Talk:Hyperion Cantos: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:07, 30 January 2010

Novels B‑class Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ummon

I've expanded the Ummon character's section. But I really think that the page Ummon probably shouldn't redirect to here, but rather to an article on the actual guy. --Maru 00:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see that. If you could provide a stub and some links or other information I could use to find further information, I'd be happy to contribute. When I wrote the original Ummon text, I could find none of that. --Avriette 16:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Currently my main source is User:Marudubshinki/Ummon; it seems trustworthy in that the information on the historical Ummon accords with my previous researches. Some of the other Wikipedias have information (see here for a Google translation). Unfortunately, the only primary text I've found which is available is the Gateless Gate, which features Ummon twice or thrice. I will learn more as time permits. --Maru 18:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added considerably more to the page. Some of the koans and sayings I am unsure of; others I have requested the book from my library to verify the reference. --Maru (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can flesh this out into a full article on Ummon, I really think the redirect should be removed. As you've found, it's kind of tough to find information. I could ask the priest at our (buddhist) temple, see what he has to say, if there's a source or two we could read. --Avriette 22:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's worth a try; but I recently lucked out with a book called "Zen Koans", purporting to be the most comprehensive collection of koans collected in English [1]; and the author appears to have had a soft spot for Ummon- I managed to glean his lineage back to Bodhidharma, some variant textual readings of koans I already found, and about 13 new koans which don't show up online, plus an excellent descriptive quote of Ummon by Kubose. I think I can start on the article while I await the interlibrary loans to arrive, although it may include too many koans. I don't really know the guidelines on that. --Maru (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am as good as my word- I have uploaded and largely cleaned up an Ummon article. I look forward to seeing you add your own research to the page. --Maru (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treeships

ISTR there were only 13 treeships before the Yggdrasil was destroyed above Hyperion. Can anyone confirm that? Avriette 22:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Weren't there a total of 4 (publicly known) treeships? (I'm excluding all the ones that lifted off after the scorch of God's Grove by the 'Core). I recall a line in which someone wonders why the Templars would risk one of "the four" priceless treeships. --maru (talk) contribs 13:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. They were 4 before destruction of Ygdrasil.--SidiLemine 17:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I recently found why I thought that: The Fall of Hyperion follows Meina Gladstone in the early chapters, and one of her musings is on the curious Templar actions in which she thinks that line. --maru (talk) contribs 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable illustration

This edit added a Shrike illustration. This illustration was apparently never endorsed by the author or related publishers. It is consequently "fan-art". I have some reserves about the appropriateness of putting such an illustration. The Hyperion Cantos has never been transformed into a film or any other graphic form, thus the Shrike has no official apparence (besides occasional apparitions on book covers in various forms). To be honest, however well-meaning the illustration author was, the caption and copyright restrictions make it sounds more like a commercial plug..

I'll delete the illustration on the article page in the following days as we already have a Shrike on the book cover if there are no objections.

Gr Af Fi T^{Talk Contribs} 13:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Fan art is really inappropriate here. --Etacar11 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gr Af Fi T^{Talk Contribs} 14:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete article rewrite

This article should be about the Cantos as a whole, and not divided in sub articles already covered by their own pages for the two firsts. If there is no objection in a week, I'll delete the article and rewrite it in accordance to the project's guidelines. --SidiLemine 14:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be most welcomed as the current structure is confusing. Incidentally, I just created a stub for Endymion and discovered that The Rise of Endymion is only a Redirect to the Cantos itself. Unfortunately, I haventt read either of the later books yet, so this is as far as I can help... --Tikiwont 15:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Stubs for both Endymion and the Rise of Endymion are welcome, even if just to put in a setting and an infobox. I'll perform the split later on, leaving a succinct synopsis here and links to the different articles. Do you know if there are any guidelines/format to write articles about a series of novels? --SidiLemine 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about guidelines for a series of novels, I am just daddling around in Wikipedia since a few days and just finished reading The Fall of Hyperion. However, it seems to me that the two Hyperion novels and the two Endymion novels are quite different from each other and have recently been published in to respective 'Omnibus' editions. This 2+2 structure is something that you may want to mention / reflect also in the rewrite. --Tikiwont 16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you shouldn't be surprised. In Prayers to Broken Stones, Simmons mentions that when he started writing Endymion, it wasn't set in the Cantos. --Gwern (contribs) 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

$yD, what do you mean about redundant sub-articles? --Gwern (contribs) 16:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the character lists for Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion are present on the main articles for these novels. By the way, Hyperion won the Hugo prize. Doesn't that warrant "High" importance? --SidiLemine 10:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. In that case, I agree with both your sentences (although so many characters pop up or are repeatedly referenced it seems to me best to maintain a single list to avoid redundancy and lists drifting out of sync); and as far as importance goes, who knows how the projects grade that sort of thing? --Gwern (contribs) 16:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather, they're still very much discussing it, but for now they're quite far from having clear guidelines for SF works (last time I checked the discussion was still around how many books per classic author will get automatic "Top" importance). --SidiLemine 09:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's foolish. It's not like we are drowning in articles on books - we should be accepting as many articles as we can get. --Gwern (contribs) 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about foolish, but certainly there's still a lot of road to go. Moreover they're gone to throwing huge chunks of text at each other now, which almost always stalls any type of reflexion. Feel free to have a look. Actually, I think we might define a few guidelines as to rate importance of SF novels, and see what they think about it, what do you say?--SidiLemine 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. You would think it'd be pretty easy: High importance for anything winning a Nebula/Hugo etc., conditional highs for merely nominated (for example, the novels of The Book of the New Sun), default Medium for works by important authors like Asimov, Heinlein, Herbert, etc. and Low by default for everything else. --Gwern (contribs) 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Might be a little hard to adapt to the classics (you're not going to chase if every Shakespeare has been nominated for a prize in order to give him 'High' importance), but it's a start. We might just want to adjust for series by great authors (like, if only the first "foundation" by Asimov has had a prize, I guess the sequels are, if not top, at least High), as SF works very much by series. Is there already an importance assessment for the authors going on?--SidiLemine 09:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some author article, it looks like the only assessors are Biography project members. And as for series, well, I did say by default it'd be Medium. --Gwern (contribs) 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would agree. High importance works are almost universally singular and groundbreaking pieces of literature, while series placed in the same setting may be rather popular but only very rarely quite as important for historical or literary reasons. Special exceptions could be made for distinctly influential triologies or similar rarities consisting of basically one large work in multiple books. --84.186.202.26 17:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just delete the article. You'll lose the history that way. Please just do your rewrite, preferably in scratch space under your user page, and then update this article. There's no need for a delete. ... aa:talk 18:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. By delete, I just meant "remove unuseful stuff". But with a new job starting now, I guess it will be waaay longer than I scheduled... About series, there are a few in whitch no particular volume is of exceptional importance. LOTR comes to mind. --SidiLemine 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's close to OR to suggest so, but my personal feeling is that Fall of Hyperion is the most important to the story, when considered separate from the other novels. The first book is just window dressing on the second, as are the third and fourth. ... aa:talk 13:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first one is the one that had a Hugo Award, and to me the fourth is the most important, as it gives out the whole plot.... But I'm not really fond of that importance thing anyway.--SidiLemine 14:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The summary

Doing an overall summary would be quite tricky I'd imagine. There are a HUGE number of plot holes and inconstancies in this saga. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.134.249.34 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's not too bad if you are working internally in the Hyperion duology or Endymion, especially since I think a lot of the plot holes people have detected in the first duology were actually just ramifications of the 2 or 3 different contending futures; but unifying them is a headache, especially as Simmons has said Endymion was never originally meant to be in the Hyperion Cantos universe at all! --Gwern (contribs) 20:13 15 March 2007 (GMT)

Planets

Tsingtao-Hsishang Panna is missing, maybe a few others too. PAStheLoD 01:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hyperion cover.jpg

Image:Hyperion 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 Wikipedia: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) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

There are several articles, such as Hawking drive, Technocore, and Deathwand, which IMHO should be merged back into this one. Two of the three, in particular, are largely already covered within the scope of this one and could simply be replaced with redirects; the Technocore article should simply be rolled into this one at the appropriate point. Exerda (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "treeship" redirect here?

I don't know what a treeship is, and this article doesn't seem to help. So why does "treeship" redirect here? Please undo the redirect. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fixed. Redirect removed and cleaned-up article restored. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think treeship should be merged into this article. It's a concept important only to the Cantos (appearing as it does in practically every novel and short story), but there's no way it has notability on its own. In addition, it's never going to be anything more than a stub, so there's hardly any size-related reason to not merge it. --Gwern (contribs) 04:18 15 December 2008 (GMT)

If that's the case, then TREESHIP (if it's going to be a redirect) needs to be featured prominently in this article somewhere, such as in the Technology glossary. Frankly, I think it was idiotic that anyone even started an article called "Treeship," and it should actually be completely deleted. Since I didn't know how to delete the article or get it deleted, I removed the redirect and resurrected the article. If you know how to delete the article completely or request that it be deleted, please do so. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... you think it should be featured prominently, but it's idiotic to think it merits an article? OK, then. --Gwern (contribs) 23:11 16 December 2008 (GMT)

Was that sarcasm, or did you not get my meaning? "Treeship," before I restored the article on it (because I don't know how to request its complete deletion from Wikipedia), redirected here, even though there is absolutely no prominent mention of the word in this 34,000-byte article. That certainly did not work, and anyone (like me) who clicked on the Wikilink "treeship" from another completely unrelated article (on Hugh Jackman) wanting to know what it meant simply got an article on a vast science-fiction world with no definition of the word treeship. You yourself implied that there is no reason to have an article on "treeship." [I've since removed the word treeship from the Hugh Jackman article (it wasn't even accurate there, I since discovered).] So now, in my opinion, either the treeship article should stand as is, or should be deleted entirely. There should NOT be a redirect of a word to an article which either (1) is not a synonym or a clear superset of the word or (2) does not explain the word itself very prominently. I hope that was clearer. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check

Hyperion Cantos is two books - Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion - not four. This is the Hyperion Cantos; it's right there on the cover. Endymion and the Rise of Endymion are in the same universe, but were written years later. Even the Spanish language edition, released in 2008, includes only the original two books.[2] If this article is intended to address the entire body of Simmons's work in the Hyperion universe, it should be at a title that reflects that. Hyperion Cantos is a specific part of that story. As far as I am aware, there is no published version of a book entitled Hyperion Cantos that includes all four novels. Am I wrong? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If HC refers just to the duology, why do so many people think it refers to the full tetralogy, or the Hyperion universe?

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22hyperion+cantos%22+endymion --Gwern (contribs) 13:25 26 January 2010 (GMT)

I don't know. Lots of people think Sherlock Holmes said, "Elementary, my dear Watson", but that doesn't make them right, you know? It's not the sort of thing that popular opinion can change; Hyperion Cantos is just the two books. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language is its use, nothing else.

And your evidence is an edition from 1990, 6 years before Endymion? That is very stupid - how can an edition published before the 2 books in question say anything one way or another about whether the 2 books are part of the Cantos? We already know E&RE were not originally part of Simmons's story and became part of the series partway through, but that doesn't show they weren't also made part of the Cantos.

I also deplore your lack of researching - if describing the Cantos as 4 volumes is good enough for DanSimmons.com (http://www.dansimmons.com/about/pub_hist.htm), it's good enough for us. A simple site search would have turned that up: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22hyperion%20cantos%22%20site%3Adansimmons.com --Gwern (contribs) 15:46 26 January 2010 (GMT)

First of all, I'd appreciate it if you would avoid the name calling. There's no need to get so excited.

I referenced the 1990 edition because it's the one I have. I also pointed out a 2008 edition which hasn't changed. There are several other editions published in the 2000s that are the same. It really doesn't matter what Dan Simmons says, either; publishers name books. The book is the book. If there are no newer editions, then the book is still the book. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: I missed having you around. A much-belated welcome back. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 edition and others seem to be blind copies of the original 1990 edition. If we are to vaunt publisher data so much, then what do you make of Amazon listing "(Hyperion Cantos)" for Endymion and Rise of Endymion?

Common sense tells us that all 4 books form a quartet; we have scads of links which say the Cantos is 4 books; we have the author's own website describing it as 4 books - and to oppose all this, you have some obscure omnibus editions? This isn't even something to argue about.

As for coming back - I vow to be the same old surly, combative, know-it-all eventuo-inclusionist I always was! --Gwern (contribs) 18:36 26 January 2010 (GMT)

Amazon lists two Endymion audiobooks under Cantos, as a search term (but you'll notice the word "Cantos" does not actually appear anywhere on them). Of course common sense tells us that four books form a quartet; but common sense does not tell us that the Hyperion Cantos is necessarily a quartet. In fact, it's quite plain to see that the Cantos is two books. I don't need to analyze search terms and google results to reach that conclusion; I'm holding the book in my hand and I can see what it is. Unless you're holding a version in your hand that includes four books, it doesn't matter.

In the same vein, the Hitchhiker's Guide has a long history of sequels and upgraded editions. "The Complete Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is not, in fact, complete. To get all of the stories, you'd need "The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". More stories being published and included later doesn't change the fact that "The Complete Guide" is a specific set of books.

If fans of Hyperion (if those exist, it's news to me - I thought I was the only one, these long 20 years) refer to the entire storyline as the Hyperion Cantos, that's fine. It's similar to Star Wars fans referring to the entire storyline as Star Wars. But according to the intro, and the banner at the top of this talk page, this article is about the book, "Hyperion Cantos", not the overall universe. And the book, as it was originally published and is still published today, is a set of two. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{NovelsWikiProject|class=B|importance=Mid}}
-== Review of Hyperion ==
-I just picked up Hyperion a couple of days ago.
-This is a novel which is supposed to be science fiction, but isn't necessarily one. Its like calling Lord of the Rings a science fiction creation. This is mainly a story about seven people and their journey on a mysterious pilgrimage which is going to end in almost certain death for almost all of them. The sci-fi bits are thrown in to give the stories an added edge because it is supposed to be taking place on a distant planet (Hyperion) in the distant future. The same stories could have been told with reference to a pilgrimage to the pyramids for example. But would not have been much fun to read.
-I felt that the book borders on the witty and esoteric. Many of the characters tales are needlessly stretched. Some parts of those stories do not necessarily add up to the reason for their inclusion into this pilgrimage.
-All in all, it's a fun read. It flows well and keeps the suspense up. --Nilesh
 == Ummon ==
@@ Line 35: / Line 26: @@
 :::Thanks. I recently found why I thought that: [[The Fall of Hyperion]] follows Meina Gladstone in the early chapters, and one of her musings is on the curious Templar actions in which she thinks that line. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]]  [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-== Is the Hyperion universe set in the [[Ender's Game]] universe? ==
-I have read ender's game, and I have read the whole hyperion, and in reading these, I have noticed several items mentioned in the hyperion cantos that are of great importance in ender's game
-for example, the ansible, which apears in the first two books of the cantos, which one I can't remember, where in Sol Weintraub's dauther is doing math homework on one.
-the other notable peace is a referance by Martin Silenus to poetry done by the buggers, that was in the first book as I recall.
-can anyone confirm or clearify this for me? --Anon.
-:The word ansible appears in the book Hyperion once - '' 'More,' sighed Rachel.  'You don't know.  It's a dog-eat-dog world out there." She frowned.  'Have you seen my math ansible?  My room was all messed around.  I couldn't find anything."
-:The word bugger appears twice
-::'' 'Close,' said Silenus, opening his eyes and pouring more wine.  'It's Yeats.  Bugger lived five hundred years before Lenista tugged at her mother's metal teat."''
-::''We landed on a world already seeded by the poor buggers who'd gone indigenie two centuries before and were living hand to mouth and cudgel to brain wherever they could.''
-:None of thse are references to the Ender's Game universe. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-::And neither word was invented by either author... --[[User:Etacar11|<font face="Courier"><font color="#66CD00">Etacar11</font></font>]] 19:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-:::True. There are quite a number of problems with any such settings. For instance, why was there no farcasting or technocore in the Enderverse? How could their ansible be so different from the Hyperion one?  When did their histories diverge and who did it? &etc.  Utterly impossible. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]]  [[User talk:Marudubshinki|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki |contribs]] 22:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-::::in light of the quotes ou gentle poeple have pasted up i see the error of my assumption. i had untill recently thought that the term ansible was coined by Card, and the referance to the buggers i had thought was there seemed to be based on a misinterpritation(sp?). thanks for clairifing.
-:::::If you were curious about the origins of the terms, ansible is an homage to Ursula Leguin's Hainish books.  Bugger is a derogatory term for a homosexual man, adopted in Ender's Game due to the insectoid nature of their enemies (Which is why there are several references to the term not being considered polite, and why it's later replaced with "formic"). [[User:71.212.40.117|71.212.40.117]] 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
-::::::Although 'bugger' in England does technically mean a homosexual man, it can be used in all but the most polite conversations.  It's completely accetable to refer to 'the silly buggers' or 'that stupid bugger' without the homosexual reference even being implied.  It essentially only means 'annoying person'
 == Questionable illustration ==
@@ Line 112: / Line 79: @@
 ::::Well, the first one is the one that had a Hugo Award, and to me the fourth is the most important, as it gives out the whole plot.... But I'm not really fond of that importance thing anyway.--[[User:$yD!|SidiLemine]] 14:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
-== The summery ==
+== The summary ==
-Doing an overall summery would be quite tricky I'd imagine. There are a HUGE number of plot holes and inconstancies in this saga. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/66.134.249.34|66.134.249.34]] ([[User talk:66.134.249.34|talk]]) 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
+Doing an overall summary would be quite tricky I'd imagine. There are a HUGE number of plot holes and inconstancies in this saga. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/66.134.249.34|66.134.249.34]] ([[User talk:66.134.249.34|talk]]) 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
 :It's not ''too'' bad if you are working internally in the ''Hyperion'' duology or ''Endymion'', especially since I think a lot of the plot holes people have detected in the first duology were actually just ramifications of the 2 or 3 different contending futures; but unifying them is a headache, especially as Simmons has said Endymion was never originally meant to be in the Hyperion Cantos universe at all! --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 20:13 [[15 March]] [[2007]] (GMT)
-== Diskey ==
-I always read "diskey" as "Display/Keypad". Mostly the characters seem to look at it or manipulate it somehow. Many devices supposedly contain one. [[User:82.128.209.163|82.128.209.163]] 10:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-: I agree with that interpretation, although I would expand the term as "Display/Keyboard". It appears to be some sort of a touchscreen. --[[User:Mfichtner|Mfichtner]] 00:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-::Strange. I always parsed it as "Disk/Key" - a combination of storage and input/output, like a laptop almost. --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 15:44 [[28 September]] [[2007]] (GMT)
 == Planets ==