Talk:L. Neil Smith

Untitled
For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/L. Neil Smith

It's surprisingly hard to find a good current list of his published works. I think there are more than those I listed, but at the moment can't confirm that. Mindspillage 03:21, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Best source for a list of his works is his website. I've taken the liberty of re-organizing the list of works to put them in the proper series. emb021
 * And I had to re-fix the list after someone put American Zone at the end, instead of leaving it in its proper internal chronology location. emb021
 * and had to do this yet again. --Emb021 18:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is also a new on-line comic book story by Neil and Scott Bieser on Big Head Press. Will try to add it in. --Emb021 18:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

2004 Libertarian Convention
I was at the 2004 Libertarian Convention, and I'm highly skeptical of the statement at L. Neil Smith supporters strongly influenced Badnarik's nomination. Does anyone have a citation or evidence for these assertions? -- Seth Ilys 23:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

One word?
Does anyone know what the "single word in the Declaration of Independence" was, that Smith used as the divergence point for his Gallatin timeline? DS 14:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unanimous, in the phrase "...deriving their just powers from the unanimous consent of the governed."
 * —wwoods 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Committee to draft L. Neil Smith selected Harry Brown?
Does this sentence mean what it seems to mean, or is the "thanks to" clause misplaced?
 * "...Harry Browne was chosen by the party's national convention, thanks to the efforts of the "Ad Hoc Conspiracy to Draft L. Neil Smith""

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffrey.landis (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 July 2006

Product placement
Hi all

I am a libertarian. I had not heard of L. Neil Smith before now. My interest was picqued by the article. Unfortunately, the author(s) of the article (Mr Smith? his agent? supporters?) have disappointed me by inserting a brazen pitch for a new novel and even included his agent's contact details! I think this is a bit cheeky.

If an author or his supporters wish to promote a book they should pay for it; they should not rely on the generosity of others who give time and money to make Wiki work. If every business were to have their own page that included information regarding the availability of upcoming products, Wikipedia would probably become unworkable and certainly very tedious.

Not only is the promotion of products and/or services a breach of Wiki etiquette, it would also seem to be run counter to libertarian beliefs. If you want to promote a product then pay for that service. Otherwise you are simply a freeloader and a hipocrite.

I don't think that the article should be deleted but I do think the relevant paragraph should be removed.

What do you think?

Thanks

Neil 84.67.60.85 23:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Starfyre0405 (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Then all of the rest of the author biographies, a number of them which have up comming titles need to have those up coming titles and their agents named removed as well. Stephen Kings article here on wiki readily comes to mind with the following "As of January 2009, King is working on a new novel entitled Under the Dome, a reworking of an unfinished novel he tried writing twice in the 1980s, to be published in 2009"

Starfyre0405 (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Literary Criticism?
The section labeled "Literary Criticism" consists of nothing at all beyond the sniping of military SF authors Sherman and Cragg, whose grounds for snarking at Smith are predicated entirely upon their objections to the political elements in some of Smith's fiction. Insofar as I'm aware, literary criticism and literary theory (as opposed to sociological criticism) focus on the aesthetic elements in a work, the intentionalities discerned, and even psychological subtexts. Do Sherman, Cragg, and their sputniki focus in this scant paragraph upon Smith's stories, his characters, plotting, narrative styles, dialogue, use of language, descriptive abilities, or other aspects of the fiction-writing trade? Nope. They voice their perception that "He's more along the lines of Ayn Rand with guns, lots and lots of guns."

And for some unspecified reason, they don't like that.

This ain't "Literary Criticism," folks. It's a couple of military types who think that all "civilians" should be disarmed and helpless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.198.156 (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I got a chuckle out of your change from "Literary Criticism" to "Hoplophobe Criticism", but really, that's not it. I just left it at "Criticism", which is fair, and you're right, "literary" criticism it ain't.  Now, let's not bash Mr. Cragg too much in this respect; he merely let Sherman have his way on this point (the coauthors are good friends and tolerate each other's foibles).  Dan Cragg is a gun-toting NRA member, but David Sherman is of another opinion.  He saw the situation on Elneal as similar to that in current-day (1997) Somalia; he apparently identifies at least part of the cause of chaos there due to widespread ownership of firearms.  In this he is assuredly wrong, but inasmuch as the neither the article nor this discussion section is the correct place to argue the merits of Sherman's opinion as expressed in the novel, shall we leave it at that?  And just to get it out of the way, I myself am a libertarian who loves both L. Neil Smith's work and that of Sherman and Cragg.  Mike (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not knowing much about either Mr. Cragg or Mr. Sherman personally, and being of the scientific tradition in which every co-author supports (and is responsible for) every point in a work submitted for publication unless explicit stipulation to the contrary is included in the paper itself, I hadn't until today been appraised of any fiddlin' difference of opinion betwixt these two. Nevertheless, the cited mutual aversion of these authors to the ownership and carriage of firearms by private citizens (as opposed to officers of the military or of civil government) is manifest as an aspect of hoplophobia. And I've also read Cragg & Sherman's fiction, and discovered much to dislike about it, particularly failures of verisimilitude which even the casual student of military history must find grating.  This is not a view borne of Cragg & Sherman's antilibertarian political sentiments.  Similarly antilibertarian military SF writers - such as John Ringo, Jerry Pournelle, David Weber, and Eric Flint - write entertaining stuff unmarred by the sorts of jolting fumbles I've found in the Starfist series. Should this particular pair of writers' despite of L. Neil Smith be given special weight under "Criticism" on this Wikipedia page?  Rhetorically, are there no other hostile reviews of Smith's work (particularly his North American Confederacy series, to which Cragg & Sherman take specific exception) upon which such critical commentary can be drawn?  I tend to think of Sherman and Cragg rather like a pair of Pekinese pups yapping at a neighbor's Doberman, and wonder why anyone should bother paying attention to 'em.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.198.156 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Small addendum, for whatever it might be worth. Since I'd written the note immediately above, I've been using Web search engines to look for negative reviews of Smith's novels, particularly the North American Confederacy books against which Sherman & Cragg have ranted.  If there were anything out there beyond these Pekinese plaints, I figured I'd put it up in the "Criticism" section as an effort to extend whatever value might be had out of a hostile address of Smith's ideas, writing style, characterizations, etc.  Know what I found? There's a couple of one-star reviews - and I mean, literally, two insofar as I could see - on the Amazon.com page for The Probability Broach, but that's about it.  And neither of them would pass muster if submitted to a high school English Literature class.  Every other time I've Websearched "the probability broach" and "reviews," what I've found (apart from sites offering the books for sale, and I've ignored these as they're doubtless colored by pecuniary interest; they have inventory to sell) have been overwhelmingly positive critiques of the work.  Anybody know a better way to investigate the possibility that there exists any sort of useful and defensible averse literary criticism of Smith's stuff?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.137.227 (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Problems with "verisimilitude"? This isn't a place for discussion on the merits of S&C's work (imagine that), so there won't be any, but I'm interested in what a "casual student of military history must find grating" in their work.  If you feel so inclined, please come to the Starfist HQ site, sign up (the Forum requires registration for posters), and jump right in with your criticisms.  Sherman responds readily to input from posters (Cragg has been notably and understandably absent since his wife died a month or so ago), and you'd be a fascinating addition to the usual set of fans there.  Just to be upfront, I am the proprietor of the site, user id = "mclark". Mike (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But you must be gratified to see that there are so few other critics of LNS out there, after your search. Mike (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, verisimilitude. Get a look at the Wikipedia article thereupon, "Mike." Means "likeness or resemblance of the truth, reality or a fact's probability," which is part of what an SF writer strives for in maintaining the reader's willing suspension of disbelief.  As for what goes wrong in the StarFist series - from beginning to end - its that while the stories are set in the 25th Century, the technology (including the "software" in terms of economics, politics, strategy, and tactics) is really no more advanced than late 20th Century.  The "casual student of military history" looks back at the 15th and 16th Centuries and draws comparisons between how and why armed conflicts developed and how they were waged then and how such conflicts arise and how participants conduct themselves in such conflicts now.  And that betrays the StarFist writers' failure of sufficient extrapolative imagination.  That blows verisimilitude right to hellangone out of the water, doesn't it? One of the reasons I'd mentioned John Ringo's work (particularly his Legacy of the Aldenata series) as military SF done right is that he and his co-authors have done their best to set their stories in a "near-future" (now "alternate future") plenum in which the effort to combine present-day military technology with goshwow alien "might-as-well-be-magic" stuff works more credibly because the mixture exploits the writers' knowledge of both here-and-now systems (including politics, economic, cybernetics, physics, etc.) with the hard realities of praxeology. Ringo and his co-writers are smart enough to know what they don't know, and wise enough to keep their work credible within the framework they've carefully established for themselves. While S&C know the military, they don't know speculative fiction. Perhaps they're in the wrong genre? That notwithstanding, to read hostile critique of a real SF writer - L. Neil Smith - coming from the partisans of people publishing space opera is a helluva note, and worth remarking upon, "Which the same I would rise to explain."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.136.102 (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you're still trying to discuss the subject and not the article. And there's no point in putting my name in quotation marks.  It is my real first name, btw.  I do see what you're saying when you speak of verisimilitude, and though I'd love to discuss the subject in connection with Sherman and Cragg's Starfist universe, this is not the forum for it.  And the fact remains that David Sherman, whose literary prowess and powers of extrapolation or lack thereof is irrelevant to the point, criticised L. Neil Smith's notion of free and unencumbered civilian ownership of firearms in the indirect fashion of using part of Smith's name for a planet on which Sherman portrayed a Somalia-type chaotic/anarchistic situation.  That's a fact, not an opinion.  I don't agree with Sherman's political viewpoint, and neither do you, but what of it?  It is still a criticism of Smith's work, and is a valid point in the article about L. Neil Smith.  And since there isn't any other criticism mentioned in the article, I'd say it tends to lend the article some editorial balance. Mike (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the hoplophobe Cragg & Sherman objection to the value of an armed and self-responsible populace a valid criticism - especially a literary criticism - of a speculative fiction writer, or simply a dubious and purely political kvetch that doesn't deserve to be incorporated in this article on L. Neil Smith to begin with? There is plenty in Smith' oeuvre that parodies and otherwise attacks other writers' work. Why don't I just mosey on down to those other writers' Wikipedia articles and start pulling quotes from Smith's books and essays to incorporate such remarks into "Criticism" sections on those writers' Wikipedia entries, hm?


 * Well, why don't you? I shan't stop you if you want to give it a go.  To be candid, some of the writers that Smith's parodies ought to have criticism laid at their feet.  Mike (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Cragg & Sherman call into question the sociopolitical viability of Smith's Probability Broach plenum when the one they'd devised and are writing in doesn't work worth a damn. Moreover, they don't give any kind of supported argument why Smith's North American Confederacy couldn't work the way Smith depicts it. Smith put some considerable effort into addressing the "Somalia" factors, and none of that effort is refuted by the shallow gripe voiced by these pseudoscience fiction hacks. Get the point, Mike? This "Criticism" section in the Smith article should be stricken altogether. It's slanted as hell, and altogether bogus.
 * Again, you're arguing the subject and not the article. I get the point through all the ad hominems ("hacks" "shallow" etc) that you don't like the fact that Sherman named his planet after El Neil, and did so for reasons related to Sherman's disagreement with the principle of "an armed and self-responsible populace".  But whether you (or I) like it or not, or agree with it or not, the book exists, and its primary setting is a planet named for L. Neil Smith.  This is not some mimeographed piece of fanfic; it has notability, in that it's popular enough to have remained in print since its first publication twelve years ago, and with a screenplay of it being circulated in Hollywood it may become even more popular (unlikely, but possibly).  I appreciate and to a great extent agree philosophically with your arguments contra Sherman, but I say again, that's not the point.  Do you get the point, now, O nameless one?  And among the points that I don't think you get is this one: if someone disagrees with Smith, but his reasons for doing so can be seen to be bogus, this would tend to rebound in Smith's favor.  Just a thought.  Mike (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't run rampant through the Wikipedia articles on writers at whom Smith snipes for the same reason that the sputniki of Sherman & Cragg shouldn't have incorporated baseless and slanted "Literary Criticism" (remember, that's how it was first headlined) of Smith's stuff in this Wikipedia article. And simple insult, Mike, is not argumentum ad hominem, which is the logical fallacy of predicating a riposte on nothing more than an attack upon the character of the person articulating the argument to be refuted. You're on the Wikipedia Web site, Mike; look it up.  Why the hell do incompetent fumblenuts have to keep squealing ad hominem when they obviously don't know dick about what the expression means? For further example of your inability to employ logical argument in this exchange, witness your "you don't like" nonsense, which falls under the heading of circumstantial ad hominem, imputing to me a motive I've never articulated and which I do not, in fact, have, in order to denigrate my position. Bushwah. When I read First to Fight back in '97 (book 1 of the StarFIST series) and noted the "Elneil" crack, I diagnosed Cragg and Sherman as statist hoplophobes but kept on reading.  The rest of the novel convinced me that they were straightforward military adventure fiction writers - like W.E.B. Griffin, Larry Bond, Harold Coyle, and Tom Clancy - who were passing off their stuff as SF. Not my dish of tea, but then nobody ever lost a dime underestimating the taste of the American public. However, reading their opinion secondhanded in this article as "Literary Criticism" by one of their fans is just too goddam much. Or am I not making things plain enough for you, Mike?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.197.34 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, if you insist, they're not "ad hominems", they're insults. Neither do I "run rampant through Wikipedia articles on writers at whom [Sherman] snipes."  It turns out that there's only one such writer that Sherman snipes at.  And mention of such sniping must be eliminated because?  Sherman is incompetent?  He's not a "real" SF writer?  He's a statist hoplophobe?  His readers have low literary taste?  Sez you.  You were altogether correct that this was not "literary" criticism, and I modified the section title accordingly.  You were right about that (or was it you complaining?  It's so hard to tell one A/C from another).
 * Well, upon reviewing the paragraph I feel that it needs some touching up. So I have just modified the paragraph further, to indicate that it is not a personal attack by Sherman on Smith, because I'm sure they'd get along just fine if they were to meet, and I've removed the Sherman quote.  If someone wants to read it they can follow the reference.  If that is not sufficient, I am truly sorry that it upsets you so.
 * By the way, why do you find it necessary to issue so many insults? I assure you that being called an incompetent fumblenut, sputnik and so on does not cause me any personal anguish, just in case you were worried about it.  I do understand, however, that some people relate better to the world outside their heads by labeling other people in ways that make them seem less threatening, so if this helps you, well, go right ahead. Mike (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mike, read above. You opened the insult bottle with your 13 June post, starting with that "Problems with 'verisimilitude'?" snerk and your stipulation that you're a Cragg & Sherman afficionado with anything but an objective regard for their slant against Smith's work. My initial comments regarding the utterly invalid character of their "criticism" of Smith - and I'm growing more and more certain that you're the clod who stuffed it into Smith's Wikipedia page to begin with - still stand. That section does not belong on this page, not in any way whatsoever.  Quit griping about getting back more than you dealt out. And, yeah, a guy who writes a "current events" level technothriller and tries to set it five centuries into the future without taking into account the "future shock" element is anything but "a 'real' SF writer." The old saying in SF is that whatever the future will be, it's going to be different. To provide you with another example of a military SF writer who's recently come onto the scene and managed to do the future "different," look into John Scalzi's Old Man's War (2005). Note also that on Mr. Scalzi's Wikipedia page, there's no "Criticism" section voicing the creebing of a rival writer who couldn't defrag his hard drive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.137.199 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed entire criticism section. One book that makes an oblique reference to LNS is hardly literary criticism.  If anything, the commentary should be added to the entry for the book.  There are no end of legitimate criticisms of LNS's work and they could well be cited here.  If it's actually noteworthy, put a comment in the entry for the book.  Otherwise, try for NPOV in this article.  Peter Camper (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

vote count

 * He and running mate Vin Suprynowicz received 5,775 votes in the national election, less than .01% of the vote.

Wouldn't it be more meaningful to show their fraction of the vote in Arizona (where they were on the ballot)? —Tamfang (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on L. Neil Smith. 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/20070929120438/http://www.infoshop.org/sf/index.php/Asteroid to http://www.infoshop.org/sf/index.php/Asteroid

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) 15:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on L. Neil Smith. 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/20041207100931/http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/03/10/09/lneilsmith.htm to http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/03/10/09/lneilsmith.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030424102123/http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/l-neil-smith.html to http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/l-neil-smith.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) 23:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on L. Neil Smith. 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/20060624045027/http://www.politics1.com/lp2k.htm to http://www.politics1.com/lp2k.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) 07:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"El Neil" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect El Neil and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 17:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)