Talk:Patricia Briggs

Untitled
The "Her writing style" section is very generic...most authors say they base very few, if any, characters on real people, and most authors who are still in print can be considered "enjoyable for many people". I don't see this as anything unique pertaining to her specifically. Unfortunately, I've only read 3 of her books so far so I don't think I have anything to say or not to say about her writing style that's not just opinion, otherwise I'd add some info myself. Jade Peat 14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem very objective to me, and seems too informal. Alessandriana 20:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Patricia Briggs write this article herself?--Kingofthesystem 19:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(Blush) I'm her husband, and I wrote most of that rambling mess a few years ago. I just made some edits to remove most of the personal reflections, and pare it down. I don't spend enough time here to feel comfortable deleting too much of what other folks have written, and I'm not much of a biographer, sorry! ~Mike Briggs~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.240.161 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "Her Writing Style"
Unless someone decides to give actual references for any of this I'm going to delete this section. There are a few good things in here but unless they have a source they aren't credible, and without a reference source other than the publisher there isn't any reason to think that they are really notable. I also think the rest of this article needs sources, but am just going to deal with the "writing style" section because it's both not useful (except as an ad for her) and not proven to be credible or notable. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem and I agree. Have just deleted it myself to save you the trouble -- Patty Briggs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.198.1 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add that Masques was rereleased in September 2010, in order to prepare for the never before publication of Wolfsbane. Elizabethca1001 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabethca1001 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of "duology"
"Duology" is NOT a word. It is not in the OED or any other reputable dictionary, and seems to be used solely to describe pairs of genre fiction novels. If we are trying to be a reputable publication, we should not blindly follow the mistakes of others, especially when it is only being used as a descriptor. It should certainly not be used in running text, an alternative should be found. The only exception might be if the official published title of something was The Foo Duology, where it should be title case, all italicized. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * From our talk page conversation, Duology is a word, it is the word the author uses to describe the series, and it clearly exists in multiple sources. this source lists its origins as "mid-19th century", so while used primarily in genre fiction, it is clearly not a neologism.  And, as this author does write genre fiction, it is appropriate.   Montanabw (talk)  17:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * IN addition, the author or the publisher (or at least Amazon.com) calls this set of books a duology, and this sets too], so yes, it IS The Foo Duology.   Montanabw (talk)  17:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because it has been coined, and is used by genre fiction fans (who seem to have to pigeonhole everything), it does not make it a proper word, as the OED and Merriam-Webster links show. "Quadrilogy" is used to the same extent, but this is also not a word.  The point is, we should avoid it whenever we can, there are suitable alternatives.  "Series" can be used without any controversy, we should use this to conform to the English language.  As I mention, we should not repeat others' mistakes.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In this situation, it is not a "mistake," it is listed as such even at sales sites such as Amazon.com. As far as being a neologism, the word has been getting popular since the 1990s, which doesn't make it all that new.  Calling something a "series" doesn't really make sense for two books; while the length of a "series" isn't really specified, it sounds odd. This is really a rather ridiculous debate to be having and as the description of these books is backed up by reliable sources, I think it's time to just drop it. and ys, if we don't want to mix Greek and Latin roots, it would be a "diology" perhaps, but frankly, what does it matter?  Montanabw (talk)  04:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If it really is a word, why do the dictionaries not recognize it? Just because it is often used to describe a series of two, doesn't give it any validity.  A google search for "duology" mostly brings up online debate as to whether it is a real word, the usual consensus being that isn't.  And why are you trying to coin even more new words like "diology"?  Which, for the record, wouldn't work, because the "~ology" suffix means the study of something.  The structure would be "dilogy" maybe, but that means something entirely different...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So let's just drop it. Let it stand in the article because that is what the author calls it and what the marketing materials call it, and it is sourced. I believe that is adequate. I have no interest in wasting further bandwidth with you; it's a new word, it is used mostly in genre fiction, but it's been around since the 1990, so hardly a neologism.   Montanabw (talk)  03:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not once in this exchange have I called it a "neologism", but that it is not a word in the English dictionary. Do we want to be taken seriously as a publication?  It is not used in "official" titles, only as a descriptor on her website (and we are only using as a descriptor, not a title, here also), and as far as the marketing materials go, the publisher uses "Dragon Series", not even mentioning "Hurog".  And as for sources, Barnes & Noble, www.fantasticfiction.co.uk and Goodreads use "series", so it is not without precedent.  Why do you insist on sticking with a controversial fanboy word when we have alternatives in standard English?  I think WP:COLLOQUIAL applies here, and to a lesser extent WP:COMMONALITY.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)