Talk:Citizen of the Galaxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Literature Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

Just a note about the picture of the book cover. The caption says "first edition cover 1957", but I'm pretty sure that that's the cover from the 1984 Del Rey Edition.

You're quite right that this is a Del Rey cover; in fact, it's got an ISBN number in the upper-right, and although the resolution isn't so good, it would appear to read "0-345-34244-5", making it the 1987 Del Rey reissue. Given that, and the fact that it doesn't look even vaguely like "0-684" in the beginning, I'm changing the caption. Andrew Rodland 15:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Quest of the Delta Knights. 68.39.174.238

I am intrigued by the statement that Kipling's Kim influenced this book. I would like to find out where to read more about it. Is there a source or sources? Zaslav 09:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info box

What do people think of indicating in the info box that this is part of a series? I would assume that means, not a series of rather similar books by the same author, but a series of closely related books that might be best read in order, or that have some chronological relation (like Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew or Darkover books). Neither of those applies here. The Heinlein book list at the bottom of the article provides all the sequence information that's needed or relevant. Any (dis)agreement? Zaslav 09:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up too, but was outvoted. See Talk:Robert A. Heinlein#Scribner's juveniles. Clarityfiend 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a Thematic Summary

Which I added, and am posting this so any changes or deletions may be discussed. (This means you, Rydra Wong ) Stillstudying 15:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It may need one, but this isn't it. "...an inappropriate invasion of personal rights..." is a truly bizarre way of describing slavery. What is murder then - inappropriate damage of personal property? What is here is very generic (slavery is bad, ignorance is bad, honor has a price) and should be deleted. Clarityfiend 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Clarityfiend; editor Stillstudying asked me to look at his edits with an eye towards content and whether they are appropriate. I agree with him that the article needs a thematic analysis. I also agree with you that the current one needs revising, and I will now begin to do so, with an eye towards hopefully reaching consensus. I believe I understand why he approached it the way he did by linking to the Heinlein society - they analyzed the book in quite a simliar way. You perhaps have to understand Heinlein's personal philosophies to understand what he was trying to do with the argument in this novel that slavery violates intrinsic personal rights - I personally think his viewpoint was rather myopic, but it was his. I think the section should stay, but it certainly could stand improvement and I will give it a shot. I don't feel that the section should be deleted - this novel has some very powerful points that needs analysis. I urge you to work with him, myself, and anyone else who is interested, and craft a better thematic analysis. old windy bear 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's looking better already. Clarityfiend 04:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarityfiend Thanks! Do you feel we need more changes? I tried to reword it to address the very real concerns you brought - do you feel the current wording is acceptable? old windy bear 09:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bear, thanks for the help. Clarity, thank you also. I realize that the wording was simplistic, but Heinlein himself wrote repeatedly about personal rights, and it was the Heinlein Society that emphasized the theorum that Heinlein was writing about slavery as a wanton intrusion on personal rights rather than simply a racist tool of oppression. Bear, your wording is far better, and I am satisfied that we are getting the points across. Stillstudying 11:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am simply stunned by the gracious way you two have responded to my *ahem* overheated initial comments. My tone was rather rude, for which I apologize. Wikipedia needs more contributors like you. Clarityfiend 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Clarityfiend and thank you! I thought you made a very valid point with your posting. I winced when I read it, but I thought it was valid because the section was not written as well as it should have been. I have ot say though, I can take someone lighting me up as long as they allow me to correct it, which you were willing to do, and if they use the talk page, so we can discuss it, which you did! Wikipedia needs editors like you also, who are passionate about what we do, and who use the talk page to try to get poor edits, (groan) improved. I think Bear did a good job of correcting it. Take care and thanks also! Stillstudying 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will echo Still's words. You had a valid point, which you posted on the talk page, and were willing to discuss. That is good editing. old windy bear 19:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)