Talk:Poul Anderson/Archive 1

I hope my "survey" is pretty NPOV.

I hope I got "Pact" right&mdash;I mean the story where the accountant (?) trades places with the barbarian hero.

If anyone can replace "theme" (in the Ander-Saxon sentence) with a word of Anglo-Saxon origin, please do so. &mdash;JerryFriedman 23:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The word "theme" appears nowhere in the article about Poul Anderson, nor in the article about Ander-Saxon. It looks to me as if somebody re-wrote the sentence completely.--Peter Knutsen 22:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It was your servant. Sorry to waste your time.  I should have crossed out that request.  &mdash;JerryFriedman 23:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How is "Poul" pronounced? Lehi 16:30, 3 December 2005 (PST)


 * 'Poul' is pronounced the same way as the English 'Paul'. My wife's father (another Paul) knew him pretty well. - Ketlan


 * However, some sf writers who knew him well have said the name is pronounced something like "pull". &mdash;JerryFriedman 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that his name derives from the common Scandinavian name Pål. I'm familiar with the pronunciation but don't know enough phonetics to transcribe it; to my ear the vowel is halfway between the "o" in "top" and the usual vowel sound in "Paul".  &mdash;coldchrist 09:48, 15 April 2006 (CST)


 * See the following Usenet dicussion for details. Ahasuerus 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A good article and a fine tribute to Poul Anderson. On par with the Wikipeida article on Isaac Asimov. Head, shoulders, trunk, groin, and kneecaps above the Wikipedia submission on Robert Heinlein. --hlk

Timeline
My 1979 Ace paperback of A Stone in Heaven has a timeline for the whole Technic History at the very end. A "note" at the beginning of the timeline says, among other things, that "Although Poul Anderson was consulted during the preparation of this chart, he is not responsible in any way for its dating nor in any way specifically comitted to it." Should this be considered canon? I would like to use it in the van Rijn article, and it would be very useful in a hypothetical article on the Technic History. Golwengaud 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am going to go ahead and use it. But just in case it is decided that this is not a canon source, I am keeping a list of the articles in which it is used on a special subpage of my user page. Golwengaud 18:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that material which was put into the book of a writer while he was alive and published together with his own material with his consent (or at least without his making any public protest) has at the least a strong claim to being canon. Adam Keller

Star Fox
The book The Star Fox on this page links to a series of Nintendo games entitled Star Fox. Someone should create a page about the book (I haven't read it) and then change the link.

Although I enjoy random links to Nintendo games in every article, I don't think many other people do.

Editing the Survey
I think that instead of summarizing stories that are used as examples, we should just say whatever is necessary about them to support the point. So I ruthlessly cut some information. &mdash;JerryFriedman 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only game in town
I have noticed that the reference to the book "The only game in town" incorrectly points to an homonimous text. While a new and appropiate wikipedia entry is created i.e. "The only game in town - PoulAnderson", what should we do with the existing reference on this article? SanGatiche 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Psychotechnic League
I don't think Planet of No Return/Question and Answer belongs among the Psychotechnic League books. Although there are points of similarity, the story's background is sufficiently different from the other Psychotechnic League stories that it ought to be considered an independent work. Also note that the story isn't listed in the Psychotechnic League timeline in the back of the Starship collection, and Anderson doesn't mention it being part of the series in his introduction to the 1978 Ace Books edition. Johnny Pez 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Partial bibliography?
That's a Partial bibliography? Dang.... --Drmike 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it is a partial bibliography.... &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Disproportion?
There is much to commend about this page, but I could not but be struck by the weird disproportion given to Anderson's inferred views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'm not saying that those views are misrepresented, and I can understand how someone might feel he should throw in every single citation that might be germane; there's the beginning of a fine monograph here.

But this is one of many contemporary issues on which Anderson made occasional comments. It is simply not a major theme of his works. You could have followed his writings for forty years, as I have, and barely notice that he had an opinion on this subject. Whereas a newcomer to Anderson's work would be inclined to judge, from the relative treatments and space allotted here, that Anderson cared much more about, and shaped his stories to comment more about, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the Cold War. In fact, of course, there is no comparison between the relative importance of these conflicts in the worldview expressed by Anderson's stories; the Cold War is a major theme, the other is not.

The disproportion is increased by all the things not yet covered here that deserve at least as much space as (a suitably condensed version of) the Israeli-Palestinian comments: Anderson's extensive use of verse, his Trygve Yamamura mysteries, his treatment of military and martial-law themes, etc. I am not blaming the author of the I-P section for not filling in all these blanks, but I am saying that when they are filled in, and the page as a whole kept to a reasonable length, there will be even less room for a properly proportioned I-P section (if it merits a separate section at all).

I'm very reluctant to edit the section myself; I don't wish to be accused of trying to censor it for political motives that I do not have. It would be great if the primary author of that section, who obviously wrote it with a great grasp and appreciation of Anderson's works, would do the condensation his or her self. I wish I could convey how misleading the section currently is -- not in itself, a sound thesis well-documented -- but in the disproportionate emphasis it acquires at its current length relative to other sections and the page as a whole. 66.241.74.66 14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

rogue planets
For Rogue planet – do I remember right that Mirkheim and Satan's World and Ensign Flandry all involve rogue planets? —Tamfang (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)