The Gaean Reach should be included because it is a "source for criticism of the VIE." The reason The Gaean Reach should be linked to is the same as with The Jack Vance Message Board---that it is a message board devoted to discussion of Jack Vance and related issues.--Baphomet V 21:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Baphomet, you mentioned above that there is no need to use GR or other sites as a source for any text in the article discussing criticism of the VIE. (Please correct me if I'm wrong; I believe that's what you said.) However, you believe that GR and the Jack Vance Message Board should both be linked. My reading of WP:EL is that neither should be linked. Would that work for you?

If so, and if Paul agrees, I think we can remove both (and also the Wankh/Wannek link), add a reference (but not an external link) to the VIE from that paragraph, and we're done. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a tremendous summary you've done, Mike! You must type and think as fast as Bob Silverberg! Anyway, I agree with all of your summary statements. As to the two Big Questions, I think the answer is Yes to both of them. I've forgotten what little Shakespearean scholarship I ever had, but surely there are/were controversies about various editions of his works, the First Folio, etc. Aren't these controversies worth mentioning in a Shakespeare article? For something that is (apparently) as important as the VIE will be to the future of Vanciana, isn't it worthwhile noting that that controversies attended its birth? I'm pretty sure that at the Gone With The Wind movie article there's mention of the various infighting that went on during its creation between the producer and various writers and directors. So why not here? (Not the details of the infighting, maybe just a statement that it went on.) As to referencing the two sites (GR and Wankh/Wannek), I think it should be done in a way that makes it clear that the opinions at the sites are themselves possibly biased and/or controversial in themselves. But just because Mr. Rhoads feels they are intensely unfair (and possibly untruthful) doesn't mean they shouldn't be cited. Suppose Wikipedians let Bill Buckley remove any reference to a site where Gore Vidal savaged him? Or vice versa, of course.... Hayford Peirce 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for your efforts. I really do not care whether or not the VIE is mentioned on this wikipedia Jack Vance page--though it would seem astonishing if it were not--however, I streniously object to any legitimization being given to the GR or the Wannek foolishness. Those who suggest I am here to prove that my 'owie' is biggest, miss the point. 'Bohamet V', a person hiding behind a psudonym, is clearly a certain Alexander Feht. If you want to know more about him, ask the Vances. As for VIE Controversy, there was indeed a certain amount of internal controversy of a normal nature (disputes of who and how). There were was also persistant disturbance of the project from outside, to which Alexander Feht contributed generously. These two aspects sometimes ran together. ALL of these matters, however, including the Wannek foolishness, are fully covered in the project news letters, 'Cosmopolis' and 'Extant'. Alexander, Bruce Y, and others wrote letters to Cosmopolis, calling for changes in VIE management, use of different fonts, different illustrations, etc.. These letters were published, and have been on-line for years. They will again be on line in a very few days, after the current brief hiatus, but this time with a highly convienient index, making the mass of 'Cosmopolis' and 'Extant' material easilly accessable. Based on this material, if someone is motivated to research these 'fasinating' events, and to write articles about them for the delectation of the general public, they will be able to do so convieniently! As for the Gaean Reach, you guys really should do some 'original reseach' rather than facilly calling 'Bohamet V' and me Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum. If you go to the GR, to the top message in the top thread of the top forum, you will read paragraphs like this one, by Alexander Feht:

"My personal impression of John Jr. and Norma is negative for many reasons, one of which is their obstinate refusal to see the sheer indecency of Mr. Rhoads' behavior as an editor of the VIE. Also, they made an ugly public scene in the upscale restaurant, in front of Jack, Bruce, my wife and my son, accusing me of most ridiculous things invented by Mr. Rhoads, despite the fact that I've promised to John Jr. not to touch the Rhoads subject in Jack's presence, and kept my word."

If this sort of thing constitutes 'contraversy', in any way interesting to a wikipedia page on Jack Vance, rather than tripe which ought to be ignored by sensible people, then we live in two separate universes. I do not 'think' the Gaean Reach stuff in 'intensely unfair', I 'KNOW' it is 'pure slander'. Any sensible person should be able to see this; relativity can be carried too far.--PaulRhoads 02:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth: I am not Alexander Feht, nor do I know Alexander Feht. I do feel, however, that all of this is currently going in a disturbing direction. I suggest all parties concerned should take a look at the contents of Cosmopolis, and, in particular, Extant, before adding links to it from the article.--Baphomet V 02:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, you are not Alexander Feht. Who are you then? Also, what, exactly, is the 'disturbing direction' 'all of this' is going?

Here is the situation.

On one side we have the 300 VOLUNTEERS, who worked, for no pay, for 6 years, to create the VIE books and the electronic VIE text archive, controlled by the Vances, which, so far, has been the source of all subsiquent comercially published editions, including translations, such as the 40 texts being published or republished in France at this time (profits going exclusively to Vance). These 300 volunteers worked closely with both Jack, Norma and John Vance, who gave access to their paper and electronic archives, as well as doing continous reseach at the Mugar library in Boston, where many of the manuscripts are archived.

That is one side.

On the other side there is a tiny handful of people, such as 'Baphomet V', who seek to call this effort into question with vauge suggestions and allegations, which suggestions are being treated here on a footing of equality, as if reality depended on sheer yappage. For example, if there is an error in Maske:Thaery, what is it? Why will the person not say, so that a responsible reply might be possible, rather than simply asserting that this VIE text is ergo inferior to what he calls the 'original' (which is what?). Even if this alleged error exists, it might be that the VIE has corrected 37 others, even worse, which the 'original' has. Which version is better then? But, apparantly, such questions provoke no interest. We seem content to allow such foolishness polute this page, and call it all a 'controversy', with 2 legitimate sides. As for objections to design features of the VIE books themselves, or gossip about VIE managers, can we truly not agree that such matters are of zero interest to the wikipedia Vance page?

The people eager to make these points already have their forum, the Gaean Reach, where they are currently organizing to further polute this wikipedia page, as may be seen on the 10th thread down on the 'conclave' forum of that site.

Obviously this small group, to which 'Baphoment V' belongs, is taking advantage of wikipedia to prolong their pathological anti-VIE campaign. The sorryest aspect is that anyone gives them any credit at all.

Now, I realize how big and grown-up everyone is. We all proudly do not 'gives a damn' about the VIE, and in particular about any 'owies' Paul Rhoads might allegedly have! Fine! But where, at least, is pride in this wikipedia page?--PaulRhoads 15:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposition for new 'Alleged VIE Controversy' page

If this marvellous 'VIE controversy' seems so valuble, why not a wikipedia for it? This would give the Gaean Reach gang a bridgehead in wikipedia where they can gleefully link to thier dead board and continue their vital humanitarian work of slandering the Vance familly, VIE managers and the VIE books. It will also free up this page to be what it is supposed to be, and we can get rid of some of the clutter, such as this whole section.--PaulRhoads 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A VIE controversy article doesn't seem appropriate unless there is also a VIE article, and perhaps not even then. Judging by Baphomet's comments about not being keen on seeing a lot of attention paid to the VIE, I assume he would not support that either. So I don't think there is any support for discussion of this in any article in Wikipedia. Mike Christie 15:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was being somewhat fascious. WHY should 'Baphomet V' care whether or not the VIE gets more or less attention on the wikipedia Jack Vance page? As for me, it is not my problem how much or how little attention the VIE gets here. My point is that anti-VIE slander has no place.--PaulRhoads 19:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes made per this section

I've deleted two links from external links. I don't believe anything else needs to be done to implement what I hope was a consensus on the discussion above, though a reference link from the VIE paragraph could be added at will. I think we can go ahead and improve the page. Mike Christie 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

POV removal

Got rid of "Vance often creates in what amounts to a throwaway paragraph a world more fully realized than many writers manage in an entire doorstop-thick volume." Let us all now bow to Saint Vance. If I were diabetic, I'd need an injection right about now. Clarityfiend 06:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that sentiment was echoed in a SF How-to write book edited by the SFWA back in the 70's. One of the contributing authors commented that Vance creates cultures, etc, with backhanded ease that most authors would struggle to fill a book with. So, it's not entirely the insulin/drama queen thing you seem to think it is. Peter1968 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- I've run across that sentiment somewhere, perhaps in more places than one. I've been trying to run down the exact reference but haven't been able to. If I can, I'll put the phrase (or something like it) back in. In any case, in spite of Clarity's uncharitable remarks, there is no question but that the statement is absolutely correct. The epigraphs in the Demon Prince books, for instance, are works of genius. Most ordinary S.F. writers would give an arm and a leg to be able to do, after a month's brainstorming, what Jack apparently does effortlessly.... Hayford Peirce 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The dubious Huey Newton reference

Garion96's edit of the remark about Huey Newton doesn't go far enough--absent some source, I'd say cut it. Should someone find an interview in which Jack makes the connection, fine; or if there's a critical essay that makes the case, that might be mentioned; but otherwise it looks like someone's guess. And if the point is that the political implications of Gray Prince/Domains of Koryphon has rubbed some folk the wrong way, then I say find the essays/reviews/whatever and reference them. This is just one of a number of unsourced/POV items that need to be taken care of. RLetson 05:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember telling Jack once that I had *liked* The Gray Prince, which pleased him, since apparently almost no one else had. But he certainly didn't then say anything that connected it to Huey Newton in any way. Although I know from other discussions that his opinion of Huey et al was not high. Hayford Peirce 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. What edit about Huey Newton did I made? As far as I know I only removed a dubious fair use image on this article. But concerning sources, I agree. If there is no source, cut it. This article suffers from a lack of sources and citations anyway. See WP:Cite and Wikipedia:Verifiability and perhaps also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.Garion96 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs new page - move to archive

I keep getting a file size warning whn editing this page. In accordance with the guidelines that may be found here, it's probably best we move some of these to an archive using one of the methods that page describes. Opinions? Peter1968 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Recycling until we get it right

The 'Output and Characteristics' section of the article page is full of innacurate information. Though enthusiastic and well meant, it is also too long. I propose to begin transforming it. This discussion page has become too long. I suggest our discussions about page policy, at the very least, be archived.--PaulRhoads 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article by Hayford Peirce is so much better than the latest emasculating attempt by Paul Rhoads that I will stand a watch to prevent it being removed again.--66.82.9.57 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Arvin Sloane

Simply stating that the previous version is 'so much better', and that my modification is an 'emasculation' does not make it one or the other. The previous version, I will point out, is loaded with speculative opinions and contra-factuals of various sorts. An article pretending to be an over-view of Vance's work may be many things but it should at least be accurate regarding fact and, when it comes to more delicate matters implicating opinion, should tread carefully. If an author wishes to express opinions (i.e. 'original research') about Vance's work, there are many forums for that. Extant, for example, would be happy to publish such matter. Such things are not appropriate here, given wikipedia standards. I will give an example. In the sections of the article you are insisting on keeping, we have things like, This skepticism is tied to Vance's individualism, which is both an ethical and an aesthetic imperative for him and his characters. Thoreau's desire that there be as many different sorts of person as possible seems to be applied in practice in Vance's fiction along with the idea of a world, or a region of space, big enough to encompass all human types (as in Big Planet or the Alastor Cluster novels). Such stuff is all very well. It is an interesting expression of an opinion. But it has no place here.--PaulRhoads 17:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restored my edit, with a few further improvements. Please do not engage in a series of rash and un-supported restorations to previous versions; argue your points, using examples. Relevant material can be included in a proper form or a new more appropriate section. Let us work together in a spirit of friendly cooperation.--PaulRhoads 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I will note here also that Arvin Sloane recently added a contentious and mendatious statement to the Vance Integral Edition section on the article page. There may be textual restorations in the VIE that are contestable, in fact certain ones have been discussed in full detail in Cosmopolis, but the suggestion that these restorations are somehow sloppy, opinion based, or done without reference to Jack Vance himself in all delicate cases, is absurd. As for making statements about the VIE, Vance has made several, all published in Cosmopolis, which can be downloaded from the almost complete post-VIE site, Foreverness: http://www.integralarchive.org/ Arvin Sloan, what is your problem with the VIE? If you think you have found troublesome errors, or a troublesome error, why not state exactly what they are, or what it is, so that the VIE may take advantage of this information to inform its subscribers, or so that your mind may be set at rest, depending on the actual status of such textual matters, or matter? --PaulRhoads 17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul Rhoads: you didn't enlist anybody's support before replacing Hayford Peirce's text with your own (which is not an "edit" in any sense of the word). This was, to use your own expression, a rush and un-supported action. Hayford Pierce's version has my full support, and, for a long time, didn't offend anybody but you. Unless you are able to show that most of the readers interested in discussing this matter are uncomfortable with Hayford Peirce's text, it will stay. You may be the self-appointed sole judge of what has or has no place in your own blogs but not here. --66.82.9.59 05:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: so called "Vance Integral Edition" (VIE). A VIE editor in chief is a party having strong personal interest in VIE, whose point of view is bound to be biased in favor of this enterprise. Therefore, to avoid an obvious conflict of interest, an editor in chief or any other representative of VIE should not write or edit any VIE-related material in Wikipedia. I propose to remove the VIE section entirely, and, if VIE is to be mentioned here at all, to make absolutely sure that the person writing about is in no conflict of interest (that is, never belonged to VIE organization, and never was involved in numerous controversies surroinding it. 66.82.9.85 09:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Arvin Sloane

As I have argued earlier, I also feel it is inappropriate to mention the VIE in this article, at least to the absurd extent that is currently the case.--Baphomet V 11:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Arvin Sloan, if you will do your homework, you will see that I have several times mentioned the problems with the section in question, which I always said was unobjectionable in itself. But, in the Wikepedia context, and to repeat myself, it is too long, too opinion based, too inacurate and incompleet in detail, and too speculative and original in its analyses. It may well be 'interesting' (it could certainly be published in Extant), but that is no criteria here. Neither is whether or not certain people are 'comfortable' with it. Furthermore, my corrections are indeed an edit. Though the changes are extensive the subject (an overview of Vance's work) is the same, the order of treating the matter is the same, and some of the original phrases are retained. As for my being an actor in the VIE project, since when has being an expert on a subject disqualified wikipedia editorship? And what is the 'conflict of interest' you are talking about? As for the 'numerous controversies' you refer to, you had better stand up and say what they are, and in particular what roll you yourself played in them--your 'conflict of interest' argument, if it has any edge at all, may cut two ways. Finally, it seems you are a known wikipedia vandal, as this link demonstrates, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.82.9.59#Warning_messages

As for the 'absurd extent' the VIE is mentioned in the article in question, since that extent is zero, we may be dealing with some abstruse sort of 'absurdity' beyond my understanding. If it is the little VIE section which is being referred to, all I can say is that I myself shortened it the other day, and shortened it even more today, an act which should, logically, meet with Bahomet V's approbation.

As an example of how a really 'controversial' subject can be successfully handled on wikipedia, I direct your attentions to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Ye%27or. Let us work together to reach that level here.--PaulRhoads 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul Rhoads: I repeat, this is not your personal blog. I am as much in my right to prefer and to restore the Hayford Peirce's text as you are to insert your changes. I don't see any merit in your version, and I don't feel that discussing it with you would be productive. Your style of communication is too emotional and aggressive: I have no time for sillabub and histrionics. All in all, Hayford Peirce's article reflects Jack Vance's work in a way which is very close to my understanding. I have never vandalized anything in Wikipedia, and the first time I looked at Jack Vance page in Wikipedia was in 2006. You have falsified the vandalization information by inserting today (July 19, 2006) a message under "October 2005" header on a page related to a known vandal. While doing so, you forgot that every message in Wikipedia is time-stamped. This low trick alone is sufficient to get you blocked. As to the VIE section, as an editor of VIE you are in conflict of interest, and cannot include or write that section. --69.19.14.39 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Arvin Sloane

Arvin Sloan, you are not even logged in as a wikipedia editor. I made no change to your page except to add the note that you are also vandalizing here. It seems you have already been blocked for such activities elsewhere. --PaulRhoads 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PaulRhoads: The page you made your comment on has nothing to do with me. I am not registered as an editor in Wikipedia exactly because I have never edited anything before this month. One of the IP addresses generated by my system for some reason coincided with the address of the person whose page you used to falsify information. I don't know why this happened, and I am not interested in hearing about it any more. The Hayford Peirce's article will be restored.

--Arvin Sloane 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Arvin Sloan, I see that you are not bothering to address any of my points. I, however, will adress yours. I am not treating this site as a 'personal blog'; I am editing it according to wikipedia standards of style, fact and tone. You may characterize my discussion here as 'histrionic' but I think you will need to be quite persuasive to convince anyone but Bohamet V that this characterization just.

Now I ask you: what do you know about any VIE controversy, and what is your part in it? Before these questions are answered your attempt to disqualify my work here--in any case a strange one--remains totally irrecieveable.

Finally, on what grounds are you removing the Foreverness link? Foreverness includes bibliographic information avalable no where else on the web, and certainly much better than the bibliographic information provided here. It also includes the greatest archive of articles, interviews and other Vance related material avalable anywhere, and must be revelant this wikipedia page.--PaulRhoads 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Does any of the experts here can provide sources to this article. See WP:Cite and WP:Verifiable

Examples:

• Poul Anderson, for instance, once called him the greatest living American writer "in" science fiction (not "of" science fiction).
• The fact that Jack Vance is blind

and many more examples like that.

Perhaps also source or remove a lot of original researc. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Like this example.

• But Vance never assumes that aristocracy automatically confers merit. He is ruthless in his satire of pompous notables who think that noble birth saves them the obligation to be gracious or interesting. Pretension is always a vice in Vance. But he always distinguishes between pretension and actual elevation. One of the many charms of his work is the Shakespearean manner in which scoundrels and princes alike bargain and banter in elegant language.

For this also, there are many more examples. Garion96 (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)