Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Anvil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This article is totally POV. (IMHO Anvil's "excellent" prose clunks like a very clunky thing, but never mind that.) Lee M 01:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It sure does ... One note: "Pandora's Planet" is most readily available in the book version of Pandora's Planet (collecting all the stories from the series), which is downloadable from the Baen Free Library - David Gerard 18:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep: it's my point of view. But feel free to add your own stuff and change anything you feel I got wrong. I don't consider it 'my' page, I just started it because it was on the 'requested pages' list. - Simon Slavin 01:53, 04 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Clunky Thing

[edit]

Well, here is part of Joanna Russ's review of Pandora's Planet (in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, February 1973) for another view of Anvil's excellent prose:

PANDORA’S PLANET by Christopher Anvil turns on one naive joke: that we are smarter than the aliens who invade us. Human chauvinism seems fairly harmless — after all, how many giant ants have been demonstrating for civil rights lately — but PANDORA does not really include all humans. If “America” is geography and “Amerika” the radical-left nightmare, then PANDORA is pure Amurrica — women, children, non-whites, non-Americans, homosexuals, the poor, even the genuinely religious, need not apply. Even the invading aliens (to judge from the book’s details) are white, male, American, middle-class, and middle-aged. A fan writer recently characterized one type of s.f. fan as The Galactic Square. PANDORA’S PLANET is written for The Galactic Square. If we lived in a sensuous, emotional, erotically permissive, egalitarian, heterogenous, more-or-less matriarchy, Mr. Anvil’s novel would be a stunning piece of speculation. I’ve been kind to routine s.f. in the past, but PANDORA doesn’t have the energy or luridness that can make s.f. stereotypes minimally interesting. The central joke isn’t even new; a fine story written in the 1950s from the viewpoint of a human con-man ends with the aliens being sold the Brooklyn Bridge. And then one has to put up with PANDORA’s conviction that intelligence means only technical or military ingenuity, with emphasis on the latter (Einstein would not be at home here), that all humans have I.Q.s of 130 or above, that a deus ex machina is a good way to end a dramatic conflict (the book has two of them), and that Communism and Fascism are silly-simple decals. The only funny episode in the novel is one in which the alien hero undergoes a spell of deep depression brought on by watching TV.

Honestly, I have never read anything Anvil wrote, so I can't say either way, but the review amused me and I came here for more information. Idontcareanymore (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find her complaints rather puzzling. The story is written from the POV of the alien commander who knows nothing about human races and understands little about human sex, and is not too bright. Naturally he would not make distinctions about white vs non-white, Americans vs non-Americans, homosexuals vs heterosexuals, or various religions ( A lot of Americans can't be fine distinctions among various Muslims). To him they are simply humans, and very puzzling.CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christopher Anvil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV and sources

[edit]

Currently, this article is sourced pretty much exclusively to the various introductions and afterwards in the Baen books reprint collections of Anvil's works. Those are all by people who are acknowledged to be strong fans of Anvil's work, and most of them are not independent in that they were working to get Anvil republished, as part of their employment. I happen to agree with most of what they wrote, and own some of the reprint editions, but this is not a proper basis for a wikipedia article. Indeed it could be argued that as it stands at this moment the article doesn't even establish the notability of the subject. I do think Anvil is notable, but the article needs yto be improved to better establish this. It also needs better balance between supporters and those with other views. Citing the Russ review quoted above might be part of the fix for that. i am going to but some tags on the article until i can improve it (or others do so). DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Anvil&oldid=1217243755"