Talk:Hyperion Cantos

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.[1] 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

It's not just all the fans on Simmons's personal forum (strangely, he has yet to correct them that the Hypercion Cantos is a duology rather than a tetralogy), or Simmons's own description; it's all the reviews and whatnot.

As I said, it doesn't matter if a rare 1989 printing, and re-printings every couple years, claim to be the Hyperion Cantos or not. They are out-dated. Simmons has said that when he was writing Hyperion & Fall, he didn't have Endymion & Rise in mind. (He says this in the author notes to the Siri story in Prayers to Broken Stones, incidentally.) They came later. To use a Star Wars example, it'd be like asking George Lucas in 1977 whether Star Wars was 1 movie or 6 - he doesn't have a freaking clue whether A New Hope will be successful enough to merit 1 sequel, much less 5, and certainly he hasn't actually written or thought out what would go into them.

What matters is authorial intent, and Simmons's website gives his intent pretty darn clearly. Adams gave his intent about the Trilogy (rather than heptology or whatever) by things like joking about how he calls it a trilogy even though it has 4 or 5 books in it. Why privilege your random book over the author's description in the case of Simmons, but not Adams? --Gwern (contribs) 21:47 30 January 2010 (GMT)

What do you mean, my book? I didn't publish it.

Look - just show me the ISBN of a book called Hyperion Cantos that contains all four stories, and we're done here. Can you do that? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As soon as you show me a statement by Simmons post- Endymion that the Cantos is 2 books. --Gwern (contribs) 22:42 31 January 2010 (GMT)

Yeah, that's what I thought. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Kafziel, I have no idea where you got the idea that this article was about a 2 book compilation, or even about any single published work. Further evidence that the Cantos is 4 books long, see the covers to Endymion, and The Rise of Endymion. Endymion's cover calls it "The long-awaited sequel to Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion". And the cover of Rise of Endymion features the gem "The triumphant conclusion to the Hyperion Series". And, to further support the idea that the Cantos is all 4 books, the Cantos written in the books themselves contains the text of the entire second duology (as we read it), as written by Raul Endymion, and contain an account of the events of the first two books as recorded by Martin Silenus. So despite your bizarre objection to the second two books, they remain a part of the Hyperion Cantos.--DriftingLeaf (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys: I really don't understand all the hostility here. I haven't even edited the article! But "The Hyperion Cantos" is a compilation of Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion. That's a demonstrable fact. And, as I've already said, "If fans of Hyperion 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." Star Wars was a book, and is also the overall universe. No reason it can't be both. I have no problem with Endymion's place in the canon (or the cantos, as it were). But there was a book published under this title, and there was not a book published with all four. The French and Spanish versions of Hyperion Cantos (Les Cantos d'Hypérion and Los Cantos de Hyperion, respectively) still include only the Hyperion books, as recently as 2008. At the very least, it deserves some clarification, i.e. "the term may refer to the overall storyline, or to the first two books published together as a set."

I'm giving you real-world facts that require absolutely no interpretation (such as ISBNs) and you guys are giving me personal attacks, uncivil remarks, quotes from chat rooms, and conclusions you've drawn from your personal interpretations. An example of the latter:

Endymion's cover calls it "The long-awaited sequel to Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion".

It certainly does. But I don't see the word "Cantos" anywhere in there.

And the cover of Rise of Endymion features the gem "The triumphant conclusion to the Hyperion Series"

Ditto. Where's the word "Cantos"?

I'm not arguing against Endymion's inclusion in the Hyperion canon. Of course it's a sequel. Of course it's part of the series. Of course Endymion deals with the Cantos. And if unpublished sources refer to the whole series as the Hyperion Cantos, that's fine. But as far as I know the phrase "Hyperion Cantos"—in the real world, not in relation to the fictional characters of Raul Endymion or Martin Silenus—has not been officially used by any publisher to refer to four books. I repeat my original question from waaaaaay back up in my first post: Am I wrong? Just show me the ISBN and we're done here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the hostility (though I made no attacks against you personally). I do apologize for that: it seemed a necessity at the time. I agree with you; there should be clarification that this article is about the series as a whole. I wish that point could have been made a while ago actually. Maybe we should remove the image at the top of the page (which is from one of the book's covers) and perhaps add a grouping of all four covers since this article is about the series as a whole? And now that we are beyond this petty bickering (I will own up to being petty if the rest of you will. No one likes having their positions challenged after all, its a natural response.) can we please fix the multiple, glaring, REAL¹ problems this article has, such as the fact that entire plot of all the novels is duplicated here and on each 'main' article, or the fact that the character lists really should have their own page, or that the whole thing is a massive (mostly) un-formatted (poorly written) wall of text?

¹: Real, as in, fundamental. Not an implication that this problem is insignificant.

--DriftingLeaf (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

About root cause of the hostility, I think it comes from the section title of your original edit, "Reality Check".--DriftingLeaf (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've said anything petty. The question is fundamental to the article, and all I've done is ask it. The phrase "reality check" is not an insult; the title of the section refers to the fact that the article currently deals with excessive fictional aspects of the story, not the real-life aspects of the books' publications. According to the introduction to the article, as well as the categories and the Wikiproject Novels header at the top of this page, the article is about the book series, not the in-universe story arc. As you say, it's a problem. It could be solved with clarification (and possibly a separate page or section to deal with each meaning of the term) and to be fair I did make that point almost a week ago.[2]

I'm going to make some adjustments and try to clear things up. Don't worry, I'm not here to ruin the Cantos article - it's the best science fiction series of all time, after all. It just needs a little space between fact and fiction. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a little cleaner and smoother now. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cutting out the chaff

I think that we should split this up into smaller articles, for example, "Planets of the Hyperion Cantos" should probably be its own article, for the sake of space, if nothing else. The summaries of each book should probably be removed, since all of the main articles for the books contain (overly) extensive summaries of each book. Does anyone have any ideas on how we could reduce the length of the character lists? (Perhaps we should remove that to a separate article as well?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DriftingLeaf (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Split the planets section into Planets of the Hyperion Cantos. Cut the summaries down and removed the character lists; all that info is available in each book's main article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Number

People keep saying "the Hyperion Cantos is...". Is there a reason it's said that way and not "the Hyperion Cantos are"? --DocumentN (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be the British usage, I think. ('The government are considering his proposal...'); as Simmons is American so far as I know, and likely most of the editors of the HC pages, American usage is the way to go. --Gwern (contribs) 00:59 3 March 2010 (GMT)

Major revisions

I will be beginning a major revising of this article on March 13, 2012, as part of a personal project to improve all articles related to the series. dci | TALK 19:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing it. Happy to help if you need. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit behind schedule, I'm afraid, but I'll get going on this one soon. This is DCI, but I am not logged in. dci | TALK 22:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(I added my signature to avoid any confusion)

Technology

A technology section was part of the page for a while but was recently cut, I've restored it because I think it added quite a lot to the explanation of the setting and if there's going to be a section listing all the planets why not the key technologies? They play a big part in the story. Also having a technology section is a common part of SF pages in general.