Talk:Typewriter in the Sky/Archive 1

Plot summary in lede
Regarding this change - I actually think the deficiency is the Plot subsection, which should be expanded, not that the lede should be shortened. I think the prior version of the plot description in the lede should be restored. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't incorporated these secondary sources yet:


 * It is likely they could be utilized to expand the Plot subsection - thus making the Plot subsection comparatively longer than the lede. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The plot summary in the lede could indeed be a little longer, though I think the version I trimmed definitely went into too many non-essential details. But if and when the Plot section gets significantly longer, re-expanding the lede somewhat would be fine with me. Hqb (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the longer treatment for now is fine, and when the Plot subsection is expanded further, we can just leave the longer version of the lede and not expand that any further. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It's fine to summarize the main themes of the book, but is it really necessary for the lede to mention the occupation of the protagonist, or the name of his friend? Unless those are somehow central to the plot, or the real-world context of the book, they seem to just add clutter. Hqb (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I removed the name of his friend, and the protagonist's occupation, from the lede. Cirt (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The plot summary in the lede could indeed be a little longer, though I think the version I trimmed definitely went into too many non-essential details. But if and when the Plot section gets significantly longer, re-expanding the lede somewhat would be fine with me. Hqb (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the longer treatment for now is fine, and when the Plot subsection is expanded further, we can just leave the longer version of the lede and not expand that any further. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It's fine to summarize the main themes of the book, but is it really necessary for the lede to mention the occupation of the protagonist, or the name of his friend? Unless those are somehow central to the plot, or the real-world context of the book, they seem to just add clutter. Hqb (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I removed the name of his friend, and the protagonist's occupation, from the lede. Cirt (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources
Cirt (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this second one just looks like some guy's personal website, unfortunately. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

de Wolf
- I think "de Wolf" is more appropriate, unless there is some sort of precedent? Cirt (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to rephrase so it's not at the start of the sentence; it might be technically correct but it does look odd. Mike Christie (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Cirt (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Other critical comments
I had a look for other comments and didn't find much. Boucher and McComas reviewed it in the October 1951 F&SF; the review is very short: "Three of the best novels from "Unknown" have at last reached hard covers . . . TYPEWRITER IN THE SKY, an entertaining adventure-farce badly in need of editing . . . ." It's also mentioned in the 1988 Gunn Encyclopedia of SF; the entry on Hubbard is written by Donald M. Hassler, a professor at Kent State; he says "Typewriter in the Sky (1940/1951), which anticipates plot gimmicks now popular among experimental metafictionists, ought to be taken seriously by the critics who will evaluate his strange genius".

You have Knight cited to the book form of his reviews; I may be able dig out the original magazine version if you want to cite from the first publication. It would have been in one of his early fifties columns in Future, Infinity, or Science Fiction Quarterly. Might be as well to leave it as is, though; In Search of Wonder is going to be much easier to find than the original, if someone wants to look at the source.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Mike Christie, any further sources or additional input and research would be most appreciated! :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mike Christie - could you provide the full citations for the above sources you quoted, above? -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the cite for the Gunn -- I added it to the article but am moving it here in case you decide not to use it:

For the F&SF, I don't think I know of a cite template that works well with the magazines, so I would do something like this:
 * Anthony Boucher & J. Francis McComas, "Recommended Reading", in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, October 1951, p. 59. The publisher at that time was Fantasy House, Inc. if you want to include that.

I tried a few other sources but couldn't find much -- it doesn't seem to be one of his most highly regarded works, despite Boucher and McComas's positive comments. I found a little more on Final Blackout and Fear, but not much at all on Typewriter. Mike Christie (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, okay thanks very much. FWIW, I am also in the process of working on the article for Final Blackout. -- Cirt (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK -- if I get time I will take a look for quotes on that too. No promises, I'm afraid, as my short vacation finishes today. Mike Christie (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review
This article had a GA Review, and was passed as WP:GA quality. The review is at Talk:Typewriter in the Sky/GA1. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Next step - hyperlinks in citations
Next step = archive all hyperlinks in citations via Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using archiveurl and archive date fields with WP:CIT citation templates = so as to increase posterity of referencing over the long term.

Will update back here on talk page in this sect when done.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: This is now ✅, all links that could be archived, were archived, links status can be verified, with the Checklinks tool. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)