Talk:Cyteen

Inconsistency?
Having read both books, I do not come to this same conclusion, and I think that it is quite clearly covered in Cyteen why Union "seeded" this planet with a "colony," and why the reminiscences of the colonists reflect nothing of the truth that was shown in the book Cyteen. They were sent there as a one-shot, pass-fail colonization attempt. If they succeeded, they were a seed of union in the heart of Alliance/Earth that would have to absorb them or isolate them, but either way, would be halted in their forward progress.

The whole section smacks of personal research, and no offence meant to whomever wrote it, but really, I see no inconsistency. Union was desperate to win, they took extreme measures that would not hurt them either way down the road, and what would conceivably bring them good results at some point in the future. As is cited on Cherryh's bio, she writes in Third-Person-Extremely-Limited. The colonists were made to believe they were going to be sustained by Union. Thus they show no knowledge of their betrayal. Their descendents have no knowledge of politics and life beyond their world, and so, for them, there is no conversation to that end. I'm sorry, but I don't even feel this section should be in the article. That's my vote. Bo-Lingua 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the two books are just incompatible. It makes no sense whatsoever that people from a planet where humans CANNOT live in the natural environment would consider as "hell" a planet where they CAN  live in the natual environement. And however Third-Person-Extremely-Limited they might be, they WOULD  notice that in the new environment you can walk and walk and walk to the horizon and beyond and never worry about reaching a place where you just can't breath, which you DID have to worry about very much in their old world. Human beings have a habit of noticing such things and commenting on them. It makes even less sense for a government which needs to spend enormous resources to terraform small bits of their planet to just THROW  AWAY a planet where humans can live in the natural environement without any terraforming. They have to be crazy to behave like that. I am quite sure that the reason for the inconsistency is what I wrote: that when Cherryh wrote "Gehenna" she did not yet conceive of Cyteen as having the hostile environemnt it has in the later book. But I admit that this is my own opinion for which I have no concerete proof, so you can call it "original reserach" or "speculation". So I have rewitten the section, including only the hard facts of what appears plainly in the two books themseves and letting the reader come to his or her own conclusions. Adam keller 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the surface they may appear to be, but having read them both several times, I have to disagree.
 * Humans do a lot of things that are "incompatible" during the course of war and to impede their perceived enemies. The US is wasting millions on a wall to keep the mexicans out.  Human history is fraught with "scorched earth" tactics, under which I have always felt the "seeding" of Gehenna falls.
 * In Cyteen Cherryh has Emory state that the seeding of these worlds with colonies was an effort to thwart the growth of Alliance and Earth, with an idea of eventual reconciliation and unification. If Alliance chose instead to grow to encompass these worlds, it is said in the book that it was a colony or failed-colony of Union values in the heart of Alliance, that would eventually change the outlook of the Polity.
 * In 40k it's said clearly that it's a covert op, that it's military, and we must remember that Union is not only Cyteen but around 15 space stations, each with roughly 50k to 100k inhabitants. This makes the larger population be those of space stations, who are used to being confined in corridors.  Cherryh "fails" to comment on this as well.  Does it negate that most of her characters were space-dwelling?  No.
 * I think this whole inconsistency is resolved by Cherryh in Cyteen where she effectively says the "colonization" effort was a last ditch effort to "Unionize" Alliance, and if all else failed, scorched earth and stymie the growth of Alliance, as it is stated several worlds in the Alliance "growth corridor" were treated to the same fate.
 * I think we're both stating the same thing over again. Will someone else give their two cents? Bo-Lingua 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is clarified in the timeline Cherryh puts forth as an Appendix to Angel With the Sword. In this appendix, she explains the Union policy that led to "giving" Gehenna to the Alliance.  I'd add this explanation to the inconsistency section of the article myself, but my books are in boxes right now and I can't access it.  In any case, the explanation to the apparent inconsistency is largely along the lines of what Bo-Lingua has stated.  Fairsing 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's something I found that will add to our discussion:
 * ...And the Council must believe it . . . making moves like this, establishing supply, the longterm advantage of bases on worlds, which were unstrikable under the civilized accords; most of all assuring an abundance of worldbred troops who could not retreat. Union seeded worlds, strategically placed or otherwise . . . every site which could marginally support human life . . . an entrenched, immovable expansion which would bottle Alliance in close to their own center and thoroughly infiltrate any territory Alliance might gain in war or negotiations. ..."  Forty Thousand in Gehenna, p. 21-22.
 * This quote is from the man that is the "leader" of the colony that fails, who later commits suicide when the resupply ships he is expecting do not come. Prior to this quote he has an exchange with the captain of the ship who says they've done this before, and who gives _no_ information to the man speaking, leading the reader to presume that there is more to events than the Leader of the Colony knows. Bo-Lingua 03:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam wrote:
 * It makes no sense whatsoever that people from a planet where humans CANNOT live in the natural environment would consider as "hell" a planet where they CAN  live in the natual environement.
 * BoLingua wrote:
 * we must remember that Union is not only Cyteen but around 15 space stations, each with roughly 50k to 100k inhabitants. This makes the larger population be those of space stations, who are used to being confined in corridors.
 * Exactly. I never had the impression in Forty Thousand in Gehenna (which I read before Cyteen -- but then again afterwards too, I've read both books more than once) that the azi or "natural" humans were necessarily accustomed to living only on planets.  Furthermore, as both populations but especially azi were accustomed to tape training, which has bearing on how they would perceive the world they were coming to.  Then factor in that any new environment will potentially be perceived as threatening when it doesn't behave the same way the "old" environment did, regardless of the characteristics of the old environment -- until they adapt, as indeed the azi did (completely in line with the tape-instruction that the first Ariana Emory provided them).
 * I agree that the "apparent inconsistencies" section of the article smacks of "original research" or at least of personal opinion & review -- something that might be better placed in a review on Amazon.com rather than in an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. -- Yksin 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the "apparent inconsistencies" section should be removed simply because it fails to take into account the information we learn about Gehenna while Ari2 is speaking before the council. It seems apparent that the Azi sent ot Gehenna were modified in major ways.  Normal humans were never expected to live, and the Azi were intended to.  Thus, the Azi were programmed in very special ways to survive on a hostile world.  Also, while I'm not positive, I believe that the end of 40k in Gehenna talks about Cyteen station. --Gerdofal 02:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also vote Remove the inconsistencies section. It's an editor's personal opinion -- fails to satisfy WP:NOR. It belongs in a book review, not an encyclopedia article. --Yksin 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New Plot Summary
The existing plot summary only covers about one third of the story (Except for the last few sentences, which are tacked on from the last third.) It's missing tons of detail. I'd suggest a complete re-write to include the whole story. I'm working on one, but I was wondering how much detail should be included? --Gerdofal 02:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a newbie editor and not sure how much detail is appropriate, especially for a book of this scope. But I did want to chime in and mention that I am very interested in seeing a rewrite of this article happen, and having read the book a ridiculous number of times I'd be happy to contribute in any way I can. --Thessaly 01:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research
The Nature vs. Nurture section (the only subsection of Major themes) appears to be purely original research & review commentary. I propose to remove it. Comments? --Yksin 00:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than call it original research, I'd call it paraphrasing without citation. I've read the book recently and it would be easy to come up with quotes and page citations for the majority of the comments made in Nature vs. Nurture.  The way they are written does sound like original research, but many of those thoughts are bluntly stated in the book (Usually in the logs of AE2).  I'd say keep it, but re-word and cite it. --Gerdofal 00:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't work either: it's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to write literary criticism proving that the work contains particular themes. That would be original research. To include a "themes of the work" section in accord with WP:NOR, you'd have to find reviews, literary criticism, or other printed sources that discuss those themes.
 * I've removed the section. --Yksin 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The end is Nye. Wye, oh wye?
I don't understand Denis' motives at the end at all. Can somebody shed some light? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Justin and Grant are lovers?
This is noted in the current character list, but...

Could somebody find support for this in the text? I just finished reading the novel, and Ari clearly states that this is a station rumor but not fact; add that to the early internal monologue where Justin remembers chasing after Julia when he was a teenager, and it seems almost certain that he is heterosexual, not homosexual.

Grant and Justin are wonderfully close and supportive, as very good brothers and friends would be. Did anyone find evidence of anything more? 70.112.117.209 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Woops. I looked up the passage, and she believes they are lovers, but can't imagine it. Nevermind. Question retracted. 70.112.117.209 (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ari I engineered Justin's violation by Florian I after she drugged him to activate his latent homosexuality. It's very obvious that they are homosexual lovers in Regenesis, btw, in case you missed all the clues in Cyteen. 19:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saralleine (talk • contribs)

Order?
If reading the old books, which order do they go in?

1. Rebirth 2. Betrayal 3. Vindication

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.251.34 (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's 1. Betrayal, 2. Rebirth, 3. Vindication. —Bruce1eetalk 05:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the category 1980s science fiction novels. Transcendentalist01 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)