Talk:Assiti Shards effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice
Main article: Talk:1632 series
At least until 1781 (novel) or By Any Other Name reach print FrankB

Contents


[edit] FICTION!

This article describes a fictional concept. It should read appropriately. I was directed here expecting to learn about some observed or theoretical physical phenomenon. The fact that this phenomenon is entirely fictional is not a mark against it: it may well still be deserving of an entry in Wikipedia (although from my estimation of this novel series' overall cultural impact, from reading this article, I doubt that), but as it is written now it seems almost intended to mislead people into believing that it is describing actual science. If it is actual science, my apologies, but there is presently no real indication of that in the article (and frankly, I doubt that too). The authors of the article and people on this discussion page are talking about the "Grantville Incident" as if it was an actual occurrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.219.55 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems and Templates

Got here following Cats, (163x) and did some fix ups as substandard writing was in need.

  • Accidently removed sentence giving two alternative fan names of the Assiti Multiverse speculation (I over wrote the cut buffer), when I was looking for a better place to land them way down. Sorry, but you had saalfeld in the wrong direction and I got distracted by the factual error.
  • non-encycopedic to use 'atlternate' when proper english is alternative. This is not sports, where the newspapers have trashed the meaning of alternate from something varying periodically (Alternating current) to something that means substitute. Fine in Tasah the gymnist article, as is sports.
  • This series is more promise than fact at the moment, though the first novel is out or due out soon. (See XPost1 Below on titles of these) FrankB
  • Fan-fic is unnoteworthy unless published in print like the Grantville Gazette books.
FrankB 07:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asserting CLEAN and COPYEDIT templates

  • I'm placing a clean template herein and copyedit in the article to bring this up to a higher writing standard ASAP. Don't see a reason for clean in reasonably good looking articles. This one needs a fair amount of data imported from the 1632 (novel) and 1632 series articles, plus a lot of rewording to sound appropriately enclopedic.
  • If you are a patrolling copyeditor, drop me an email (audible) if you start and I'll see what else I spotted in factual lacks.
FrankB 07:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XPost1 from Talk:1632 series

FrankB says: Brought this discussion over from talk: 1632 (novel) as it is germane to this thread of coverage: RickK: "it's fantasy, not SF, and 1781 IS a part of the universe, as Flint himself says on his website"

Alternate history and time-travel are conventionally classed as SF ( unless there's, you know, magic involved). Agreed. It is no fantasy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC) In reality, the Grantville Disaster was the result of what humans of the day would have called criminal negligence. Caused by a shard of cosmic garbage, a discarded fragment of what, for lack of a better term, could be called a work of art. A shaving, you might say, from a sculpture. The Assiti fancied their solipsist amusements with the fabric of spacetime. They were quite oblivious to the impact of their "art" on the rest of the universe. The Assiti would be exterminated, eighty-five million years later, by the Fta Tei. Ironically, the Fta Tei were a collateral branch of one of the human race's multitude of descendant species. Their motive, however, was not revenge. The Fta Tei knew nothing of their origins on a distant planet once called Earth, much less a minor disaster which had occurred there. The Fta Tei exterminated the Assiti simply because, after many stern warnings, they persisted in practicing their dangerous and irresponsible art. http://www.baen.com/library/0671319728/0671319728.htm And 1781 is an "Assiti Shard" story, as his website says, but it's not part of the 163x universe -- the 1781 from which George Washington disappeared can't happen in that world and his appearance in classical Roman times didn't. Yep. The 1632 (or 163x) universe is aare a diffrent parts (series) of Assiti Shard universe, not the other way around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another volume in the Assiti Shards universe is entitled 1781 (novel). That novel has the same "starting point" as the 1632verse -- an "Assiti shard" striking the Earth and causing a time transposition -- but the actual story is completely different. In 1781 (novel), a "shower" of Assiti shards strikes the Earth during the 18th century and sends (in separate incidents) both Frederick the Great (and his army) and George Washington (along with all the forces gathered at the battle of Yorktown) back in time to the Roman Empire during the "third century crisis" when the Empire was falling apart. In essence, the story is about two alternate approaches to rebuilding Roman society. http://www.ericflint.net/wip.htm --wwoods 06:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

Finally, there’s been a new development regarding the novel I’ve been under contract with for time -- yet another separate Assiti Shards novel -- which had the working title of "Shaxpur." That title has now been changed to By Any Other Name. Both titles are something of an in-joke between Jim Baen and myself, which derives from the fact that the Earl of Oxford — whom both Jim and I think was the real author of Shakespeare's plays — will figure as a major character in the novel.
By Any Other Name will be a rather different novel from the others, in that in this novel humans and Assiti actually come into direct contact (and conflict) with each other. Although part of the novel will take place in Elizabethan England, it's really more of a straight science fiction novel than alternate history as such.

http://www.ericflint.net/wip.htm --wwoods 06:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

End Xpost from talk:1632 series, wikilinks and emphasis added. FrankB 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uniqueness Question

(refactored from mid-page post FrankB)
I don't know that stating "the fact that the Assiti Shards event results in a unique fictional parallel universes is a new wrinkle in literature" would actually be correct. S. M. Stirling seems to be doing this same thing in his Nantucket series. Kaid 10:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Parallel universes are a dime a dozen in SF. What is unique here is the literary mechanism. Nantucket doesn't appear to explain how the society went back. Flint does, and moreover held up two plotted works, one cut off in mid-creative stream due to the 1632 demands. That's not to say EF didn't borrow something from Steve, but filing off serial numbers has a long and honorable tradition in speculative fiction- RAH said so! Both co-write with Drake and all three are friends, though Eric is undergunned on the Military side lacking a military background to lean on. FrankB 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Smith doesn't explain how Grantville went back in time. He makes a spurious throw-away reference to some future aliens who play with time for artistic reasons. That's no more explanation than saying "a wizard did it." Flint didn't invent the idea of people being involuntarily sent into the past or a parallel universe - plenty of other writers used it before him. And nobody other than Flint and his co-writers have used this particular version. So this thread should be merged into the article on this series of books. MK2 (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've marked this article for cleanup as it needs some serious attention. In particular, The Assiti mechanism literary vehicle seems to violate NOR. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 11:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is little reason to worry about NOR here. We are speaking of a quite recent literary production (of which there is nothing but the text) and there's little in the way of authoritative opinion to quote. With that said, the 1632-verse has been something of a publishing phonomenon and there's surely some fanzine commentary which could be cited. It's not here, and if it exists, some of it should be. An opportunity to improve the article, I think.
More importantly, the writing is floppy and circuitous. The Average Reader will have difficulty following the structure (or lack thereof) now. This does not meet any acceptable standard of writing for WP, and presents an opportunity for some considerable restructuring and copyediing. This article belongs on the cleanup list until it reaches a rather higher standard of writing, regardless of NOR. ww 02:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This page is full of unverified information, much of which goes far beyond the simple synopsising of the series. Frankly, a lot of it reads like someone's essay, and it's definately got tonal issues in how it presents the material. It seems to praise the idea a lot, with a tone that suggests the writer thinks this is the next best thing since sliced bread. --Lendorien 13:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to take a stab at cleaning up this article as it seems it has been virtually untouched since July. I plan to cut out a lot of OR includign the entire literry mechanism section. Frankly, I'm quite inclined to just do a deep revert on this. --Lendorien 19:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flow and Structure

I'm a heavy SF reader and have a degree in English Literature, and I can say that I'm baffled by the amount of jargon and embedded acronyms and links in these paragraphs. It's not any easy read for anyone, in my opinion. I'd volunteer to help with cleanup myself, but I don't have any prior knowledge of this series. I came to this page because I was curious about the books, but it doesn't help much. THINMAN 05:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entire Article is OR

Frankly, this entire article is Original Research. It makes lots of unverified claims that are almost certainly OR, reaks of fancruft and over all is extremely poorly written. I'm inclined to suggest the page be deleted. It's a mess and frankly, needs to be desperately pruned back. --Lendorien 22:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up - TO DO

The following is a list of things needed to be done on this article. Help is much appreciated. --Lendorien 19:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Original post/opinions sectionalized and addressed separately (interleaved discussions begun Fra nkB 22:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)).
  • Sections added: with addtional counter points.// FrankB 14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1

  • 1 Has a heavy fancruft tone. It needs to be rewritten.
Merit in this, but the original was worse. // FrankB

[edit] 2

  • 2 Needs more focus on the series in general, it's storyline, etc./ and less gushing about the concept.
Can't comply with that, as this article is about the literary mechanism used for 3 to 4 series—or novels at least—Flint said "By Any Other Name" was to be a single novel wherein the Assiti get their comeupetance and not a series. The others have been delayed by the only series using the technique in publication to date, 1623 series; not to mention the death of Jim Baen. Indications are Flint has had some "issues" with the new Baen management—they'd even dropped his name from their webpage for at least three, and possibly more months last winter. The other series, are thus nebulous, albeit in planning (or written- 1781 was completed ca Apr of 2006) since 2000 as the author/creator of the technique is on record saying in various forums. See some of the quotes above. FrankB 22:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the article is about the Assiti shard SERIES, specifically the books, stories and the concept. If you want an article about the mechanism, start one. As it stands, this article is full of original research that has no basis in anything but unsourced opinion. And it DOES have a lot of gushing tone in it that needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lendorien (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 October 2007
Looks like the confusion here is resolvable by renaming. I just kept the original article title when I expanded it two years back, and without publication of the other expected series (or at least their first books) there's not enough to write about the multiple series. Unfortunatey, the plural series and singular are identical words.

[edit] 3

Are you saying giving something a label is OR? Seems pretty petty when it's existance is self-evident and documented by the forward to the first novel using it. I will own that I appended "mechanism" to Assiti Shard, but the "hit" of one certainly qualifies as an event, which means the plan to use the same technique for several works can be discussed under the label.
Based on wikipdea policy, it falls under original research if it cannot be documented by verifiable external sources. Just because various wikipedia editors may have that opinion does not quilify it to fit within Wikipedia's guidelines. It needs sourcing to be included. Otherwise it's OR.--Lendorien 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hate ignoring logic in favor of legalisms and editorial judgements are still part of policy as well. Ours is there is no OR involved, and yours in ignorance is that there may be. Since you aren't "plugged in" to 1632.org or Baen's Bar as some of us have been, I think our collective recollections sounder than your opinion. But I spent 30 years defending your right to hold an opinion in this country and am not about to get all distraught because a minor support article I didn't start is less than perfectly cited. The editors you tar with that overly broad brush are fairly good, overall and is noted above, the recentness of the books makes finding cites difficult outside the books and forums themselves. Frankly, I don't think you read the above prior discussions, which has several quotes by the author/editor/creator. But even some of those are GIGO--working titles morph in the publication process, and editors may contract something as J.B. did these, but then ask for a rewrite, etc. Therefore, having a cites backlog which antedates the practice of citing at all, is hardly surprising. I'll do what I can with a rewrite, time permitting, but way on a back burner. I've a business to run, two kids' tuition and a mortgage to pay for, and when Baen releases the 1776/1781 novel (or whatever it's final name), we'll have a second printed source to cite. The only thing known for sure about that is it was under contract, and was being written just prior to Jim Baen's death late last spring. // FrankB 14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your suggestion is that it opens the door for people just making stuff up out of whole cloth, something wikipedia is already struggling with. The "legalisms" as you put it, are there to promote a semblance of order to this encyclopedia and ensure it's based on FACT, not made up suppositions or unverifiable opinions.--Lendorien (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4

  • 4 Needs sourcing in general.--Lendorien 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole 1632 series needs sourcing in general. You can help by adding to the 1632 characters article, so we can begin to put together synopses as well. Then citing will have a skelaton to add into. Other than a good copyeditting for tone and such, and perhaps a renaming, this article will really have to remain rough until we have more works. Take for example the 1776/1781 book--two Assiti shards hit earth moving both the continential army of George Washington and one of Fredrick the Great to Roman times. How all that interplays will add tremendously to our knowledge about the mechanism... and lends further credence to the need for such a page discussing that sort of aspect that can be linked into the books article pages. // FrankB
Some friendly advice (and certainly not a threat): statements that an article has to remain in rough form until some future event(s) are good (and common) grounds for deletion, the logic being that if a proper article cannot be written until the future, no article should be written until the future. I would suggest reconsidering the scope or focus of this article so that it need not "remain rough". At the very least, these sorts of statements should be avoided, or else somebody less sympathetic may well be motivated to nominate for deletion. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
this but like others who have dabbled in these articles, I've not had the time to make them a regular tasking. That's no longer true, as in this return from a wikibreak, I'm focusing my time almost exclusively on the series articles improvements sans other wikiproject distractions[1]. Worse perhaps, the long delay between the 2nd and 3rd main thread articles demotivated people even as the cite everything craze ramped up. To me, web forum discussions are not citable, or should not be, but that doesn't mean they don't occasionally reveal important information—particularly when they're posts by the author to answer a given question. Lastly, only recently has the 'posted messages' histories become available via reconstruction at 1632.org, and so far as I know, 1632 Tech Manual isn't searchable. I may be wrong at that—my search the web skills are pretty basic, elementary really.

In any event, I figure to take a knife to the article next time I get a big block of wikitime to spend. I should have renamed it when I first encountered it 2-3 years back, and frankly, I'm amazed so few have left it so unchanged since then. As I can be blamed for the 'tone' (not uncommon back then when I did a big rewrite), it is clearly something I should and do take responsibility for. Thanks // FrankB 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5

  • 5 Needs to be added to an appropriate wikiproject.
Part of wikiproject novels via wikproject series via 1632 series FrankB

[edit] 6

  • 6 Needs to be added to appropriate catagories.
Alternate history timelines | Science fiction book series via Assiti Shards multiverse; Might be added to fictional universe, but then have the sticky point this is not a single universe article, but one about many. FrankB

--Lendorien 19:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)