Talk:Darkover series

Copyright

There is a potential copyright issue in that the Darkover_series#The_Ages_of_Chaos section is a literal word-for-word copy of the The Ages of Chaos section of A Reader's Guide to Darkover that's found at the front of Darkover novels such as Traitor's Sun (1999). I am not familiar enough with Darkover to write my own description of this era. For now I don't think it needs to be tagged {{copyvio}} as it may well qualify as "fair use" though the text should at least be attributed to the source. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I re-wrote that one - but all (or most) of the others also are copyvio and need to be cleaned up. See: http://members.fortunecity.com/arwen_e/ko/marionb.html#biblio - Davodd 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Alton Gift

I have a copy of The Alton Gift but am wondering about the existing series structure.

• Marion_Zimmer_Bradley#Series lists this as part of the The Children of Kings trilogy (which only has two books).
• Darkover_series#After_the_Comyn_.28Against_the_Terrans:_The_Second_Age.29 lists this as part of After the Comyn (Against the Terrans: The Second Age)
• The book itself states
  • A Novel of Darkover
  • The long-awaited sequel to Traitor's Sun.
  • Just before the title page is a "Marion Zimmer Bradley From DAW Books" page that has a section called Novels of Darkover which lists Exile's Song, The Shadow Matrix, and Traitor's Sun.
  • There is no mention of The Children of Kings trilogy nor After the Comyn (Against the Terrans: The Second Age).
• Deborah J. Ross' web site [1] mentions The Children of Kings but also "there will be three new books set in 'modern' Darkover, each one a 'stand-alone'" implying The Children of Kings is not an official series name. Actually, she has it in a section titled Modern Darkover set in the same type/size as The Clingfire Trilogy meaning that may be a more appropriate name. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

a lot missing

Surely some introductory material discussing themes, tone, style etc of the novels before plunging into the chronology would be useful? And why is there no discussion of the novels, in the order they were written, as opposed to the chronology? This article is treating the material as if it were historical, not fictional. Weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I have fixed at least half of this -- I think it's clear now that we are discussing fiction, not history. However, I don't feel qualified to discuss style and tone issues. The themes are discussed in the sections giving Bradley's time periods. As far as discussing them in the order in which they were written, I don't know how you could make sense of this to the average Wikipedia reader. Bradley started writing in the middle of the timeline, then moved into the past and future as inspiration struck. Symphony Girl (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the talk for the article Darkover I think we can make a clear division between that article and this one. This article concerns the books and stories themselves, the author's intent and glosses, criticism and critical reception, themes, tone, style, controversies about chronology, etc. The other article is a description of the fictional world. There are sections in this article (some of which I put here myself before I realized) that I intend to move to the other article. There is plenty of material fro both articles and I think the distinction is a good one. And as I said in the other talk, if anyone is following this, please comment, as I intend to make a rather major change. Wastrel Way (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Eric

I have begun the reorganization by adding an "about" tag at the beginning of the article. Please assist or direct your objections to me. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is going to be a mess for a while. It may take me more than a day to get this straight. ... Hearing no objection, I proceed. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

And, let's make this clear: you may think that the Renunciates are a statement about feminism (and so do I) or that The Compact is a reaction to Mutually Assured Destruction (and so do I) but there has to be a citation. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Where I add something that I remember but cannot remember the source, I will use the citation needed tag to remind me to figure it out later. Wastrel Way (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Eric

I will add the following sections to the article, with as much academic source as possible: Themes, Criticism, and Writing Style and Tone. Wastrel Way (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Eric

I added a copyright section. A lot could be said about fan fiction, but I think it's beyond the scope. What interests me is the broadness of the copyright claim. Apparently it violates copyright to write a Darkover story for your own amusement and never share it with anyone. Wastrel Way (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Eric

I removed the template that said the article was mostly a plot summary. Wastrel Way (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Eric

The Themes section is coming along. Writing Style and Tone are perhaps not possible to discuss for lack of source material. Wastrel Way (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Erix

@Wastrel Way: - I still don't understand how the copyright claim is remotely notable from a Wikipedia perspective. If it is, there should be secondary, reliable sources to that effect, not a link to a primary source. Lots of estates make ludicrous, unenforceable claims; they don't matter unless reliable sources say they matter. Meanwhile, an estate managing a deceased author / artist / etc.'s properties is utterly, utterly standard. The article currently seems to claim that the MZB estate has some special, unusual hold over the property that makes it different than the Herbert estate managing Dune or the Michael Jackson estate managing the rights to his music videos - if this is actually true, then let's see some sources to that effect. Otherwise, we should can the section as undue weight. It's equivalent to citing a terms of service agreement for a specific website / software directly - yes, there's powerful claims there, but they're common and the most powerful of the claims will never be enforced.

Also, of lesser importance, but the hatnote you restored is too long and meandering IMO. Hatnotes should be short and to the point, and not include information available in the lede. I don't see the argument for re-lengthening it with unnecessary detail. Actually, I don't see the need for a hatnote at all really, the article title is "Darkover series" which makes it crystal clear what the reader is getting. SnowFire (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both issues (copyright and detailed hatnote) and reverted the revert. See Legal issues with fan fiction; Darkover is not unique in this aspect. Schazjmd (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Very well, then. I think the copyright claim is excessive and ridiculous, but perhaps it's not really worth mentioning. All my Darkover stories and novels will be published after I pass away, as will my Nero Wolfe ones. Cheers. By the way, "lede" is not a word; it is "lead," meaning the lead or introduction to the article. And I have no idea what a "hatnote" is. I guess I'm just not made for these times. Wastrel Way (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Eric

Lede is newspaper jargon and is a word; see the first sentence of Lead paragraph. Hatnote refers to informational text that appears before the body of the article; in this article, the hatnote reads "This article is about the series of Darkover books and stories. For information about the fictional planet itself, see Darkover." You added a lot of content to that note that just wasn't necessary. Thanks for conceding on the copyright issue, although I understand that you don't agree with us. Schazjmd (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point about the hatnote, and I like it better now. I see that as an issue of style it needs to be short. I will never like the word 'lede.' I don't like jargon in general. Someone has found multiple issues with the article, and someone besides me can fix them. I am doing other things now. At least I straightened out the mess of the two overlapping articles. Wastrel Way (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Eric

Source for the new chronology?

• Reflecting on that some books state they are in one era, and then there is evidence with story lines lining up to support where it goes while the chronology in the books state there are a different era, the books are in order as their story falls into place. (Not the chronology in the beginning of some of the books.)

This sentence is a mess and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Ignoring the terrible grammar for now (ugh)... So, instead of being ordered by the chronology as stated by the author, the books are ordered by ... what, exactly? Is there some evidence to support the claim that the books state that they are in one era but actually are in another? Because, the ACTUAL chronology seems fine to me. This made-up one here in Wikipedia has no basis. - 207.118.127.145 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the sentence in question.Symphony Girl (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, further reading has shown me that inconsistencies do indeed exist. HOWEVER, my question now is, on the inconsistent chronologies, are they signed "--M.Z.B."? If not, I would not regard them as being "official". - 207.118.127.145 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bradley had quite a bit to say, herself, about the inconsistent chronology (and other inconsistencies.) She didn't care and didn't see why any reader would... I have added a footnote that I think explains her attitude in 3 words or less. You may delete it with my blessings. Wastrel Way (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Eric

I changed the footnote myself into something more appropriate. Wastrel Way (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Eric

The Chronology section has a lot of material about non-chronological inconsistencies at this time, which I think deserves a separate section. Wastrel Way (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Eric

Hawkmistress

I disagree with leaving Hawkmistress under Hundred Kingdoms period, I think its more in age of chaos, also my czech edition of it says so too. Robin_WH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin WH (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Even english cover of the book (used here on wiki pages under Hawkmistress title) says Age of chaos. If noone will say anything about it in 30 days, I will so modify main Darkover series article and subarticle Hawkmistress to display this book under Age of Chaos category. Robin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin WH (talk • contribs) 12:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The period of the Hundred Kingdoms comes at the tail end of the Ages of Chaos - which end with the signing of the Compact. Hakmistress thus falls very securely into the Hundred Kingdoms period. --KagamiNoMiko (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

{{{SPOILER}}}Hawkmistress ends with the signing of the Compact. Put it in either period. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you have Hawkmistress! mixed up with another book, perhaps Two to Conquer. I do remember reading a book that ended with the signing of the Compact, but I just read Hawkmistress! again, and it's not the one. Varzil the Good does not appear in Hawkmistress! Spoiler spoiled! Wastrel Way (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Eric

I moved Hawkmistress into the Ages of Chaos and someone immediately moved it back into the Hundred Kingdoms. The chronology section in the front of many of the modern books indicate that the Ages of Chaos is correct, but then if you read Zandru's Forge, which overlaps Hawkmistress, you'd have to place it back in the Hundred Kingdoms. I think the real problem is that Bradley did not really care about the timeline as much as her readers did.Symphony Girl (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Both List_of_Darkover_books and Hawkmistress! state the book is part of the Ages of Chaos, but this page places it under The Hundred Kingdoms. I don't know the answer, but I think the actual situation is quite confusing... 93.62.153.142 (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Will it suffice to say that there were also at least a hundred kingdoms during the Ages of Chaos? Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Ghost Wind

Ref. 26 says:

The concept of a "ghost wind" was introduced in the 1970 novel, The Winds of Darkover. Incidents involving ghost winds appear in Two to Conquer, Darkover Landfall, The Forbidden Tower and several of the short stories.

Well that first sentence is just wrong. Both the Ghost Wind and the Ya-men (mentioned in the paragraph the ref. refers to) are already in The Door Through Space (1961), set on the planet Wolf in the same universe as Darkover (which is mentioned in that novel). The Dry-towns also show up there --- in fact, both them and the Ya-men (though not the G.W.) come from the "Bird of Prey" 1957 original of The Door Through Space, along with a number of other parallels. But somehow all this got ~mysteriously~ shunted to Darkover some years later. I would sort this out but I seem to be too dumb to know how to mess with refs :( Idontcareanymore (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That is definitely the sort of thing that belongs in the "Origins" section that I created. Bradley began writing in her early teens and it's interesting to see how her ideas and concepts developed. I'll see if I can find anything that isn't hearsay in my copious free time. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Although Bradley touches on "The Door Through Space" in her essay "A Darkover Retrospective" I can't find anything to use in this article. There is something about the planet Wolf, but that's all, I think. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Inter-Wiki-Links

Hello I wantet to add the german page in the inter-wiki-links, but I did not find the right way. This would be https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkover or DE:Darkover, or something like this. Greets StephanMS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.103.129 (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The German article de:Darkover is already linked to Darkover and should not be linked to a second article on enwiki. It is the same with gl:Darkover, nl:Darkover and pt:Darkover. If you want to add inter Wiki links to an article, then use wikidata (click on "Edit links" be below the "Languages" section on the column on the left), e.g. [2]. --Jaellee (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

1958?

I just read a 1952 short story by MZB ("Adventure in Charin") where the protagonist lawman is attempting to apprehend a criminal in order to bring him back to Darkover. I've seen other mentions of Darkover in other 1950s short stories too. 1958 is not the year in which MZB first writes of Darkover by any means. DanQuigley 04:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanQuigley (talk • contribs)