Talk:Dreamsnake

Link to other books necessary?
Is the link to books by other authors necessary?

Paulsen sees this as a cultural tendency typical of patriarchy, and writes that McIntyre's depiction of an ethical need for wholeness and an understanding of connections between the facets of society is also found in the work of Le Guin and in Doris Lessing's Canopus in Argos series.[52]
 * Given that the comparison to a specific work is made by a high-quality source, why wouldn't we mention it and link to it? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent Scholarly Analysis
The article can benefit from additional recent scholarly commentary as much of the quoted sources are from 40 years ago. It excludes sources inside the publishing industry as those would be suspect of self or cross promotion for commercial gain.
 * What sources are you asking to remove, or to add? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I am asking if recent scholarly commentary outside of the self-interested publishing industry can be added. The existing commentary would be left in place. It would benefit the article by examining the impact the novel has had in the last 40 years. A web search turns up many self-promotional articles, blogs but not scholarly commentary.

It is a request for ones in the scholarly community to suggest addition of modern commentary sources.

Self-promotional excluded as these are suspect of fluff to draw viewers towards purchasing something or selling advertising.
 * When writing this article, I read virtually every scholarly piece that I could find that had substantive mention of this book. I would be very surprised if scholarly commentary exists that isn't already covered here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree that there seems to be little in the way of scholarly articles on Dreamsnake. The scholarly sources I looked at had simplistic recaps little more than a few lines of text.  Surely, a longer more critical analysis is warranted using a recent lens as to the initial impact of the novel, its impact 40 years later and how it shapes modern fiction.  Such an analysis would not just repeat the 1978-1985 ones and add original commentary. For example, the impact it has and how close the Chinese language version of the novel released 2018 is different than the original English language one.  Is it just a case of research papers are unlikely to be published if there is a critical mass of them already on the topic?
 * I would agree that a longer analysis is warranted, but until such is published, there's little we can do here. If I had to speculate, yes, I'd say scholars of literature today are likely less interested in analyzing texts from the 1970s. When such retrospective analysis occurs, it's usually with respect to specific tropes or themes; and I would argue that the influence of this book, such as it was, was more subtle. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Please Shorten
The article can be cleaned up by removing non core fragments and listing the main themes. It reads as PHD dissertation by a gushing fan and would benefit from shortening to the main parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:bd23:1cd4:27fa:ebb6 (talk • contribs)
 * Featured articles are required to be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; [and] well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". (CC) Tb hotch ™ 06:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The article should be accessible by a worldwide audience and put the summary, plot, characters on top of the article and the detailed scholarly analysis at the bottom. Focusing on the scholarly aspects up front detracts from the book as a sci fi fictional story. Suggest splitting the major characters into a list instead of a bit about them in different sections.

Second suggestion is to break out the sci fi tropes reversed into a list as well.
 * As Tbhotch states above, the article is required to be comprehensive, and detailed coverage of scholarly commentary is expected by the featured article criteria, Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, and common sense. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

As suggested, breaking out the scholarly parts of the article without removing it can improve the article. It reads as three different lists scattered throughout the entire article: Characters, scifi tropes reversed or subverted and book/plot.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dreamsnake. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVCtt7U?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehugoawards.org%2Fhugo-history%2F1979-hugo-awards%2F to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1979-hugo-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dreamsnake. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1979-hugo-awards/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806053213/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Locus1979.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Locus1979.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118132016/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Ditmar1979.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Ditmar1979.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Why claim the Caduceus as a medical symbol?
I was surprised to see the front page of Wikipedia claiming that the Cadeuceus is a common symbol of medicine. However, the linked article assert that the Caduceus as a medical symbol is a modern, American phenomenon that is "... a result of documented mistakes, misunderstandings and confusion." This article seems to perpetuate these mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.15.101 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I stated at WT:TFA, fundamentally, this article discusses the Caduceus rather than the more correct Rod of Asclepius, because the reliable sources that this article is based on do so. With respect to your specific concern, though, while it's true that the use of the Caduceus as a symbol of medicine may have been based on a misinterpretation of mythology, that doesn't change the fact that it is so used, and as a result conveys symbolic meaning. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, "often used as..." is an accurate description of common use - sadly reinforced by the US PHS and other high-profile entities. So, I think this page is accurate in its representation of common (mis)use of the symbol. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP repeatedly adding the phrase "mistaken symbol" would do well to participate in this discussion. The interpretation of mythological symbology might have been incorrect at some point in the past, but that doesn't change the fact that the Caduceus is today a symbol of medicine, and is described as such by the sources. The figure caption is not the place to get into this debate, and the phrase "mistaken symbol" doesn't make sense. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I wonder if you'd be willing to take a look at the dispute over the description of the Caduceus. I'm in disagreement with an IP who will not engage in talk page discussion, and I'd appreciate a second opinion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the conversation, and I agree the historical error doesn't need to be commented on in the article. It may be mistaken but for purposes of interpretation that's irrelevant unless the sources mention it.  A link from "caduceus" to either caduceus or perhaps caduceus as a symbol of medicine should be enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll give it a little more time to see if the IP will engage, but if not, I will shorten the content again. The figure caption, I think, is particularly confusing. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted most IP edits
I've reverted most of the IP edits. The IP's last edit summary asked for an explanation of what meanings had changed. One example: The change to the synopsis doesn't give us the narrative through Snake's eyes, but shifts the viewpoint to Stavin's parents, which is not ideal as Snake is the viewpoint character for the novel. Another: the change to the explanation of the use of dream venom no longer says it is the dreaming that relieves the pain, but makes it appear the dreaming and pain relief are independent effects of the venom. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The change you've reinstated, I can live with. The "constitute sections" wording was to address the concern at FAC that the pieces were chapters published as stories, rather than stories which became chapters; I can live with the current wording, but the IP's edit implied they were standalone stories. Of the other edits by the IP that I felt were unhelpful was the wording "McIntyre wrote the "Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand" 1973 short story for it", which isn't directly stated in the source; in fact it's implied she developed the writing assignment into the final story, because it was written at a workshop, after all. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

1970s Expanding Readership Base
Stats on male vs female readership of sci fi by decade can help. Was the bookseller industry trying to use the ERA & Women’s Lib movement to gain a whole new customer base? Was this covered in scholarly journals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:4968:38A0:F52C:308 (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)