Talk:Empire (Card novel)

Novels: Sci-fi Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

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

Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Libertarianism portal Empire (Card novel) is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2007 comments[edit]

This is a very good book, and I think Card is a very good author. I think there should be more in this articel, but do not have n ideas of what to put. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin63 (talk • contribs)

It might be helpful to add analysis of the book in comparison to Mr. Card's stated political beliefs found on Ornery.com. Another potential analysis might be a comparison with the 110th Congress, which currently has Democratic majorities in both chmabers.--S Keillan 19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything of the nature of which you suggest would be original research, which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. If others have done such analysises, we could quote them, but we can't do such research or express our own opinions. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has any commentary surfaced considering the fact that the in-jacket summary has pretty much nothing to do with the plot of the novel? It was a major flaw of the piece, and I'd be surprised if someone with some sort of credentials hasn't commented on this. I'd check, but outside duty calls...Screenmaster16 01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeesh?[edit]

I'm concerned by the use of the word "Jeesh" throughout the article. If this is a real word, or a word used in the book, than it should at least be wiki-linked (obscure term), but to the best of my knowledge, jeesh is only an Enderverse term, and while it would make sense for fans of Orson Scott Card to use the term, it may be confusing to other readers. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 22:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained the first time it's used as "Malich's Special Forces buddies and Coleman". — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it would be more appropriate to say "team" or something like that, which is an actual word, rather than using a term that is only used (to my knowledge) within the Enderverse - which this book is not a part of. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Removed. 64.72.137.241 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeesh is used in the book to describe Malich's wartime buddies. It's not only an Ender's Game term. And if I remember correctly, it holds meaning even outside of Card's books. 68.114.69.217 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are folks passing judgment on things like this if they haven't read the book? The word is used all the time to describe Ruben and Cole's spec ops team 24.105.236.66 (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Cecily "9/11 reference"[edit]

I am taking out the reference to the fact that Cecily was a child during 9/11. I don't know who found that, or where, but I just re-read a section (6th paragraph chapter 6) where Cecily remembers watching Col. Oliver North testify before Congress, which of course occured in 1987, 14 years before 9/11, thereby eliminating any possibility that she was a child on Sept 11th!!! And as it states that she was ten when she watched the testimony (again, in 1987), that would mean that she was 24 (or about to turn 24) on Sept 11th, 2001.

Unless you will cite sources, than don't keep adding in this Cecily was a kid for 9/11 crap! I have stated my source (the book itself, down to the paragraph) where it states that she was 10 in 1987, thus meaning that there is NO WAY that she was a child in 2001!!! No more of this "origional research" BS!!!

isn't the novel an adaptation of the video game?[edit]

and thusly the section "Video game adaptation" should be renamed? and where is the video game? not released yet? why isn't there a an article about it? Xenocidic (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Card was contacted by Chair Entertainment to write a novel about a new American Civil War. They sat down together to see if it was even plausible. "Sadly," he said, "it was very easy." It was to be a companion to a video game Chair was to develop. Card wrote the novel, with very little–if any–input or direction from Chair. AFAIK, the game never materialized and Chair went on to work on other projects, though they list the book on their website (or did, last time I checked). So the book began as a companion to a video game, but the video game never emerged. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literary significance and reception[edit]

This section is based solely on one critic's (scathing) review. Is Wolfe the only person to review this book? Without more sources, it's unbalanced and, to be honest, unfair. Can someone provide other sources for this section? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the section with an expansion request. --DanDs (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Adviser[edit]

On p. 238 (of the paperback) Card writes how one of the characters in the book was easily confirmed as NSA by Congress. That position is not one which requires Senate confirmation. 173.22.123.35 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly is this book classified as Science Fiction?[edit]

As far as I can tell, the main reason this book is classified as science fiction is because of the author. Fine, he's also written a bunch of historical fiction fantasy and romance. But even if that wasn't the case, putting a novel in a genre for the sake of what the author mostly writes would be like naming Chitty Chitty Bang Bang a spy thriller just because it was written by Ian Fleming. The plot of the book is set 2 years in the future of the books publication date, and as far as i can tell the two main examples of "advanced" technology, the Mech and EMP are concepts Darpa has been kicking around for years for years. So based on these facts, why exactly is this book put into the Sci-Fi genre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.113.96 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followed by... a video game?[edit]

Okay so the link in the "followed by" section goes to some Microsoft-published video game. Although the game may have reference to the book (I wouldn't know, I didn't read the article for the game), isn't the next book in the series called "Hidden Empire"? I'm not good with editing, could someone verify that and make the change? Thanks! Nameless9123 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

The book does not tell the story of a possible American civil war. It tells the story of an American civil war. There is a difference203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Empire (1987 novel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Empire (Card novel)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Why has Empire been rated as Mid-importance? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 14:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empire (Card novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317195727/http://www.chairentertainment.com/company/projects/empire to http://www.chairentertainment.com/company/projects/empire

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]