Talk:Kim Stanley Robinson

Bibliography.

Is there anyone watching this page? Do you think it would be worth attempting a bibliography, specifically to include short stories (which are much harder to find)? Jon Dowland

I think the format of the bibliography now there leaves something to be desired. I don't know if it is worth hunting down short stories unless there are more short story collections not already listed, or short stories in other authors' collections. --ssd 05:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biblio info: [1] and [2]. — Jeandré, 2005-03-22t11:51z

Thank you :) I mainly think that there would be use in listing together which aren't in collections already. But, I am very new to all this. Currently focussing on the (less developed) Greg Egan entry. Jon Dowland

I've expanded on this entry quite extensively now, does anyone have an addition in mind that isn't there? Alex

The short story bibliography is nice and extensive, but might benefit from a rethink and a reorganization. How useful is it to list all the stories collected in "The Martians"? How many of these were published independently, which is usually what we think of when we think of short stories? And perhaps organizing them by year of original publication - with a citation for that publication - would be more useful than having them in alphabetical order. If any one has a list of citations, I would be happy to put them in order and format them appropriately...Zerodeconduite (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

10:01, 9 May 2005 203.213.143.122

Sorry for the rv. I understand why you did your edit but I felt it was heavy-handed, there was some factual basis that was worth preserving. I hope my attempt is NPOV enough. Jon Dowland 20:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Important works

I think the ratio of published to 'important' works is weighted too heavily on the important side. I plan to remove at least The Martians, which compared with TYORAS or the mars trilogy is hardly important (IT could be considered part of the mars trilogy). I also have reservations over Antarctica. Remember that when book 2 or 3 of the capital code trilogy are published that will almost certainly considered important.

I have not examined critical or commercial aspects of the collection, though it seems to be of lesser importance and is probably best treated as an addendum to the trilogy. So I've moved The Martians under the trilogy but still under its own (rather prominent) header. A-giau 01:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

Did the President of his Fan Club write the current revision of this article? It practically gushes with praise and subjectivity rather than the more useful objective and factual form of an encyclopaedia article. 12.June.2005

Any suggestions for improvements? It has been toned down a lot. -- Jon Dowland 12:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I realise the above comments are rather old, but I must agree with the original poster - the article still appear very subjective to me.

As an example (there are plenty more) take the following snippet from the introduction: "[he] is considered by many to be one of the finest living writers of science fiction or of any genre." We require references for such statements.

Mind you, I also think highly of KSR, but this is an encylopedia, not an author fan site. - Kaare 16:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Just playing the devil's advocate here--to what degree are such statements acceptable? I mean, if an author is in fact widely acclaimed and considered one of the top living figures in his genre, why shouldn't the article say so? Why shouldn't famous and influential artists be acknowledged as such in their articles? Isn't that information about them as valid as any other? As for references, how do you reference "wide acclaim" or opinions held by "many"? The article on The Beatles begins with this sentence: "The Beatles were a pop and rock music group from Liverpool, England, who continue to be held in the very highest regard for their artistic achievements, their huge commercial success, and their groundbreaking role in the history of popular music. Made up of John Lennon (1940-1980), Paul McCartney (born 1942), George Harrison (1943-2001) and Ringo Starr (born 1940), the group's innovative music, films, and style helped define the 1960s." Now, I don't think that's referenced, but I don't think anyone expects it to be. Where is the line between common knowledge of an artist's status and "POV" that has to be referenced? The Beatles are the first example that came to mind but I bet there are many examples of famous figures whose articles acknowledge their status. It almost seems to me as if the people trying to keep such statements out of some articles and accusing them of being "POV" are perhaps people who disagree with the statements (even if they are in the minority in doing so) and are exerting their own POV in a different way by campaigning to keeps such acknowledgements out. For something as famous as The Beatles it's not as easy to get away with, but for a more modest level of fame like one of the foremost writers of science fiction it's an easier target for detractors to come in and keep out statements they don't like, calling it POV as if to suggest that a minority of fans is exaggerating the subject's status. Just a theory. Any thoughts? thoreaubred 04:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While the Beatles comments are probably officially against wikipedia policy, I think they get away with it because it is an opinion that is almost universally held. See the entries on Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke for articles about 'greats' of SF. At the end of the day I think there is controversy because the status of KSR's work is disputed. Some think he's great, others think he just okay, other think he's a lefty-propogandist. Because of this, I think, we are obliged to insist on sources when providing evaluation so as too avoid constant editing.

Rather than saying 'he's one of the best writers', if we just say 'he won 2 Hugos, 3 Xs & 3 Ys' , 'has sold x thousand copies' & 'and Analog magazine says he's the greatest SF author in 20 years' the anti-KSR editors have nothing to complain about. Ashmoo 04:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But is there really controversy, or is there a vocal minority that simply wishes there were controversy? It's not about whether "some think he's great, others think he's just okay"--that's a question of people's personal opinions or the quality of his work, which something entirely different than whether someone is willing to objectively acknowledge the status of his work (I've met several people who don't like The Beatles, but does that mean there is controversy about whether The Beatles' status is really what most people think it is? Inndividuals can dislike The Beatles while their status remains what it is.) And that's pretty much my point: it often seems to me in cases like this that the "controversy" is being contrived by a vocal minority who wish to impose their personal opinions upon the larger status of an artist, attempting to suppress any acknowledgement of that status simply because they don't like it. As for the "lefty propagandist" thing, I think that's an even smaller and more vocal minority, and again it seems to me like propaganda itself. No serious person with even a casual understanding of the history of literature would look at a body of work like Robinson's and make the claim, with a straight face, that his work is merely leftist propaganda. There's a difference between propaganda veiled as literature and serious work that happens to have been written by a person with a leftist perspective. And in the history of literature there have been artists who were much more overtly leftist than Robinson is who have retained their status without any susbtantial number of serious individuals willing to make the claim that their work is merely leftist propaganda. It's notions like that that lead me to suspect that this is all about reverse propaganda to begin with. And I'm addressing Jon Downland's comment below as well. I'm not saying that anyone who advocates for a neutral article is automatically anti-KSR. What I do suspect is that it's easier for a small minority of people who wish that KSR's status was more in line with their personal opinion of him to attempt to exploit the idea of neutrality in order to suppress any mention of his status than it is for such a minority to do so in cases of artists who are even more famous. But if you look at the articles of Clarke and Asimov, as Ashmoo suggested we do, they both acknowledge their subjects' status, calling them things like "by consensus a master of the science fiction genre" and "one of the Big Three of science fiction." How do you source "consensus"? You don't; you just just expect reasonable people to agree upon it. It's kind of like global warming: you can find people who deny it, but none of them are scientists. Well, you can find people who deny Robinson's status, but are they experts or enthusiasts of science fiction or literature, or are they just individual readers who don't like his writing or don't like his politics and wish to impose the opinion of the minotiry by suppressing the opinion of the majority, citing the technicality of "POV"? thoreaubred 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be "anti-KSR" to desire a neutral treatment for this article. -- Jon Dowland 13:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was just providing a worst-case-scenario. I personally like KSR myself, but do think this article needs to be more NPOV. Ashmoo 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the day, thoreaubred , the fact that you are having this discussion with a number of editors shows that his status is not agreed upon. If we insist on Verifiability, we don't need to have these long discussions. Ashmoo 04:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion taking place proves that there is "controversy" about his status. It only means that at least one person questioned whether his status should be acknowledged and at least one person responded. If someone wanted to remove the so-called POV from The Beatles article, I would respond the same way, and a discussion would surely ensue, but would that suddenly mean that there is controversy over the status of The Beatles? I think your point, while well-meaning, is fallacious. And I repeat that there is no way to verify consensus. And I also repeat that I bet if I went and looked at the talk pages of Clarke, Asimov, or any of thousands of other significant figures in the history of various arts and genres, many of those talk pages would not contain complaints about POV just because the articles acknowledge their subject's significance. Finally, I would fully cooperate with revising the language used to try to get more to the precise nature of Robinson's significance and away from words like "finest". I'm only arguing that some level of status acknowledgement should be acceptable. And if there is an official Wikipedia policy stating otherwise, I disagree with that policy, and as the entire concept of Wikipedia appears to be pretty democratic in the first place, I wouldn't shy away from challenging "official" policies. thoreaubred 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to get sidetracked, but I only care about verifiability. Please see WP:Verifiability. Your final comments confuse me. I'm afraid you are going to have to abide by wikipedia policy if you want to use it. Please don't 'challenge' wikipedia policy in your edits to this page. Ashmoo 05:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines is vague and contradictory. It says "Our policies keep changing, and their interpretation as well" and suggests that policies are determined by consensus (i.e. they can be challenged and debated--how else is consensus reached? How else do the policies "keep changing" and remain open to interpretation?) Yet it goes on to say "a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies may be reprimanded, even if no rule has technically been violated." Therefore it appears to me that not only are the policies vague and open to interpretation, but so is the policy on policies itself. When I say that a policy should be challeneged, I'm referring to a careful combination of debate on the talk page and implementation of multiple interpretations of the policy on the article itself. After all, the current language in the article that you seem to think is in violation of the policy has yet remained in the article. Why hasn't it been removed and the person who put it there "reprimanded"? Isn't it a challenge to that policy every time someone puts statements like the ones in question here into an article, whether that person is well-meaning and not even aware that they are violating a policy, is confused by the vagueness and contradictions in the policy, or is aware of the policy but disagrees and believes that the consensus may be changing? After all, if Clarke, Asimov, and The Beatles--all three examples that I've looked at and talked about in this discussion--all contain language that is supposedly in violation of the policy, is it not possible that the policy itself is out of date and that actual consensus as widely practiced by editors is that such language makes sense and should be acceptable? It's not clear to me how consensus is supposed to be reached and determined, and when I talk about challenging the policy I'm not talking about anything dramatic or disruptive, I'm talking about people doing what they think makes sense and letting the consensus emerge (as it seems to have emerged that pretty much every article about a significant artistic figure currently acknowledges that figure's significance.) thoreaubred 06:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple more comments and then I'm done for the day.

One is that this discussion has caused me to read more deeply into Wikipedia's pages about policies, and how and why they are to be debated or changed. It seems to me that the policies are not as strict as you make them out to be, but are closer to my conception of being eternally up for debate and challenge, and I see that opinions similar to mine have been expressed on some of these pages (though the specifics in question here have not been addressed as far as I can see at this time.) When I get time I hope to bring up the precise question of how to handle references to an artist's status on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy).

My second comment is more of a question for you, as to how you think matters of consensus about an artist's status should be verified. For example, should specific literary critics be used as sources? Obviously one couldn't use just one critic as a published source to verify consensus, or "wide acclaim" or anything like that. Then, should ten critics be used? If ten critics have expressed the opinion that Robinson is one of the leading figures in science fiction, should there be ten sources for that, adding up to "consensus" or "wide acclaim"? What about two critics? Or are twenty required? Or are critics not valid sources at all? Does a source have to be more academic? Can I use Kim Stanley Robinson's doctoral thesis about Philip K. Dick as a source to make references to PKD's contributions to science fiction in the PKD article? Do I then have to wait for someone to write a doctoral thesis on Robinson before we can acknowledge Robinson's contributions? I really just don't understand how something like this is supposed to be verified, and I'm sincerely curious about your opinion of how this should be handled. Or, if this specific problem has been addressed already somewhere on Wikipedia that I have overlooked (it seems like a problem that would have come up a long time ago, and discussed at some point if it is indeed in conflict with an official policy) could you direct me to that page so that I can see what discussion has already taken place about this problem? thoreaubred 07:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond in length tomorrow, but until then could I just ask you to try to limit the length of your posts? Looking through your last few, it is hard to tell which questions are aimed at me and other editors, which questions are just retorical and which parts of your post are just stream-of-conciousness wonderings. Pls don't think I'm taking a jibe, it's just that I've having trouble working out what you are asking or saying in a lot of cases.

Regarding WP policies and guidelines. My impression is that while policies can be changed, the existing policies must be obeyed. for example, you can be banned from editing for violating the 3 Revert Rule. Guidelines on the other hand are just that. Will talk more about it soon (although this talk page isn't the place for it). Ashmoo 07:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thoreaubred, your replies are quite overwhelming, so I have to ask this: Do you agree that this article must follow e.g. the WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY policies? If "no", I think you should take that discussion up elsewhere. - Kaare 16:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Themes - one to add?

It may or may not be worth mentioning that at least two of the novels (Icehenge and the Mars trilogy) explore the impact of greatly extended human life and, the part I find interesting, the implications of limited memory where people only know the past X years of their own life and can only discover it by researching what they have done in the past. Near the end of Icehenge there is a very nice summary of the ideas.

Perhaps someone can add to the list of themes, impact on humans of greatly extended life. However as it's only discussed much in two of the novels that I'm aware of, and briefly in The Martians, it's a judgement call I will leave to others--and I'll leave the actual writing to others, since I would be embarassed to see my own prose in an article about KSR ;)

Astrophil 07:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes--I agree. Human longevity appears in many of KSR's works including the Mars trilogy and in his most recent work Aurora. I will look for proper citations and if so will add it. Jaldous1 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

I recently removed a sentence from the criticism section that was subsequently reverted. I re-reverted it. Here's my reasoning: Like most 'criticism' sections in wikipedia, once someone has written in some criticism, supporters come along and add multiple sentences of 'counter' to the criticism. This one is no different, there is 1 sentence of criticism and 5 sentences of counter-criticism. Also, the 'Christian Republicans in Space' comment, while amusing, is, I think, as bit to snarky for an encyc article (especially as it is attributed to 'some critics' rather than an actual person). Finally, the sentence I removed doesn't really add any new information, but is really just an opinion that the reader could form themselves upon reading the criticism. Let's keep the Criticism section about actual criticism, not apologetics. Ashmoo 23:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Whould someone find a more reliable source for the critisim than "some amazon readers" as that is a very vague sentence.

I agree. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, the entire criticism section currently sounds to me like someone's own POV being represented as the opinion of some vague, unnamed contingent of the general public. Amazon readers doesn't cut it. Someone could get their own POV in by posting a review on Amazon and then referring to their own review as criticism by "Amazon readers". I don't want to have to read every reader review on Amazon to see if the phrase "Marxist and Green propaganda" shows up even once, let alone more than once, in order to get to the bottom of this. It may seem rash, but for now I'm gonna go ahead and remove the entire Criticism section from the current article until someone can come up with something more serious. By all means, if there is serious criticism out there (and I'm sure it can be found) then a serious article should include it. I would suggest looking into the way society looks down upon utopian literature as a starting point for a section on criticism of Robinson's themes or methods (Robinson has responded to such attitudes in interviews, so let's find the attitudes he's responding to.) "Marxist and Green propaganda" just doesn't sound like something a serious person would say and it's about time for it to go. thoreaubred 03:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Planned Edits

Hey, everyone. I'm a big fan of this author and know quite a bit about him and have been meaning to do some major work on this article for some time. I just haven't gotten around to it because of the sheer amount of it that I would like to do. I'm hoping to start doing some of it soon, so I just want to give advance warning before I go on an editing spree.

Some of the smaller things I want to do:

• Change book covers to American editions because the author is American.
• Remove unsourced "criticism" that, until sourced, seems suspiciously like the POV of whoever added it in the first place. For example, "Marxist and Green propaganda" is in quotation marks but is not sourced, and sounds amateurish.
• General tweaks to biography and increased detail, including parallels between his life and his work (for example, living in a planned community similar to the one depicted in Pacific Edge, and the story of how he thought of the Three Californias project while driving through Camp Pendleton.)
• External Links: There are a few interviews included among the links. I have compiled a list of over 30 online interviews of the author and would like to add a separate list, below the External Links list, of interviews (either all 30+ or just the longest ones with the most content.)
• Others that I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Some of the larger things I would like to do will follow... thoreaubred 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi... I know these comments are a little old, but I just thought I'd respond to the phrase 'American editions'... if you mean the first published editions (which were presumably American given the KSR nationality, and probably closest to his own vision) then thats cool and should be in the article; however replacing perfectly decent covers of current editions simply as they just happen to be European rather than American seems to me to be a little, well, imperialist.

Of course if KSR is on record as saying he prefers one set of covers to another then thats also a great reson to have images of that set. --Neo 14:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The other issues are more important than covers. So long as they are real covers of English editions, that's good enough for me.A-giau 03:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which if any of these edits happened--but I am currently going through the entire article piece by piece to add citations. 21:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaldous1 (talk • contribs)

Mars: Trilogy or Novel?

The three volume work, Red Mars/Green Mars/Blue Mars, is widely known as a "trilogy". However, in multiple interviews the author has saiud that he considers it one novel in three volumes, and had casually referred to it as "the Mars novel". I plan on finding sources online and changing references to the "Mars trilogy" to something like "the three-volume Mars novel". Another tricky aspect of this, which I'm not entirely sure what to do about because I'm not an expert on every aspect of Wikipedia, is how to go about changing the separate article on the "Mars trilogy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy) to an article about the "Mars novel." In both cases, I will include something like, "While the author considers Mars to be one novel in three volumes, most people know it as a trilogy and it is popularly referred to as "the Mars trilogy". thoreaubred 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My advice is to say that he views it as an extended novel, but not try to tell people they're in error if they call it a trilogy. It is sold as three books, after all, and I think it's fair to say that *most* trilogies make sense when viewed as one long novel. JM2C.

Mark Foskey 05:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Three Californias: Trilogy or Triptych?

Mr. Robinson has also said in multiple interviews that the Three Californias series is not a trilogy but is something more like a "triptych". I will find these sources and change the word to triptych in the article. thoreaubred 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have to advise against changing the 'trilogy' terminology. Many trilogies started out as a single book and were split into three. Additionally, the term 'trilogy' as it is commonly understood adequately covers what Robinson has done in the Mars/California series. I think he is just making the distinction to illustrate a point and changing the wording in these articles would just confuse things.

I think the best thing to do is just add a line quoting how he doesn't consider it a trilogy. Ashmoo 00:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

But why should the word "trilogy" be retained when it's not officially considered a trilogy? The books themselves don't say "Three Californias Trilogy" on them, they just say "Three Californias". The only official source as to what they should be called is Robinson himself who calls them a triptych. A possible compromise would be to add the line about how he calls it a triptych but also remove the word "trilogy" from the heading, so the heading simply says "Three Californias". thoreaubred 00:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I'm not that familiar with the California books, my comments were more for the Mars books. My concern is the use of idiosyncratic terms when a more standard term will convey the meaning. I think calling it a 'series' may be better. 'Triptych' is a term only used by Robinson. By analogy, Spike Lee would often called his movies 'joints' (including on the ad material), but we wouldn't expect the wiki article to refer to consistently refer to them as such. Ashmoo 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

However, "joint" is far more idiosyncractic than "triptych" or "three-volume novel", as Spike Lee is probably the only person to call any kind of artistic work a joint. A triptych (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triptych) is a type of visual art that Robinson is transferring over to literature (it wouldn't be the first time that terms originally describing visul art were used to describe written art). Robinson wouldn't make the disction that it's a trypich vs. a trilogy in the first place if he didn't believe that the word trilogy isn't an accurate description of the structure of Three Californias, and that triptych does a better job describing the work. There is a first time for everything, and just because Robinson may be the first to use the word triptych to describe a written work doesn't make it idiosyncratic in the way that "joint" is. In the case of the Mars novel, the three-volume novel is an actual form, though it was far more common in previous centuries than it is today. Again, Robinson makes the distinction because he feels that the word trilogy is wrong for the work, as he wrote it as one novel and thinks of it as one novel. Perhaps I'll track down his own words about this stuff and post them here on the talk page so that you can see for yourself his reasons for making the distinctions. thoreaubred 03:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well 'joint' is a term often used by African-American artists for their work, so it would actually be less idiosyncratic. I've read the Mars books and they seem as much a trilogy as many other 'trilogies' I've read. For instance, how is Mars any less of a trilogy than Lord Of The Rings? Even amazon sells them as 'The Mars Trilogy'. Ashmoo 04:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Lord Of The Rings was written as one novel and was divided into three volumes by the publisher. So indeed, whether to call Lord Of The Rings a trilogy is also up for debate. The difference between LOTR and Mars is that while Tolkien wrote the entire novel before giving it to the publisher, Robinson anticipated that publishers would never publish a 2,000-page work as one novel, knew he was going have to make it three volumes, and went ahead and published the earlier volumes as he was still writing the later volumes. The other difference is that, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_rings , Tolkien sometimes referred to LOTR as a trilogy and other times rejected the word, whereas Robinson has more consistently rejected the word in favor of the word novel. thoreaubred 04:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I say that things are what they are, whatever the author chooses to call them. The 3 Californias books are not a typical trilogy precisely because they *are* 3 different novels, happening in 3 different futures starting from the same "present" (ca 1982). I think that's why he calls them a triptych. But you can't just go calling them a triptych as if that's the term for that sort of thing, since it's a usage that he made up. Mark Foskey 05:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Science Fiction

There has long been controversy over how to describe Robinson's work, as many people have felt that its quality stands out from other science fiction in various ways. People have called it things such as "literary science fiction" while Robinson himself has rejected such labels and defended plain old "science fiction". I previously addressed this in a minor edit, but I would like to also add a small section in the article that outlines Robinson's philosophy of science fiction and perhaps of literature in general, using quotes from interviews, from his doctoral thesis on Philip K. Dick, and from other things he's written about science fiction and literature in general. This section would address the reasons so many people want to call his work something other than science fiction, and then would answer those reasons with quotes from the author himself. This section would also propose "utopian fiction" or "utopian science fiction" as another legitimate label that the author would arguably not have a problem with, as it describes the leaning of his work without implying a superiority to other science fiction. thoreaubred 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this idea is sound, apart from the "utopian fiction" idea, which would be speculative, OR and also doesn't accurately describe all of KSR's work at all, just the well-known ones. -- Jon Dowland 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was rather surprised by the categorical designation as "hard science fiction". Surely much fo Robinson's work combines hard and soft science fiction? Susume 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody really agrees on what a definition of Hard SF is, it's not worth really worrying about. -- Jon Dowland 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Major Works?

Someone previously pointed out that too many of Robinson's works were included as "major works". That person proposed removing The Martians, which I agree with, though it should be mentioned briefly at the end of the Mars section. I would also propose removing The Years of Rice and Salt. What qualifies a work as a major work? Perhaps the "major works" section should be removed completely, and replaced with a "multi-volume works" section, which would contain Mars, Three Californias, and the current trilogy (sometimes called the Capital Code series, sometimes called the Science In The Capital series; neither has been verified. thoreaubred 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Complete Bibliography

I don't like the way that instead of having a list of novels in bibliography format, there is the Major Works section and then the Other Novels section. I would like to keep the Major Works section but remove the Other Novels section and replace it with a complete bibliography. thoreaubred 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

From the perspective of someone porting elements of this article to another Wikipedia language (zh-min-nan:), I too favor a complete bibliography, at least of significant works. The "major themes" section could also come earlier rather than trailing a lengthy bibliography. A-giau 03:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Wikipedians who enjoy Kim Stanley Robinson's work should consider deploying this userbox {{User:Erielhonan/UBX/KSR}} on their user page to be included in Category:Wikipedians who read Kim Stanley Robinson. This userbox and category were started to create a wikicommunity that will strive to keep articles about KSR and his work up-to-date and up to Wikipedia standards. -- Erielhonan 23:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Major themes: Communism?

Does anyone have any references supporting the idea that KSR's visions are communist? There's a clear utopian thread throughout his works, but as far as I can tell the word communist is never used in the writings to describe these ideas. It's a loaded word that conjures up images of Leninism or Stalinism, but even the most fully-formed utopian works by KSR are nothing like historical communism. In Pacific Edge, probably his most well-developed utopian work, the economic system seems to involve a minimum income for everyone regardless of work, a maximum wage, and the division of capital across communities for the social good. Capital accumulation above the limit for any individual cannot be kept for individual use, but can be directed to social purposes according to the wishes of each individual (or "hundred") in that position. There are also aspects of communal family living. The political system is multi-party.

The text below the heading "communism" is a good summary of these ideas found in "Pacific Edge" and elsewhere. Perhaps the heading could be changed to "Anti-capitalism," "Democratic economics" or something similar. Even "Socialism" would be better in my view. But whatever term is used should have some foundation in KSR's works or related interviews. I'd be OK with "communism" if that was the term KSR used himself, but I'm unaware that he uses the term and strongly doubt it. It smells like POV to me, either by someone disdainful of his ideas who wants to associate them with something else that is widely discredited, or else an attempt by someone to redefine communism more positively by associating it with a quite different utopian vision. Llachglin 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed the title of that section a couple of weeks ago. Eco-socialism would certainly be a lot closer to the mark than communism, but I've changed it back to what it was. PC78 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The ideal solution would be to get quotes from KSR or notable literary critics who have identified his major themes. This would solve both NPOV and OR issues. As it is, this section is verging close to OR. Ashmoo 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Would the title 'Eco-economics' (from the Mars series) be appropriate? Not sure if it would fit for other books but the concept is in the right area and would be of some internal relevance. --Nate1481 11:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The man espouses communistic ideals. It frankly doesn't matter what his wording is, the fact is his utopias are distcively communist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.197.176 (talk • contribs)

I just do not see it that way. This is like saying that we should also forget any sort of possible scenario of good for all, through whichever economic or political approach. Flushes Sideways 23:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Communism" simply does not mean anything anymore. Originally it meant voluntarily sharing things in common, then it was hijacked by dictators as cover for oppressing their people, then hijacked again by corrupt politicians who wanted to smear reforms (such as Martin Luther King's campaigns for equality) by implying non-existent links to the dictators. The original meaning is gone, the dictators are gone, and only an idiot would try to blame a current movement on a defunct dictatorship. It's a dead word; stop using it. CharlesTheBold 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Robinson repeatedly states flat-out in his Mars trilogy that Marx was correct in his social/political thinking. That, combined with has harsh anti-capitalist rhetoric, fairly creates an all but undeniable association as a "Marxist." As well, Robinson is cited by self-described as a Marxist by Marxists, and specifically as an important conttributor to modern Marxist literary interpretation by the Marxis Literary Group. The inability of his fawning fans to accept his openly Marxist ideology is odd. If he isn't Marxist, then remove "Marxist" from the lexicon, because it does not exist. 67.168.201.40 (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS to support this? I don't recall anything like that in the series. a13ean (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is a bit more complicated than saying that being "anti-capitalism" by default means being Marxist, and while there are moments that discuss and promote Marxist ideals in the Mars Trilogy, these are always written from the perspective of a particular character, so they don't necessarily reflect the author's personal views. That being said, KSR is certainly sympathetic to certain aspects of Marxism.

Here are a few interviews where KSR explicitly discusses Marxism:

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/content?oid=46182

http://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-188/feature-rjurik-davidson/

http://web.archive.org/web/20071011053927/http://jaybabcock.com/kim.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705185857/http://www.albedo1.com/html/kim_s_robinson.html

http://www.theedge.abelgratis.co.uk/robinsoniview.htm

AlbinoFlea (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In the first source cited above, the author says "No, I don’t identify myself as a Marxist."202.179.19.18 (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sciinthecap.jpg

Image:Sciinthecap.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Science in the Capital series

Shouldn`t the passage about the paleolithic activities in Fifty Degrees Below be moved to the article about the book? I don`t think that it fits in here! --Meile (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved the passage to Fifty Degrees Below. --Meile (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rgbmars.jpg

Image:Rgbmars.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) 04:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thcalifs.jpg

Image:Thcalifs.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) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

I have uploaded two images of Mr. Robinson that are copyleft. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 

Short stories

Do we really need the middle of the article to be an enormous list of short stories? I would prefer to have these in their own article or radically trimmed back. Euchrid (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Broken links

The links in references three and five are broken. Posted by anonymous coward, not a wiki-editor, just someone who came across this page. 1:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.115.30 (talk)

Updated links. AlbinoFlea (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Career

I'm not sure that the mountaineering comment is relevant to the career section. Considering deletion. Although I have seen that KSR is an avid backpacker and that has influenced his works. Jaldous1 (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Stanley Robinson. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2004/10/18/news/074new1.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Stanley Robinson. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151009233205/http://sciencefictionworld.com/books/science-fiction-books/363-68th-world-science-fiction-convention-australia-2010-kim-stanley-robinson-guest.html to http://sciencefictionworld.com/books/science-fiction-books/363-68th-world-science-fiction-convention-australia-2010-kim-stanley-robinson-guest.html

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) 18:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Time in Antarctica – error?

Hi,

The sentence in this article: "In the 1980s Robinson also spent time with a National Science Foundation team at a research base in Antarctica.[7]" is not supported by the attached reference [7] where it is clear KSR is simply relaying a story without any reference to himself having had any part in that story. However, I have found other references mentioning that he was in Antarctica in 1995 (and again in 2016/2017?), e.g.: http://www.sactownmag.com/February-March-2017/The-Man-Who-Fell-for-Earth/ http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/robinson_interview/ http://www.kimstanleyrobinson.info/node/344

I suggest to either remove the sentence and source I have quoted or have someone who is more familiar with the matter correct it.

Thanks ☺

P.S. I am new here so apologies if this wasn't the correct place to post this and feel free to move/delete as preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoturbella (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Implied Bias

The very first sentence of this bio currently reads "Kim Stanley Robinson (born March 23, 1952) is an American socialist writer of science fiction." While his political perspective is certainly within the scope of this article, labeling him with it like this seems to imply bias and political agenda in the article. No one would introduce a biography of Robert A. Heinlein by saying he "was an American libertarian writer of science fiction" unless they were explicitly writing from either a pro- or anti-libertarian perspective. 2601:602:8C80:6A80:9901:B6E3:6B8E:9F39 (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Marriage

A chemist? MaynardClark (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@MaynardClark: I cannot make sense of that question. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Pathetically bad section

The section titled Career is pathetically bad.

It completely fails to cover Robinson's career, and instead includes several irrelevant anecdotes.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can fix this. 2601:200:C082:2EA0:851C:7AE8:1182:1566 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)