Talk:The Lathe of Heaven/Archive 1

IMDB links
Could somebody more knowledgable than me please sort out the IMDB links? Thanks. okay


 * Done

Lost in Translation
Re LATHE. In the German translation the title is "Die Geissel des Himmels", which means whip or lash and is different from lathe. This leads me to the suspectation that perhaps German readers do not only get a different title but a different book from the American translation, because it can not be assumated if a translator is so careless with the beginning that he could work with more carefulness for the rest. I would be greatful to learn what American experts have here an opinion on this.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re DREAM. The French translation, which I have just finished reading, has the title L'autre côté du rêve, and that means "The Other Side of the Dream" and gives you again a foretaste that the book is a very different book from the American translation and also the German. In the American translation we learn that it is the dream which is the other side. Just as this is in truth. The other side of the dream would be reality, but this is definitely not what the book is all about. I notice with amazedness that so far no American expert has come forward to explain the discrepations between the different versions of the book.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why the amazedness? It's pretty common for novels in translation to have very different titles, in cases where a literal translation of the title just didn't carry a similar connotation in another language; in my experience, this is particularly common with fantasy/SF novels. There's no reason to think it's "a different book". In any case the title of the book comes from a saying of Chuang-Tzu which may be translated differently in other languages. &#8592;Hob 03:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re NO REASON. Just as a German user has remarked here with the fine logic of his great native country, there is no reason for a German to think a book that bears a different title in translation is a different book. There is no reason for a German to think so, that is, if he neither knows the original nor the translation. There is also no reason why a German should first read the posts that he wants to give an "answer" to. That's not the way it is done in the German Wikipedia.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about, but that's OK. &#8592;Hob 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re OK. You bet.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it s indeed an other book in german language as the american original. At least the older version from Heyne-Verlag (1974, ISBN 3-453-30250-8). In April 2006 in Germany appears another version (paperback) with a new unabridged (?) translation from Edition Phantasia, Bellheim (ISBN 3-937897-16-x). But the german title is still the same: "Die Geissel des Himmels" ... what a nice surprise, BZ: I just read that book ... Jahn T a LK  TO me ... 11:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re NEW TRANSLATION. I appreciate that very much, Jahn, and if this was a new French translation, I would go buy it and read it and compare it with the bad French one I've read and also with the American. But the German translation I had a strong suspectation because of the title that it would be bad, and did not read it. So with the German I would now have to buy both the old and the new translation and read them both in order to make a comparison. And what sense would that make, especially as the title is still the same silly one, and the basic question of the discrepations has still not even a beginning of an explanation?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the older version from Heyne-Verlag at first somewhen in the middle of the senventies when I was working as a precision mechanic. So I knew what a lathe is ... but still I wonder what Ursula really wanted to say with the title The LATHE of heaven. Maybe there is one more other meaning of lathe in the American or English language. Or a meaning beneath the meaning. I don t know. And the thoughts of German translators, BZ, are to me a mystery anyway ... Jahn T a LK  TO me ... 11:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re MEANINGS. You are right, Jahn, lathe has several other meanings, and I'll be glad to analyze every single one of them together with you. But I suggest we give this a structure and start with the standard meaning, the one that Ursula K. Le Guin had in mind. For easy reference I have listed, on the bottom of the page, the quote that has given the book its title.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the problems in detail
Re CHINESE. Reading Zhuangzi (aka Zhuang Tse, Chuang Tzu, Chuang Tse etc etc) in translation, you'll find that his writings may not only be translated differently in other languages, as someone has pointed out on this page, but actually ARE translated in a hundred entirely different ways, and not only in other languages but also within one and the same language. You can find ample evidence of this fact on the internet. In English e.g. you'll find one recognized expert translating a passage as "...will be destroyed by the lathe of heaven" and another recognized expert translating the same passage as "...will be destroyed by the thing he seeks". Clearly, when it comes to translating from the Chinese, anything goes.

So how should a translator handle Ms Le Guin's quote? In Switzerland we think that he should concentrate on the known facts, i.e. what Ms Le Guin has wrought. In Germany, on the other hand, it is evidently felt that his job is to try his hand at taking a wild guess as to what might or might not be the true meaning of the saying in Chinese.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Bruno and Jahn: I hate to be a party pooper, but may I point out that article talk pages are supposed to be for discussing changes to the text of the article? This conversation about translations is all very interesting but it doesn't seem to be leading to anything editing-related; maybe you should take it to your user pages. &#8592;Hob 01:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe You re right, Hob. But I think article talk pages are also helpfully for readers of WIKIPEDIA to get some more informations about a lemma. And to ask questions about it. That is, what I call by myself, a "living encyclopaedia". ff Jahn T a LK  TO me ... 12:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re CHANGES. You might also want to consider the following, Hob: In Switzerland, where I come from, we think that every important text needs a commentary. There are even some who say that the sole function of a text is to bring forth a commentary. Now I certainly do not expect anybody in the American Wikipedia to look at things the way the Swiss do. But to turn logic completely on its head, and to see the bringing forth of changes in the text as the function of the commentary, is really taking it a bit far. Think: The commentaries we treasure most (Gospels, "fragments" of Heraclitus etc etc.) were all written long long after their texts, and could therefore have had no influence on them.

I hope you can see things more clearly now. But even if you, or any other users, still feel that Wikipedia is a new and different kind of animal because a commentary now could, and therefore should, lead to something editing-related, what's there to prevent you from making changes in the article?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I don't see any need for changes in the article right now. And I agree that important texts need commentaries, but that's not what Wikipedia is for; you can start your own website for that. Please see Talk page guidelines. &#8592;Hob 15:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re AGREE. I am glad that you agree that important texts need commentaries, Hob. Most people do when it is pointed out to them. Most people also expect the commentaries right where the text is, if this is at all possible. Take as an example the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the U.S.: Wouldn't you expect a commentary or two if you bought a book that contains such a text? Most people would. Even if a text is not all that important. That is why most newspapers reserve some space for the reactions of their readers. Not because the journalists like it, but because the readers expect it. They also expect it from Wikipedia. And with all our rules and regulations we must never forget: Wikipedia is not here for its editing community. It is here for the readers.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re DIFFERENCES. Anybody who will go to the trouble of comparing the French version with the American one, will recognize, as I pointed out above, that the translator has got the meaning of the text wrong, and that the curious title in French derives from this misunderstanding. An honest mistake. - Not so, with the German translators. What ever they are worth (and I have no reason not to trust Jahn's judgment in this matter), they have DELIBERATELY chosen a wrong title, and not just any wrong title either, but a title that by itself gives the whole book a distinctly German flavor. Geissel des Himmels will inevitably conjure up in the mind of German readers another "Geissel": Attila the Hun, "die Geissel Gottes". Thus, the image of justice, the potter shaping the good clay on his wheel and discarding the bad one, is turned into a pure instrument of senseless and indiscriminate punishment.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re TITLES. It's pretty common for novels in translation to have very different titles..., we read in one of Hob's posts above. Exactly, and if that was the whole problem, we could solve it easily by saying something like: So don't read translations! English is after all not the same as Lithuanian or Swahili. English is today's lingua franca.

Unfortunately, however, also different English titles are pretty common with fantasy/SF novels. Ms Le Guin's The Dispossessed, to cite just one example, has been published under 4 (four) different titles in English. Now, there may be people who are not influenced at all by the title of a book, but for most of us titles are a matter of utmost importance. The title of a novel, just as the headline of a newspaper article, sets the tone, which nothing that follows can change significantly, much less erase completely.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. And that s why the german translation of the title The Lathe of Heaven (Die Geißel des Himmels) in some German brains sounds like The Adolf of Heaven. Sorry, BZ, but that s the way it is. We are not the main stream, but we do exist ... ff Jahn T a LK  TO me ... 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re WE. May I ask you who is included in this WE?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Especially my father ... they (his relatives, neighbors, colleagues etc) almost killed him in 1933. The last nightmare about that he has had 53 years later, a half year before he died. And I know some other Germans, only a hand full, who suffers like me about somewhat. Because we are, as they say it in Germany, "Memmen". But I m drifting away ... however, the whole story and also the title reminds me on that. Jahn T a LK  TO me ... 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re DRIFTING. A couple of days ago I had a series of nightmares about drowning. When I woke up, I thought about them and all of a sudden I had the solution how to save myself. It took me about another ten minutes to realize that there was neither a solution nor a problem; only a bad dream. - It is very strange that there are so many people around who think that a work of fiction, and especially something like The Lathe of Heaven, could be discussed or written about in an article without a very pronounced POV, and without drifting off. The fact that it never occurred to any of these people to try to find out what the author (in this case: Ms Le Guin) has to say about it, is even stranger. - But to close this circle: Drowning brings to mind Ms Le Guin's The Drowned Girl. You might want to look at it, together with one or two other poems in her latest volume Incredible Good Fortune, (Shambhala, Boston 2006)--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * BZ - it may be "very strange" to think that editors could try to be neutral and stay on topic, but in fact they can. Your conversations are very interesting, but most of them really don't belong on this page (e.g. psychology of German people, Jahn's family, your dream). This isn't a message board. Please read Talk page guidelines! If you don't agree with the guidelines, you can discuss them (there, not here) with other editors, but please don't just decide on your own that Wikipedia should work differently than it does. If you are not here to edit articles (and it looks to me like you haven't contributed to anything but talk pages so far) then maybe you'd find a different kind of website more useful. &#8592;Hob 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "The fact that it never occurred to any of these people to try to find out what the author (in this case: Ms Le Guin) has to say about it, is even stranger." I'm not sure what you mean by "it" (the title of translated editions?), or if by "these people" you mean WP editors or translators... but if you think the article could be improved by researching the author's point of view from interviews etc., why don't you try doing that? I haven't found useful sources, but maybe you will have better luck. &#8592;Hob 17:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re ON TOPIC. I guess this will come as a surprise to you, Hob, but not one of the many people that I showed this page to here in Switzerland has been able to find a single off topic statement on it. Except for the ones made by you, of course. Now, please don't get me wrong: You find a commentary on the relationship between the title and the rest of the book irrelevant, and you do not feel that other works of Ms Le Guin, or her thoughts on the relations between reality and dreams and between ideas and fiction, etc, deserve to be mentioned here. Well you're entitled to your opinions and, as far as I am concerned, you're welcome to express them on this page. I wish you'd stop jumping to conclusions every time you don't understand something that I write, but if you can't help doing this, I can live with that too. Just don't expect me to get into an argument with you on rules and regulations and unfounded allegations. - And now, back to work: I am sorry to hear that you were unable to fInd "useful sources" for the author's point of view. In Switzerland we consider the author him/herself as quite a "useful" source, as a matter of fact, the first and by far the most important one. We are in "luck" indeed, in this case. And so are you. You'll find everything you need in: Ursula K. Le Guin, The WAVE in the MIND: Talks and Essays on the Writer, the Reader, and the Imagination, Shambala, Boston 2004. Have fun!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have the book? Why don't you find some interesting content and add it to the article, instead of just criticizing others for not doing so? Please don't ask me to make your edits for you; you can write in English perfectly well. The first point you brought up, that the title is different in various translations, is certainly on topic and could be a good addition to the article. The rest of your comments here, less so. I note that you haven't actually mentioned any examples of Le Guin's opinions, and have not discussed any of the content or context of this particular book other than the title. &#8592;Hob 18:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would concur with Hob, for the most part, regarding this talk page drifting into "off topic" areas. While not all of BZ and Jahn's contributions have been off topic, the back and forth "chit chat" about dreams and family don't really jive with the intended purpose of an article talk page. Discussions should be focused on what can be done to improve the article. I would encourage the editors of this page to take a look at their contributions and voluntarily delete those which stray off topic so that we can refocus the talk page back to article improvement. Agne 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re EDITS. What on earth gives you the idea that I asked you or anyone else to make edits for me, Hob? And where have I ever criticized anyone for not making any? I can assure you: in Switzerland we do not ask other people to milk our cows, and we do not criticize them for not doing so. Besides, and I'm repeating myself here, I don't think that there is anything wrong with the article. All it needs is a commentary. It is possible that this commentary will in time lead to changes in the article. If so, fine. If not, then that will be the proof that no such changes were needed.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re EXAMPLES. I have evidently failed to make myself clear in this respect. My fault. You see, Hob, the comments that you find "less" relevant are in fact illustrations of Ms Le Guin's point of view as outlined in the books I mentioned. This point of view can best be summed up in her oft-repeated statement: If fiction is how it says what it says, then useful criticism is what shows you how fiction says what it says. Anybody interested in a more detailed discussion of some of the points that Ms Le Guin finds important enough to bring up, in one way or another, in all of her writings (fiction vs ideas, time, drifting, the "closing" of circles etc) can find it on the discussion page of The Dispossessed.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Off topic conversation
Re JIVE. If you care to ask Ms Le Guin herself, Agne, she will confirm that my "chit chat" jives beautifully with her ideas. And so does your call to "refocus the talk page back to article improvement". There was nothing here that could have seriously been called a talk page before I came along. Ms Le Guin will love your demonstration of what she is trying to tell us about circles in her books.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "chit chat" doesn't really jive with Wikipedia policy and the purpose and intent of article talk pages. Wikipedia is not a social network or a discussion board. An article's talk page is a tool used by all wikipedians to communicate and work together on improvements that can be made to the article to improve it. Topics such as a wikipedian's dreams and family life are completely irrelevant to that desired objective and at worst can be a distraction and impediment to editing. It is not fair to your fellow editors to have to expect them to swim through the off topic "chit chat" in order to find the relevant discussions that directly affect the article. Again I ask that voluntarily delete the off-topic commentary and help clean up this talk page. Agne 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re DELETE. In Switzerland, where I come from, it is considered highly uncivilized to delete a commentary, whatever the reason, and also not very intelligent, because what is written is written, and nothing will make it unwritten. But if you or anybody else feels differently, go right ahead. Try to erase or burn or "delete" whatever you want. Who's stopping you?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Where I come from it is more polite to give others an opportunity to do the right thing. It is highly uncivilized to leave commentary where it is not needed or irrelevant but any mistake can be corrected-and you have the perfect opportunity to do so. Agne 11:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re NEEDED. Very interesting point of view, Agne. But I guess you got in touch with Ms Le Guin by now. What did she say?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 18:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the problems in detail (cont.)
Re DEMONSTRATION. We have talked about how the text cannot help being colored by the title. But it is not exactly easy to show this with a novel; especially not to people who have not read it. As luck will have it, a user has given us on this page a demonstration of the way the process works. By inserting arbitrarily a title ("Off topic conversation") above a post not his ("Re JIVE.), he has not only severed this post from its context and obscured the reason for the use of JIVE, but he has managed to turn a simple answer to an off topic remark into something offensive. Now if you see the damage that a deliberate falsificaton can cause to an unimportant little text, you will understand what the German "Geissel" does to a great work of art like the Lathe of Heaven.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re DREAMING. One of the main points (and a very ingenious one it is) that the reader of the book will have to keep constantly in mind is that there would be no William Haber at all, if George Orr (another thing to pay attention to, of course, is their FULL names) hadn't dreamed him up in the first place. And he has dreamed him up precisely to help him stop (!) dreaming, as Barbara J. Bucknall points out (Ursula K. Le Guin. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1981). Unfortunately, Ms Bucknall stops short of recognizing the significance of this CIRCLE as well as its connection to the ideas of time that Ms Le Guin went on to treat in her second masterpiece: The Dispossessed.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote from which the title is taken
''Those whom heaven helps we call the sons of heaven. They do not learn this by learning. They do not work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven''. - Chuang Tse.

This is one of the quotes (at the head of chapter 3) in Ursula K. Le Guin's book.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, BZ. I don t think that the people in the old China have had machines like a lathe. Jahn T a LK  TO me ... 13:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? It's an extremely old invention. Link: &#8592;Hob 20:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re OLD CHINA. They certainly didn't have anything like the machine tool that you worked with, Jahn. The Lathe of the book's title is something very different: a potter's wheel. It is interesting that the same imagery can be found also in our own Christian culture (cf. Isa. 64.8; Jer. 18.4; Rom. 9.21,22) --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, BZ. One more time my mind is expanded through some of Your words. Jahn T a LK  TO me ... 18:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * @ Hob: That was new to me, too. I mean the link about "lathe" is an extremly old invention that You ve posted. Thank You! ff Jahn T a LK  TO me ... 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Archival and comments
As this discussion page has been swamped by lengthy post that fail to make it clear what past or future changes to the article they discuss, I have moved the content to the above linked archive. Feel free to bring back material that still is relevant, but do make it clear in what way it is relevant to our editing process.--Niels Ø 09:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re CLEAR. Well done, Niels. You make it absolutely clear that these posts failed to make it clear what they discuss. To you, that is.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re HOMAGE. It is difficult to say who was the first to call our book mistakenly an homage to Philip K. Dick. But you find this repeated everywhere, and so it is only right that it appears also in the article. Besides, there is in truth a touch of Dick in the Lathe. Anyone who has actually read the book, however, knows that had Ms Le Guin wanted to pay homage to Dick, she would have named a major figure, let's say the psychiatrist, Dick or maybe Dickens. Instead, she names the dreamer George Orr, in homage to George Orwell. And just in case that there might be readers so obtuse as not to catch on, she paints the picture of a drab Orwellian police state that has come into being after a revolution in - you guessed it - 1984. That's what is called an homage.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The book is many things, but one of them is a clear homage to Dick, and this is reported by several critics. As Bucknall (1981) observes, the character of Mr. Orr is most certainly Dickian - an average Joe with extraordinary abilities. And the Dickian elements throughout the book shine: Orr trying to turn the machine off while Haber has all but destroyed reality has been described as reminiscent of a scene from Ubik.  Throw in cannabis, aliens, Beatles records, and the dystopian society and government of Portland, Oregon, and the spirit of PKD rises up through the pages like smoke from an early 1970s rock concert; It's not a question of "if" but "how". Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bruno
I see from your contributions page that you have made 241 talk page edits, 1 edit to your user page, and no article edits ever. Bringing up difficult questions on a talk page before making the edit in the article is generally a good idea, but I think you would do us all a favour if you started making relevant changes to actual articles. That is what editing wikipedia is about!

I will post the following on Bruno's talk page too.--Niels Ø 10:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Re EDITS.  Dear Niels, I don't want to give anybody grounds to accuse me once more for  dragging other users into off topic conversations on this page. So I hope you'll understand if I post my answer only on my own talk page.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Subsections
I changed some details that were wrong, and also moved up the explanation for the title. And moved down the mention of the nuclear war of 1998, to the point where the story has it.

What I'd like to do next is organise the summary by 'worlds', starting with World One, the initial situation. World Two is the first major change, the population reduction, and on. By my reckoning the final situation is 'World Seven', and the original nuclear-war world is 'World Zero'.--GwydionM 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Lathe of Heaven (DVD cover).jpg
Image:The Lathe of Heaven (DVD cover).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) 11:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Lathe of Heaven (book cover).jpg
Image:The Lathe of Heaven (book cover).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) 11:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Lathe of heaven" translation
I was perusing some Zhuangzi translations, out of a curiosity to see a more correct version of the passage the title is taken from. I found several, but one in particular caught my eye. It's this one, by James Legge, a Scottish scholar from the 19th century. In the link above, if you scroll down to paragraph 7, you'll find that the translation is worded very similarly to the passage LeGuin quotes. The use of the same phrase, "the lathe of heaven," is particularly striking, given that it's apparently incorrect. Could Legge be the source of LeGuin's translation? Surely somebody has some solid information on this that just hasn't made it into the article yet. 206.174.228.113 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still wondering if it is a mistranslation. The issue itself is confusing because in The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China (1994) Joseph Needham himself wrote: "Little is known as to the antiquity of the lathe in China, but it is not likely to be later than Hellinistic times, when Egypt obtained it from the Greeks."  The period of Hellenistic Greece is dated from 323 BCE to 146 BCE, while Zhuangzi lived from approximately 370 to 301 BCE. Is this really a mistranslation?  You can't expect me to believe that the Chinese didn't have a potter's wheel during that time.  Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like Le Guin was intentionally (or not) paying homage to Philip K. Dick in the title itself, referring to Dick's use of the pottery image and metaphor with the word "lathe". Read the plot summary for the Galactic Pot-Healer to see the high strangeness for yourself.  Of course, this isn't the only instance of PKD using the pottery metaphor, but there it is. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * She discussed this on a recent NPR interview. Let me see what I can dig up, I can't recall as I should.24.58.63.18 (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you know that Huang-di, an important, legendary figure in Taoism, is said to have invented the potter's wheel? In other words, the "lathe" of Heaven comes directly back to Taoism and PKD.  I cannot believe this is a coincidence. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivia
Two items have been removed for no good reason. If anything, they have more to do with the work than the stuff that was left. --GwydionM (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the trivia comments are sourced, most are speculative, and none are particularly interesting anyway. I'm removing the lot; we can surely find more useful content. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because you aren't interested, don't deprive other people. Also your version lost the name from the Infobox, and removed categories that someone might be able to fill it.  --GwydionM (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "depriving other people" of the idle and unsourced speculation rampant on Wikipedia is doing the project a favour. For now I'll restore the trivia pending sources, but if they don't materialise it'll be removed again. The infobox changes are trivial (the removal of the name is pending an edit to the template code which I'd hoped would have been actioned quicker), but I'll restore the empty attribs if required. In future, please don't revert edits without making it obvious in the edit summary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed 2 unsourced sentences from the tagged sections. Those claiming that William Haber means desire maker, and that the book influenced Butterfly effect.Yobmod (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis
The article says:

The plot revolves around a character whose dreams alter reality.

Based on the movie shown on PBS, this is wrong. I would put it this way:

The plot revolves around a character who believes that his dreams alter reality.

There is a large difference that is perhaps subtle, but it goes to what I thought was one of the points of the novel. How can he know if he is knowing or controlling what happens in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrerj (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see that that idea is really one of the major themes of the original book (unless you think that George Orr is completely insane).  How can his gift be simply "knowing the future", when after each change session he has two sets of incompatible memories?  AnonMoos (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Date the book takes place
The article states that no specific date is given, but I believe it takes place in the early 2000's. On page 104, Orr says, "Do you remember anything about April, four years ago -- in '98?" when he talked about the end of the world with Heather.

The article should be changed to reflect this. 12.208.141.145 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that she envisions that things really start to go to hell in a handbasket in the mid-to-late 1970's... AnonMoos (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Homage to PKD
This article really needs a separate section devoted to the blatant PKD homage which is very amusing to fans of PKD. I've found a number of sources that help shed some light on this, and I'll be adding them as the days go by, but I'm very interested in tracking down Fredric Jameson's claim in Archaeologies of the Future (2005) where he states that Le Guin, "...has characterized The Lathe of Heaven as her tribute to Philip K. Dick." I would like to add this secondary source along with the primary text. Does anyone know where she has said this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working on creating a separate section just for PKD and 'LoH''. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Some of the problems in detail (cont.)
 From an archival discussion: Re: Some of the problems in detail (cont.) 

''Re DREAMING. One of the main points (and a very ingenious one it is) that the reader of the book will have to keep constantly in mind is that there would be no William Haber at all, if George Orr (another thing to pay attention to, of course, is their FULL names) hadn't dreamed him up in the first place. And he has dreamed him up precisely to help him stop (!) dreaming, as Barbara J. Bucknall points out (Ursula K. Le Guin. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1981). Unfortunately, Ms Bucknall stops short of recognizing the significance of this CIRCLE as well as its connection to the ideas of time that Ms Le Guin went on to treat in her second masterpiece: The Dispossessed.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)''
 * Yes, this is a very important point and needs to be addressed. We are introduced to this concept on the first page, with the quote about dreaming from Chuang Tse, setting us up for the idea that the entire story is simply a dream. (Bucknall) Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what that means in concrete plot terms. In 1998, he dreams himself into a world which isn't falling apart quite as badly as the world in which he's about to die, but I don't know that it's implied that he dreams up anything specific about Haber at that point. Also don't think that Orr is really asleep during the whole events of the novel.  AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. The fact that Orr dreamed up Haber so that he could stop dreaming is making me dizzy. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the specific evidence for this interpretation (and why didn't he make him a lot nicer and more helpful guy)? AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. Orr couldn't (or didn't want to) control his dreams, remember?  (think Taoism) That's why he didn't try to force Haber to be something that he wasn't, but I think he did force him to at least be honest with him at the end.  Watson describes Orr as "quiescent-acquiescent". The "evidence" for Bucknall's interpretation consists mainly of the epigraphs and relating them to the story and characters.  But the most interesting thing is what Watson and others say about the aliens.  Unlike Haber and all of the other dream characters Orr created after the world (or at least his city) was destroyed in a nuclear apocalypse, the aliens from Aldebaran may actually be real. Viriditas (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"original" reality
The summary says the "original" reality resulted in a nuclear war. Actually LeGuin never tells us what the "original reality" was, and that is partly what makes the storyline so spooky -- we don't know where it begins. The nuclear war is the first reality we are told of, but George may have dreamed it up by accident. Only George could possibly remember how things were "originally", but he never tries to work that out (and seems to have no interest in the question). CharlesTheBold (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems probable that the only time he did a major world-wide change before Haber was to avert the nuclear war; his first clearly remembered effective dream (getting rid of his aunt at 17) seems to have happened within pretty much the same overpopulated world of the beginning of the book ("Basic Support", overcrowded apartments, etc.). Speculating much beyond this would probably verge on the dreaded "Original Research"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's my point -- we have to speculate about probabilities because LeGuin didn't make the answer clear, and I believe that her failure to give the answer was deliberate. CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * However, it seems from the context of Orr's discussion of the aunt episode that there were not endless changes without limit before Orr encountered Haber... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have an objection to the following sentences from the summary:

"Orr, a deceptively mild yet very strong and honest man, is labeled sick because he is immensely frightened by his ability to change reality. He is forced to undergo therapy whether he wants to or not."

Who is doing the labelling and who is doing the forcing? Actually he is required by the government (in several different realities) to have therapy because he abused drugs (though we know that he had good reason). Only Haber (and later Heather) knows about the reality changes, and he has ulterior motives for declaring Orr sick. CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The government is doing the forcing, and Haber clearly explains that attempting not to dream can have serious health consequences, so that someone with a major desire not to dream has serious problems. The wording can be tweaked, but by their nature such "blurb" summaries often have problems summarizing a complex work of literature. AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Title
The title section discusses at length that the translation from Chinese may be wrong, but doesn't offer an alternative "more" correct translation.

I find, e.g. from the weblinks at Chuang_Tzu: "by the heavens' potters wheel"

ChKa (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)