[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Samuel R. Delany

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

Delany's name?

[edit]

Should the name of this article be "Samuel R. Delany" instead of "Samuel Delany"? That is how the author is named on all his published work.

Seems fair enough, and consistent with other authors here. I say be bold and move it. Matthew Woodcraft
His nickname, by which he is generally addressed, is Chip. Apparently he chose it himself.
Nuttyskin 04:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I move that we rename the article to simply Chip. How's that for bold? ;) Luminifer (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone also add a pronounciation guide as well? It would be a great help to non-native english speakers as myself, espescially since his name keeps being misspellled. I have no idea if it's Delaney or Delany or some other way entirely. Axel Löfving (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still wondering. Is it DELLAH-nee or de-LAY-nee? The Sanity Inspector (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase "though this is a sobriquet and not part of his actual name" from the first sentence of the body of the article; the article reads more smoothly without it. I'll add an IPA pronunciation of the name per Axel Löfving's request. Skald the Rhymer (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

extreme aspects of human sexuality

[edit]

Does anyone else think the phrase "extreme aspects of human sexuality" is POV? --MJ

Not really. Do you know someone who doesn't think that's an accurate description of, say, 'The Mad Man'? Matthew Woodcraft
Right, but the way it's written it denotes that he's also written *autobiographical* work with "extreme aspects of human sexuality," which is a more troubling assertion. --MJ (sorry, I'll get an account etc set up soon!)
Uh, yeah. I wouldn't want to edit it myself, but "most of his work" seems an overstatement. Unless you consider gay or a gay/bi subtext to be "extreme", it really only applies to his self-described pornographic works: The Tides of Lust (aka Equinox), The Mad Man, and Hogg.
I am familiar with the contents of his works, an old friend of his, and married to one of his editors. I would say that "extreme aspects of human sexuality" is precisely and factually accurate. Applied to another body of work, it might be POV; but here the truth of the statement overwhems its subjectivity. Kathryn Cramer Pleasantville 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's something of a moot point, now. That phrase is long gone from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdring (talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oooh! Bad boy! Sign your statements! I was actually coming back to add my sig, but the 'bot was faster.--Kdring 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Moot" means debatable, not irrelevant.71.245.114.202 (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Miles Archer[reply]

Oh, really?
moot (adjective):
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
moot (verb):
4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion.
5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.
So, yes, while "moot" can be defined as debatable, it can also (as noted in examples 2, 3, and 5) mean something close to irrelevant, and that's the usage in my post above. But thanks for trying. Kdring (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of relevance, his Neveryon books delve rather expressly into BDSM - a couple of significant story arcs revolve around slave risings, and a resultant folk-hero with sexual needs complicated by aspects of bondage, domination & submission, etc. I have no personal knowledge of Delany's own interests, but he found such matters worthy of consideration. 72.49.7.44 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical stuff

[edit]

To be consistent with other wiki articles about writers, should the biographical material be a section "below the line," and perhaps filled out a bit, with a more general "who is SRD?" statement "above the line?" [User:Sturgeonslawyer|Sturgeonslawyer]

I strongly disagree with this statement. It is untrue, trivial, and misleading:

"Delany vaulted onto the literary stage when he was included in Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions. Harlan gave a short introduction that ironically pointed out how Delany was one of the last straight science fiction authors. "

Dangerous Visions was published in 1967. Delany did not 'vault' onto any 'literary stage' at that point; he was a published science fiction author of six science fiction novels and one novella, all published by Ace. 'Literary stage' is misleading and hackneyed.

The stuff about the short introduction to him in Dangerous Visions is at best irrelevant. It's not an important milestone in his life or the science fiction field.

If I don't hear some comments for keeping it, I'd like to take it out.

ZviGilbert 20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed it and moved it under 'Other Facts' where it belongs. ZviGilbert 20:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neveryon

[edit]

Probably the Neveryon books should not be under "novels" in the bibliography - three of the four are collections of novellas and short stories. Does anyone have any strong objection to moving them? [User:Sturgeonslawyer|Sturgeonslawyer]

Well, nobody's said anything, so I'm going to go ahead. [User:Sturgeonslawyer|Sturgeonslawyer] 2005Ap22 10:51PDST

Misspelled name

[edit]

The pop-up text on the image has his first name misspelled "Sauel", but I don't know how to fix that. (Ironically, part of the article mentions his name being frequently misspelled!)

Thanks for pointing that out. Its fixed now. -Seth Mahoney 04:02, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ellison quote

[edit]

How to rephrase this? Given SRD's orientation, the quote "Delany was one of the last straight science fiction authors" acquires an unintentional ambiguity. Tearlach 7 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)

I'd say just remove the wikilink to straight. The ambiguity isn't really that ambiguous, and its entirely fitting. -Seth Mahoney July 7, 2005 04:00 (UTC)
And while you're at it, please remove the link to gay writers. Samuel R Delany is bisexual - not only behaviourally, but avowedly so.
Nuttyskin 04:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Delany is gay and has said so in print countless times. He is not bisexual. Many gay men have had at least some sex with women. --SethTisue 20:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel R. Delany is bisexual see his own words in his own writing in his memoir The Motion of Light in Water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.163.99 (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The so-called Ellison quote is not in the intro to "Aye, and Gomorrah" in the edition put out by the SF Book Club. I've removed it, but if someone can prove that Ellison said Delany was straight in a revised version of the intro to a another printing of the book, I'll relent. Sir Rhosis 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the context of the word? What precedes and follows the word? The way I read it, it can have two (one unintentional) meaning(s). Straight as a sexual reference or straight as in straight (up), unadulterated, incontrovertible, unequivocal, science fiction writer; or in another form straight-science-fiction-writer, no waffling, no ambiguity, definitely science fiction with no leakage of other genres into his writing. The following entry of the "Genre?" section of talk is a specific example:

–––– Actually, I said that he should NOT be genrefied - i.e. it should not list him specifically as a "science fiction author". He actually hasn't written [straight science fiction] in roughly 30 years. Luminifer (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) –––– 

  Perhaps this appearant ambiguity can be explored further so it can be stated clearly.Quisizyx (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing work?

[edit]

They Fly At Ciron [1] is missing, but I'm only familiar with the 1996 reprint [2]. Given the disparity in page lengths (171 vs 256) I'm uncertain of differences.

Repeated imagery

[edit]

Should there be a discussion of the repeated imagery woven into Delany's works? Perhaps as a part of the Themes section? Some examples would be a character missing one shoe or biting his nails. Or the name of the city in both Dhalgren and Trouble on Triton being "Bellona."

Is this worth expanding upon? --Kdring 23:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a trivia section? or in Other facts, just because I don't know if such things would qualify as themes, but they could I suppose. Anyway, I'm for their inclusion. I always found such idiosyncrasies interesting. Jseipel 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps major and minor themes? I do feel the current themes section is inadequate. Or at the very least it is stuck on but one of the many major themes that pervade his work. It really shouldn't focus only on sex. His work is about so much more than that.
I decided to just go ahead and do it. I made changes to the beginning and ending of the existing paragraph, took a chunk out of it to use as a closing paragraph, and added an opening paragraph that expanded on the other major themes in Delany's work.

nickname

[edit]

Besides the "The Dartmouth" cite, Google returns over 100,000 hits for "samuel chip delany", most of which refer to the subject of this article. I'd move it back to the lead, but there was at least a little resistance to that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only objection is to putting in the bolded name. I wouldn't object to moving the mention to the lead, though I'm not sure there is a great need for it there. I wanted to add The Dartmouth and the date of issue to the citation, but I'm not sure how those cite tags work. Are there fields for those things? IPSOS (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I've heard and read enough of him as "Chip" that it's more than a nickname. Anyway, I've expanded the citation. I need to go through and clean up some of the other refs as well. Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for yours. I just looked at the diff expanding the reference so now I know how to do that at least. :-) (I'm not sure I like the cite tags as much as simply formatting it myself...) IPSOS (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a matter of what works for the page. The cite tags are very useful on pages like the Dhalgren article, where some works are cited repeatedly. For this page, another method is just fine. --Kdring 17:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can be "more than a nickname" if it's not on his passport or license, no matter how many people use it. Hmmm, would it be more appropriate to cite The Motion of Light in Water" here? He actually discusses his nickname in the book. --Kdring 17:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing references

[edit]

I've removed the "more sources" template from the article because I don't see anything that particularly needs a citation. If there are facts that you think ought to be referenced, please indicate them within the body of the text so I can supply a reference for them. Jd4v15 06:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Print/Banished from Amazon??

[edit]

I was startled to find (on a search on 28 aug 07) that Amazon lists just ONE title by Delaney, and B&N.com only ONE (a different one). None of the novels or critical works cited are listed for current purchase. Can it be true that all of this author's works are so out of print as not to merit listing? Or is something more nefarious going on?

It helps if you spell his name right. It's "Delany" not "Delaney". I get 12 currently in-print books for sale and several pages of used and out-of-print books. IPSOS (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you talk to Chip at conventions, though, you'll soon learn that he's had trouble for years keeping his books in print. He's not a "safe" writer like Robert Jordan or Misty Lackey (both nice people, but less edgy). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order

[edit]

Shouldn't information about his work come before his biography? The main reason we are interested is his stories. Life.temp (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), there doesn't seem to be an "official" order. But in my experience, bio-before-work is pretty common in biographical articles (William Shakespeare, Goethe, Stephen King...). Jd4v15 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the most sense to the editors here? I vote for a profile of his writing before details of personal history. Life.temp (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However it is ordered, shouldn't it be Life and Works rather than Biography/Themes? The word 'Themes' in particular seems to make too little of Delany as a writer. His work is so much more than a collection of thematic preoccupations.

While I share the dislike of criticism that makes the work secondary to the life, the following points could be made: 1] Life seems to precede Works in major author articles on Wikipedia. (though I'm sure there are exceptions) 2] Delany has (at times) made books out of his own life, both in writing memoirs and in explicitly introducing topics related to his times and experiences into his fiction. 3] Perhaps the introduction paragraph should emphasise his work in order to solve the problem identified by Life.temp? I'm not a regular editor at all, so please forgive me if these points aren't helpful.Millichip (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as it's an entry about the person, a biography should come first. As to Themes vs. Works, that would only be appropriate if someone actually wrote a section on his works (which are also, of course, discussed in differing lengths on their individual pages). Right now, all there is is a discussion of the themes that run throughout his body of work, so the title is appropriate. It would be VERY nice if someone were to expand the article, though! Kdring (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Also Published As'

[edit]

"also published as the substantially different, more definitive[4] Out of the Dead City" To my mind, if a book is published under a different title and substantially different content, it is a different book. So 'also published as' is not quite right. Also, the reference cited isn't much use - is Delany saying that Out of the Dead City is more 'definitive' a telling of the same story? As Out of the Dead City is a rewritten version pub.1968, the edition cited must be after this time. Should we just have an entry in 1968 for Out of the Dead City, perhaps with explanatory text? Clearly this needs to be in the bibliography, along with Delany's reasoning (if that is what is referred to by the citation). I just don't think we are doing it correctly at the moment. Millichip (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... You have a point... let's wait for others to chime in.. but basically, in the intro to the omnibus edition (at least, the one that I own - Delany is notorious for changing things across many published versions...), he explains that there were two kinds of rewrites (as I recall). The first was largely stylistic - I own both books. Chapter 1 is almost completely different, but most of the book is very similar... Parts were also rewritten to mesh better with the second and third books in what was now a trilogy.. So functionally, it is the same book, but it is different and, according to Delany, the "definitive" edition (and the edition currently released as part of the trilogy that's in print right now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminifer (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why such fast removal?

[edit]

So a citation is needed on something that was added a few days ago. The request for a citation was made on the third of July, and the item was removed before the next business day? Why not give someone a chance to actually cite something?

Furthermore, did anyone notice that the IP address that was used to make the addition was from Boston University? Since that archival center is IN Boston University, it makes sense that someone there would know better than most.

Finally, just a bit of Google research turned up a page on the Archival Center site (part of the BU main site) that lists "Twentieth and Twenty-First Century individuals collected by the Center." Yes, on that list is one "Samuel R. Delany." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdring (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this quick removal intrigued me, too. A little further into the library site, there is a page suggesting that the Delany holdings are being updated. I've just sent a request to the librarian to explain what this means. [3] Millichip (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been reinserted already, but here is what the library told me via email: "Yes, Samuel Delany's papers are housed at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center at Boston University. The page with the collection's scope and his biography is currently being updated." Millichip (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I went ahead and reinserted it a short while after I started this section. I mean, really, what was the point in removing it so fast? I realized that I had actually found something to cite, so I just went ahead and got 'er done. Kdring (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that somebody went through Wikipedia and was putting almost identical language in a number of articles, even if the Gotlieb only had one or two documents rather than "papers" in any meaningful sense; so the whole shebang were reverted. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm. I guess that makes sense. It would have been nice, though, to have an actual link to the reasoning instead of a cryptic reference. FWIW, the Delany holdings there are fairly extensive, with letters, manuscripts and all sorts of related papers. However, while I know this, personally, it's not something that I'm easily able to whip out a reference to. I'll see if it's mentioned in any of the many books about Delany. Kdring (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography on separate page?

[edit]

I think that the bibliography might want to be its own page by now - it's pretty big, and there's a lot of textual stuff that can be added on the nature/history of various reprints... Anyone agree? Luminifer (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd wait. Unless you're ready to expand it right when you split it off. That'd make it worthwhile. Kdring (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is that link really necessary? I know there's a video (one of eight) about Delany, but the site is about Fred Barney Taylor, not Delany, and I'm not sure it's all that important. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary; per WP:NOT, the article need not and should not be a comprehensive bibliography about Delany. SparsityProblem (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a great deal about WP conventions (or about Delany), so forgive me if this is gormless. I found the link quite an interesting insight into Delany's life at the beginning of his career. I guess the part of WP:NOT invoked is "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files", that is to say, the only reason the link can take up space on the crowded page is if it contributes to the understanding of the subject on its own terms. I must say, I think it does. I'm not sure what else 'necessary' means in this context. WP is not a paper encyclopaedia, but neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. THe answer lies somehwere in the middle, and I would suggest keeping the link, perhaps tying it into the biographical material a little more. Millichip (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a helpful link. Luminifer (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you look at the list of "External links" that's already on the page, you can see why the other link doesn't fit in that list. The links are to a comprehensive bibliography of him, an autobiography, and so on. There are plenty of media appearances and so on that mention him, but those aren't on the external links list. Why? Because the comprehensive bibliography that's already linked to is the place for those! SparsityProblem (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SparsityProblem. SethTisue (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, I can suggest this solution: If you think there's something really interesting in that video, why not add the information to his biography section, and link to the video as a reference?

Unsourced material

[edit]

The following is unsourced information:

  • Among Delany's more unusual credits is that he wrote two issues of the comic book Wonder Woman in 1972, during a controversial period in the publication's history when the lead character abandoned her superpowers and became a secret agent. Delany scripted issues #202 and #203 of the series.
  • Delany was the April "calendar boy" in the 2007 Legends of the Village calendar put out by Village Care of New York.

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SparsityProblem (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering . . . is a source needed to prove that he wrote the novels listed on the page? If not, why would a comic book be any different? Does Alan Moore's bio need sourcing to show that he wrote Watchmen? What should actually happen is that the Wonder Woman stuff should be moved to the bibliography. Kdring (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mass-market comic books (as opposed to graphic novels like Watchmen) do not always credit writers. I haven't seen this particular comic book myself, but I think a citation is appropriate given that. SparsityProblem (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Mass-market comic books have consistently credited writers for most of the past half-century! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Comics Journal did a long interview with him---It has been rewritten and then incorporated in S. D.,Silent Interviews. It is on google books and he talks also about Wonder Woman. ---The Wonder Woman fansite wonderland-site.com shows the 2 numbers--Radh (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have seen the comics, and he is credited. Given this, wouldn't whatever serial # is attached to the comics be a valid enough reference? Luminifer (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Identity

[edit]

A recent edit changed his identity to African American. I would have thought that the national identity in the first para would be that which he has on his passport. Of course his identity as an African American may be (and in this case, of course, is) immensely important to the subject. But presumably style would suggest a neutral, value-free approach and a simple' American', with something about his African American identity high up in the article? I haven't changed because I'm no expert on these matters in Wiki, but if no-one objects I will. Millichip (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people seem to committed to omitting the fact that he's African-American is very telling. It's important enough to people to point out that the first sentence in the lede usually refers to nationality, which is an excellent way to safeguard unexamined racist ideology and camouflage it behind rules. But the fact that nobody thinks it's significant at all to point out his groundbreaking status as specifically African-American writer any where in the article speaks volumes about science fiction fans and Wikipedia editors in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.247.189 (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His origins as a Delany of Harlem are right there in the article. He is not characterized as "an African-American SF writer" because in his early years, few people knew or cared, and nowadays he is simply considered a stellar, pioneering SF writer who happens to be African-American. The fact that you make such assumptions about science fiction fans and Wikipedia editors in general speaks volumes about your ignorance of both communities. I am proud to be a member of both, to be open in my identity, and to have called Chip a friend for almost forty years. I yield to no-one in my admiration for the brilliance of his work, and I have given up in despair at the challenge of translating his jewel-like prose. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genre?

[edit]

The initial paragraph of the article mentions that Delany is a Science Fiction author. I don't know if that's true, any more. Yes, he wrote a great deal of SF, but he is also a critic and has written quite a lot of non-SF fiction. Should he just be an "American writer"? Kdring (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SF is still his favorite genre, and the one for which he has achieved his greatest fame and acclaim. The other stuff can go in there too, but he's still the same guy you see at science fiction conventions all the time. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that he should not be genrefied and pigeonholed. It should encompass all of his material, not just one segment of it. Feel free to change it. Luminifer (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I said that he should NOT be genrefied - i.e. it should not list him specifically as a "science fiction author". He actually hasn't written straight science fiction in roughly 30 years. Luminifer (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring They Fly at Ciron; Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand; and the as-yet-unfinished The Splendor and Misery of Bodies, of Cities? Delany still considers himself an SF writer; that's not a diminishment of him, in his eyes or in the eyes of his readers. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True; I would not count Ciron as he really wrote most of that a long time ago, but Stars does count. The classifier is not a diminishment but is limiting in how useful its descriptiveness is. Imagine if someone comes to the article looking for the famous critical writer regarding gay issues in inner cities - they might see "is a science fiction writer" and (wrongly and hastily) think "ah, this can't be the man". Science fiction should be mentioned, but it is not all that he writes - and in fact is not even all of the fiction that he writes. It should be listed, but along with other a broader definition including all of the fiction that he writes. The problem with 'science fiction author' is not that it is a diminishment, it is that it is very incomplete.Luminifer (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I would argue that of the more than 20 books he's had published in the time mentioned (the last 30 years), only two of them have been science fiction. Less than 10% of his output. He's published at least as much porn in that span, twice as many books of fantasy, and probably more non-fiction than fiction. Kdring (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that I think, even going back to the beginning of his output, less than half of it is science fiction. If you include criticism about science fiction, maybe then it would go over 50%, but I'm not sure. Luminifer (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chip did not stop being a science fiction writer and science fiction critic when he started getting university teaching gigs. He remains, for example, a contributing editor to The New York Review of Science Fiction. He has not in any way tried to distance himself from science fiction although he has actively engaged himself in a number of other communities. --Pleasantville (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer[reply]

No, but identifying him as a "science fiction author" would be similar to listing Avery Brooks or Patrick Stewart as a "science fiction actor" - it does not represent nearly the entirety of their work, and is a misleading description for the reasons discussed above. He is an author who sometimes writes science fiction, who sometimes writes about science fiction, and thinks very highly of the genre. Luminifer (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1-If he is still writing or not is irrelevant, he wrote SF and it is still in print; he's a SF writer. 2- I've never heard anyone called a science fiction actor. 3- And actually, I think New Wave Science Fiction Author would be more accurate. Nitpyck (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone a "science fiction author" even though less than 50% of their work (however you measure it) is science fiction seems to be misleading. I think the current text is fine. Luminifer (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There's a neat little Invisible Theater[ article, which claims it to be a very recent phenomenon. I recall that Chip Delany had a troupe of folks doing this (street theater that just ppopped up) in one of his great mainstream SF novels, but which one? Thx in advance. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Triton? Aisha9152 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Do you remember the name of the theater group and main characters? Young, feisty boy and girl, I dimly recall. I'll add to Invisible Theater. Or you can. WP:OWN Bellagio99 (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the leader of the 'micro-theater' was a woman named "The Spike". the main character of triton was "Bron". i looked through the book but could not find a lot that was relevant for you but i think it is the book you are thinking of Aisha9152 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's fine and enuf. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

[edit]

I have had my edits undone a total of four times by different folks. Today they rolled them back twice immediately after I restored AND edited my material regarding Delany's endorsement of NAMBLA that cannot be linked to directly do to the NAMBLA URL being blacklisted by Wikipedia. I did however find an additional endorsement that is in a published interview. If I find this undone, I can only be left to suspect an intentional effort to suppress the truth of his public statements.

Here is the text in question:

[This note, two horizontal lines, and one wikilink inserted by User:p64]

On June 25th 1994, Delany endorsed "The NAMBLA Bulletin" in the following quote to "Queer Desire's Forum" in New York City:

"I read The NAMBLA Bulletin fairly regularly and I think it is one of the most intelligent discussions of sexuality I've ever found. ... Before you start judging what NAMBLA is about, expose yourself to it and see what it is really about, the issues they are really talking about; and deal with what's really there rather than this demonized notion of guys running about trying to screw little boys. I would have been so much happier as an adolescent if NAMBLA had been around when I was 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.".

His endorsement as of this edit, is prominently posted on NAMBLA's subscription page for their periodical. A direct link for reference citation to the quoted endorsement above is blacklisted by Wikipedia and is partially included in text for this reason: nambla.org/delaney.html.In a 2004 interview about his novel Hogg he stated he supported a group like NAMBLA.[11]

To circumvent the blacklisting, I used a partial url in text. The individual STILL undid the entire section without warning. How about at least sending me a message and if I do not respond within 24 hours, feel free to edit away, but you had better be justified. The fact that Delany has endorsed NAMBLA publicly does not make it vandalism to cite it. It is relevant considering the body of all his works. Please leave my edits in place. if you do not have justification to rightly undo them as some have done.

The correctly cited and truthful statements I edited are not defamation, slander, or vandalism. They are the truth. Please note that I left out any hint of opinion and only cited quotes directly from Delaney himself, who actively supports his narrative regarding NAMBLA. MelvinPS (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.67.179 (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above I added two horizontal lines to demarcate "the text in question" --namely, the latest insertion by User:76... at the time of first report here (differences between versions), as section 1 paragraphs 4-6, as rendered by a browser. I also added one wikilink which reproduces the only markup in the three paragraphs, except the reference (as rendered: Delany, Samuel R.; Freedman, Carl (2009). Conversations with Samuel R. Delany. Univ. Press of Mississippi. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-60473-278-8.)
This was the fourth and last versions provided 2013-08-02 User:76... ; identical to the version provided/restored 2013-08-03 User:MelvinPS (+1252 bytes), which is current ; quite different from the first three versions (+849 to 1033 bytes).
These three paragraphs do not exhaust any of the five revisions (+849 to 1252 bytes). In particular, every one included the destructive insertion of |icon (5 bytes) in the lead sentence. --which User:Lfdder has now fixed with no other change (-5 bytes).
--P64 (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit undone thrice now. Received one response.

[edit]

My edit was undone three times today [2013-08-02 -p64] by three different people. No worries if the claims are legit. I will even accept the trivial claims of the first two, although very weak, but the last did not even leave a reason for edit. incidentally, as fast as I posted the revisions to comply, they were undone by different users each time. Consider that my original edit stood for months without being challenged. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,....just sayin'....You want the truth? Well it seems some can't handle it and choose to use trivial tactics to suppress it. Stand up and debate this like an honorable person! Don't hide behind trivial issues. One of you actually informed me to hash it out here AFTER I had already made my case here. I get confused too, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt and am willing to resolve this issue here and now. Relevant truth matters folks. Don't ever forget it or willfully ignore it. Stand up and be counted, but for God's sake stand up and be truthful.MelvinPS (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I relegated this to a subsection of "Edit War". On point:
  • Combining many things in one revision is generally good. After one reversion for cause, however, split it up.
  • |icon --what's that about? (that has been fixed)
  • Black Bishop capitalized --why? (that persists)
  • I don't know anything about wikipedia blacklist policy, nor practice except how our organization article NAMBLA handles this, ref #9.
  • The three paragraphs in question need work. No self-reference narrow ("this edit") or broad ("blacklisted by Wikipedia") is permissible. The matter of those two sentences belongs in a Note, at best. The first and third inserted paragraphs need to be rewritten anyway.
P.S. The next paragraph "Delany has identified ..." needs relocation to follow the divorce --move up four paragraphs. --P64 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how or why Delany's POV on NAMBLA is relevant, since no secondary source is cited connecting either his opinion of the organization or of its cause to the body of work which makes him notable. It strikes me as sensationalizing and undue weight. I object to its inclusion until and unless it has been demonstrated here that there is a consensus for inclusion based on relevance, especially since I see that others have also repeatedly objected and removed the material. PlayCuz (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that by undue weight the quote should not be included. SethTisue (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quotation, "I would have been so much happier as an adolescent if NAMBLA had been around when I was 9, 10, 11, 12, 13." supported by a little explanation belongs with what we say about identification since adolescence. All the sexuality and cohabituation is now out of sequence and already over-emphasized currently, within the "Life" section as it stands. See my observations in the next section. ---P64 (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'I don't see how or why Delany's POV on NAMBLA is relevant." Really? Really? It speaks volumes about his worldview. Its omission is sanitization, pure and simple. 192.12.184.6 (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interview with him here:

http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-conversation-with-samuel-r-delany.html

In which he explains his views on NAMBLA at some length. Certainly I think it should be included, but I don't want to jump into an edit war. Baron ridiculous (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can an article which makes such wide mention of the author's ideas of sexuality in his writing *not* find his POV on NAMBLA as relevant?

An author's world view is fundamentally tied to their work. How they present ideas, oppose them, and even challenge their own, is permeated by that world view. Thus, what Delany thinks about the concept of adult-adolescent/adult-child sexual relations is an integral factor in his thinking while writing, and their presentation on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.52.212 (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life and career

[edit]

Section 1 is a disaster at from mid-paragraph 2, following "married five years later in August 1961", through that paragraph and the next two --o'erspanning the point where his later discussion of NAMBLA has been inserted and reverted in #Edit War; and all devoted to his sexual orientation, and his relationships down to the present day-- to the middle of the next paragraph where we are back to "dropping out of the City College of New York after one semester."

When did he attend CCNY for a single semester? Fall 1960 may be the term following his high school graduation.

"Upon the death of Delany's father from lung cancer in October and his marriage in August" [1961, we say above]. --nothing can happen "upon" two events that are ten months apart.

To depart from a chronological account is perilous. --P64 (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the 1991-to-"current" paragraph to end section 1, the only chronological disorder easy to fix without more information.
I moved coverage of his name's frequent mis-spelling to a Note on the section 1 lead.
I rewrote coverage of the nickname "Chip" (previously a long quotation within one Reference) as text that fits with another boyhood line in a new paragraph, at Chip's place in his life.
I rescued from the Internet Archive one source previously used only to support the words nicknamed "Chip", a silly use given what we have for that. It looks like a source that should be used seriously so here it is, refashioned.

[ref name=agapakis> Marina Agapakis (November 1, 2005). "Delany comments on gay life, AIDS". The Dartmouth. Archived from the original on 2006-11-20. Retrieved 2007-02-12. Covering that week's address by Delany to a Dartmouth audience, "Queer Thoughts and the Politics of Sex".</ref>

--P64 (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mea Culpa

[edit]

That category was for some reason marked red when I removed it so I thought it was a nonexistant category and wasn't aiming at vandalism. Anyway, why sholdn't Hogg be listed among his most notable works? 109.186.234.86 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category I restored was American SF writers; you are correct, that there is no category African-American SF writers. Hogg is not a notable work, indeed it is one of his most obscure works, a minor footnote at most and (deservedly, in my opinion) out of print for most of his career. Your persistence in putting it back into the article in a prominent position seems to me to fall somewhere between mere vandalism and "pointy" editing in violation of WP:BLP and the expectation of a neutral point-of-view. (Full disclosure: I know Chip and he knows me; we've corresponded [on an unrelated matter] within the past month.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've read this novel and highly appreciated it so I thought I could spread the word to others by inserting it into the notable works category... Reading the Wikipedia article dealing with it, it does seem to have gathered a lot of critical praise. Do with it whatever you wish. I hope you understand that I wasn't under any circumstance attempting to vandalize the article by removing that category. It was a pure mistake. 109.186.234.86 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're agreed that you meant well with the category bit; don't sweat it. As to Hogg: "highly appreciated it so I thought I could spread the word to others" is the opposite of what we do here, since it involves personal judgement and original research. We don't make judgments as to "noteworthy"; only as to "notable". The evidence is that Hogg, while notorious in some circles, is not really deemed a notable work compared to a Babel-17 or "Time Considered as a Helix..." Note also that some of the critical remarks quoted in the article on Hogg fall more in the area of critical defense rather than praise. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

[edit]

I keep trying to add Delany's retirement at the end of the 2015 academic year and it continues to be reverted for reasons mysterious to me, but I may be violating a Wikipedia code/guideline/rule that I'm not familiar with. Nonetheless, it is a fact that Delany retired at the end of this academic year from Temple, and he had not been coordinator of the graduate writing program for at least a year, so the implication that he still teaches at Temple and that he has been chair/coordinator for that entire time is inaccurate. I don't care enough to keep revising and undoing my attempt to make the entry more accurate, but thought it was worth noting here in case someone else has a better approach and can have more success. Metalepsis (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Metalepsis[reply]

I keep trying to tell you Facebook is NOT a reliable source, since the contents are provided by the sites users. logs are not reliable sources (excerpt for the opinions of the bloggers), Wikipedia is not a reliable source, IMDB is (for most things) not a reliable source, all becauise the content comes from the users and is therefore not reliable. Please read WP:RS, and understand what sources are allowed to be used. BMK (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's NOT FROM FACEBOOK. Try READING before undoing. Seriously. Yes, the FIRST retirement announcement link was from Facebook. But all subsequent things you've undone had a link to an announcement from Temple University. You're just blindly undoing without checking the link first. Stop it. Kdring (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF. I did read the Temple University announcement, which established that Temple University believed that he intended to retire, and that they intended to have a party, but doesn't actually show that he retired or give any information about it. It does not establish the fact that he retired. Please find a citation from a reliable source for that. An article in a school newspaper, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 14:17, 28 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
His latest book, 'a,b,c: three novels' mentions his retirement. Can you please just cite that it needs a reference until I can do it properly? PLEASE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdring (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see your last comment until after you had done the cite, but I would have done what you asked anyway, since it was a reasonable request. I'm glad to see you find something usable. BMK (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Could someone fix the citation for Balled of Beta-2. It was a Nebula Award nominee in 1965 in the novella category, the first year the Nebulas were given out. I messed up the citation in the edits. If someone could fix it I would appreciate it. It's cited among the nominees in the first Nebula Awards volume. (SRD.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.81.184 (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. "Ballad of Beta-2" has a link to the Wikipedia article, and the partial edit you made was to "Empire Star". Can you clarify? BMK (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samuel R. Delany. 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, 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice his support for NAMBLA has been scrubbed

[edit]

I notice his support for NAMBLA has been scrubbed. I think that warrants a POV tag warning. What do others think? Edgespath24 (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the passage about NAMBLA from the early life section. Its only cited source was an interview published on blogspot, which is a clear violation of the policy on self-published sources in BLP articles as I read it. With a better source, it could be reinstated. —Rutebega (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

come on, NAMBLA itself cites him on their own website as a supporter of their bulletin in the 1990s how hard is it to keep a literal fact where it belongs Wikidude10000 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a reliable source, if it's not that hard. The replacement source you provided was an archive of a Medium article, which is user-contributed content. Anybody can write for Medium by paying them $5/mo. This is a biography of a living person. Strong sources are required for controversial content. Skyerise (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not by some mundane rando or some Delany-basher. It was a long, thoughtful interview by Cory Doctorow, a critic with a solid reputation in the science fiction community. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the interview was by Will Shetterly. An archived interview. Go to the original URL and you get "The author deleted this Medium story." Did he think better of it? Or was he or Medium made to remove it? There's another article out there... same article but in several different places with several different by-lines. If you go down the rabbit-hole, you'll see that every single source quotes the NAMBLA site (which we don't find reliable). How can we tell that? The NAMBLA site quote has "[Bulletin]" inserted into it. Take that out, and you'll find only two mentions, who clearly just took the time to edit the insertion out. The whole issue is very dubious. I've not found a source with an independent publisher, everything about it everywhere is self-published. This is exactly why WP:BLP requires strong sources. We don't know if it's true or if it's some kind of campaign.... kinda looks like a duck to me though. Skyerise (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the 2009 book Conversations with Samuel R. Delany (editor Carl Freedman, publisher University Press of Mississippi) includes a 2004 interview with Delany in which he briefly mentions his support for NAMBLA (the relevant passage is on page 143):

It may seem paradoxical from my statement that generally speaking I think sexual relations between children and adults are likely to go wrong and that most of them are likely to be, start off as, or quickly become, abusive, that I also support a group like NAMBLA—which I do. But that’s because I feel one of the largest factors in the abuse is fostered by the secrecy itself and lack of social policing of the relationships.

However, as this is simply a mention in passing, and the interview itself doesn't appear to have prompted much discussion, I'm not sure there's any way for this information to be added to the article without running afoul of original research guidelines. DorVS (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be sufficient for a mention I believe, once I have access to a copy I'll include it. XeCyranium (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usage "experiments in polyamory, and extramarital affairs ... with men and women conducted by both parties"

[edit]

   We currently have "Their marriage (which alternatively encompassed periods of cohabitation and separation, experiments in polyamory, and extramarital affairs with men and women conducted by both parties) ...".
   I am a straight, married, monogamous (without exception since marriage), heterosexual, and if that's still too vague for you (bcz I don't mind you considering it your business, if that's your kink or professional role) devoid of each of post-adolescent, and penetrative, homosexual experience. (So to speak, a straight supporter of gay liberation and of inter-orientation sociality and alliance.) Not that you should care, but of course YMMV.
   My concern is with, I think, the overly clinical and/or legalistic wording that for me (at least) suggests an excess of moralism toward, or an intolerant clinicalization of, an often under-empowered and isolated human category. (I don't deny that "minority" is ever a valid analytical concept; it is an overused and thereby an abusively wielded one. If you regard it as an importantly relevant one here, please say so, and explain.)
   First, perhaps "party" is a clear-cut term in law (for those constituting a group without relevantly conflicting interests in the legal action at hand). If there was a relevant legal dispute at hand, it should have been identified; if not, something along the lines of "each" or "between them" is obligatory, bcz calling the couple "parties" is dehumanizing, and insinuates misconduct by one or both. The insinuator should be at least anonymously admonished by admins, on behalf of the community of editors, whether or not we undertake identifying, or perhaps even publicly naming, them. I probably need say no more, tho I shall reword, at least to the extent I have just advocated.
--JerzyA (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JerzyA: I've removed the entire offending paragraph as being unsourced (it had two references, one to another WP article and the other did not mention the article subject). If you want to rewrite it I would suggest looking for sources first. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wham2001:Thanks for your concurrence & appropriate action. (But in find myself far better at "dropping a flag on such "plays" than being evenhanded in rewriting: "it's easier to state a problem than a solution", and for me lots harder to do the fix well and courteously, even when momentarily back in ... uh, "fighting trim".
--JerzyA (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JerzyA: No worries, and I follow what you mean. Glad to hear that you're in good form at present. Wham2001 (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samuel_R._Delany&oldid=1257635964"