Talk:Kevin J. Anderson

What's up with it? No controversy, it reads like an unofficial fan bio and not an encyclopedic article. Is there that much of a press black-out on him? Does he protect his own reputation that much because his writing sucks? Needs WWWWAAAAAYYYYYY more unbiased information. Zeelog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not everyone has controversy about them. Unless you have some specific info with strong and reliable sources to back it up, there's simply no need to have a "controversy" section. As for his writing, please limit your comments to how to improve the article, and keep to yourself personal attacks against the subject of the article. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you should read some to see how awful his stuff is. There is a reason he is a serial writer, and its not because he is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.42.146 (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have read a fair amount of his work, and while it's not all the best writing in the world, I enjoy reading his work. That's neither here nor there, however, as the purpose of this page is to discuss how to improve this article. If you have nothing productive to add toward that purpose, then please refrain from posting your opinions on his writings as they don't matter one whit here (and neither do mine, for that matter). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was only curious, since it seems like there has been this criticism surrounding his work for at least the last 10-15 years, and information on any of it is next to impossible to find. Why is that? I know it's not because the criticism doesn't exist. Zeelog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You really ought to create an account (or login) rather than signing some random editor's name when not logged in. The editor in question hasn't made an edit here since 2007. As for the alleged controversy surrounding Anderson's work, if it's next to impossible to find, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't exist. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

YOU ARE NOT HELPFUL NIHONJOE!!! BUT IRRITATING!!! I DID LEAVE A SIGN-IN NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I Haven't edited anything since 2007 because what's the point? No one really comes here for important information. I'm just trying to make sure the "shit" gets shown too, and I figure crappy Sci-fi writers (who go out of there way to protect their reputation I might add) are a good place to start. ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS A CRITICISM SECTION FOR THE AUTHOR AS THE ARTICLE SEEMS TO BE MISSING ONE, AND I KNOW THERE IS CRITICISM ABOUT THIS AUTHOR. WIKI is a joke because of "fan-boys" and hero-worshiping, I'm trying to tare all of that down. just so you can see it again here's my sign-in Zeelog

This article is a white-wash. Anderson is despised by fans and critics alike and there is no shortage of "sources" to "prove" it if you look. An author who has done so much damage to treasured works would obviously have gotten a lot of negative commentary but NONE has trickled through to the Wiki entry? NONE?? The conclusion is clear -- this is yet another Wikipedia article where activist editors are protecting the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.82.230 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

As I said at Talk:Brian Herbert, I've seen several distruntled fans make similar posts since 1999, but no one has yet to provide any of these volumnious sources that supposedly decry the Dune prequels. I will jump at the chance to implement such sources into related Wikipedia articles if you will provide them. But it is typical fanboy trolling for an IP to cry conspiracy and to complain about how articles are lacking without actually trying to make improvements.— TAnthony^Talk 18:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the past, there has been discussions about how to handle criticism of KJA (or any author, really). We do not have an aggregator, like Rotten Tomatoes, to give a pseudo-objective score, nor are there a lot of proper reviews out there. I think we should include something in the article regardless; as it stands, there is nothing on the controversy with Star Wars or Dune fans, who have been vocal about his additions to the existing canon universes. Lucas has a simple solution to the question of canon and quality (ie. he does not give a shit), while Frank is dead... The former is acceptance, the latter is not - yet the article has no discussion on neither quality nor canon issues. It should have - it is noteworthy knowledge about KJA, which any fan of Dune, Star Wars and X-files (to name a few "franchises") would have an opinion on.

Now, to be perfectly clear as to my bias, I believe the man to be an untalented, work-for-hire hack. That he has handed out points for posting positive remarks and reviews, redeemable for merchandise, is a known fact and it should not work to his credit when compiling an article on him. It should really be pointed out, though.

My recommendations for the article and a possible, consensus-driven rewrite are below. I hope interested parties will comment on each individually. Lundse (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

• A small formatting issue: the contents appear overly long, as it mentions every franchise, collaboration, etc. It should be one heading, or maybe four (Dune, Star Wars, X-Files, other).
• There are no positive professional reviews of KJA, not from blurb factories or Harriet Klausner. (I am hoping the comments here will prove me wrong, if anyone disagrees - emphasis on prove).
• There are very few professional reviews of KJA at all.
• We cannot use neither KJAs tweets or posts, nor the net forums overrunning with praise, ridicule, hate and heated arguments as sources.
• Specifically, we cannot use this: http://www.wordfire.com/KJA-bio for anything but the most basic, non-controversial statements (such as birth date).
• This is an acceptable, non-self-published source for KJAs writing style and quality: http://januarymagazine.com/SFF/dogged.html.
• The article should reflect the fact that KJA is A) Prolific, B) Best known and bestselling within his franchise work, C) Actively engaged with fans (book signings, Special Forces club, writing seminars, etc).
• A criticism section or any paragraphs dealing with it should make it clear that: A) KJA has a lot of fans and readers, B) KJA has a lot of detractors, C) These are both related to writing mostly in existing universes with existing fanbases.
• The award section is silly and has little to do with awards; 4 nominations, 2 fan voting wins, 2 bestseller status mentions, an award with no sources nor google hits ("Best Science Fiction Novel of 1996"), a guiness world record (!?!?!?) and finally, a young readers award. This is a paragraph at best, not an award section.

Lundse (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, obviously nothing's been to correct this, as the page still reads like a resume for hack writing. I guess NPOV only matters to Wikipedia some of the time, or is KJA paying for a good page like he does for reviews? 108.52.67.119 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you mean about NPOV, this bio article lists his many works but does not praise or vilify him. This is not the only author article at Wikipedia which needs expansion with criticism from reliable sources, perhaps you'd like to contribute to it rather than troll the talk page? — TAnthony^Talk 21:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply