Talk:Helliconia

I have expanded from the stub. However, this is all from memory and I read the books a long time ago, so there are lots of problems. I can probably get my hands on the books again in summer 2007, but I hope someone can straighten the article out a bit before then. Eightyuu 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Helliconia summer.JPG
Image:Helliconia summer.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Helliconia summer.JPG
Image:Helliconia summer.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Critical analysis
The article would be improved if some reference was made to negative criticism of this trilogy. For example, it is fairly obvious that Aldiss was making everything up as he went along rather than fitting everything into a worked-out Helliconia universe, and this results in some unsatisfactory jolts between the novels, such as the conceptual shift between the 'Original Boulder' in Spring and the 'Original Beholder' in the later novels, the explanation for which is wholly unconvincing. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference? I've had a hard time finding any published commentary at all on the series. (I thought the OB business was pretty solid myself, but my opinion isn't really relevant.) Staecker (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a reference, or I would have added a section myself. I do remember a lot of grumbling about inconsistencies when Summer was published, but I can't find anything online. IIRC Aldiss himself shrugged off such criticism, implying that critics were missing the point. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the change from "boulder" to "beholder" is an example of the way in which the language and culture evolve on Helliconia, rather than an error. It looks as if the rather impersonal "boulder" is being interpreted in a later Helliconian "theology" as a more personal entity. An analogy might be the development of the idea of "wisdom" in ancient near eastern cultures to a more personalised form in later Hellenised Jewish and christian theology as the "logos". So rather than being a blunder, it is a sophisticated plot component. Another minor point: nondads are reputed to be infertile in cross-breeding with humans, but are not infertile themselves: this is a way in which Aldiss indicates that they are separate species, although closely related.Orbitalforam (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To that, I can only add that boulder/beholder sounds like a typical piece of mischievous Aldissian wordplay, and to characterise it as a mistake is to fundamentally misunderstand Aldiss's use of language and wit.Lee M (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the IP was suggesting that Aldiss had made a mistake, more that he was careless about continuity between the novels. The boulder/beholder thing is certainly wordplay, but is the resultant plotting intellectually coherent? --Ef80 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Book Synopses
The first two books seem to be summed up in 4 sentences or so while the third has over a page dedicated to it. Surely someone could expand the synopses for the first two books (or trim down the one for the third) so that each book has the same level of information? 77.99.98.37 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I’ve noticed this, as well.  Which is understating it things.   Can we get some expansion on the first two novels?Cuddy2977 (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've shortened the third summary. "Winter" is a long and complex novel and can only be trimmed so far, but I hope I've managed to cut out extraneous detail while leaving a reasonable synopsis of the highlights. I'm about to re-read the trilogy and will come back to expand the first two once my memory is refreshed. Hery-Tep Medu (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I've put in a new summary of the first book, "Spring". It seems long, but all the Helliconia books are long and densely packed. This is the most concise synopsis I can manage while still hitting the main points and major characters. There are a few small details that seem extraneous (e.g. mention of Borlien and the great wheel of Sibornal), but these tie in to later books. I'm about halfway through hammering out a synopsis of "Summer". It's longer than "Spring", with a very complex and convoluted narrative. I intend to ignore the construction, which is a tangle of flashbacks, flashforwards, and diversions, and just try to give a chronological summary. That's going to be complicated enough! Hery-Tep Medu (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Helliconia. 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/20070330030846/http://www.brianaldiss.org/physics-of-helliconia.html to http://www.brianaldiss.org/physics-of-helliconia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928071556/http://www.solaris-books.co.uk/aldiss/html/helliconiahowandwhy.htm to http://www.solaris-books.co.uk/aldiss/html/helliconiahowandwhy.htm

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) 19:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Seasonal inconsistency
Under "Astronomy", the text says: "... While seasonal changes in the small year are slighter than those of Earth, the long seasons of the great year are much more marked..."; but under "Geography", it says: "Helliconia is 1.28 Earth masses in size, making it somewhat larger than Earth and with a bigger axial tilt of 35 degrees. This means that small-year seasons are harsher, ...". These two statements seem to be contradictory. Which is correct (or am I misinterpreting something)? --Roly (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)