Jump to content

Talk:K. J. Parker

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

Who is KJ Parker?

[edit]

Who is KJ Parker? What gender is s/he? Is the link between Tom Holt and Parker a valid one?

I don't believe it is Tom Holt. I do believe that Parker is a woman.

Any other opinions?

As far as I know, all evidence about Parker being female is circumstantial. Shouldn't we replace the 'she' with the dual 'he' in the article? TheHypocrite (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can't be bothered to register, but the answers are there if you dig into the links cited at the bottom of the article. The French Publisher's site refers to Parker as female ("Elle a été juriste, journaliste et numismate" etc.), but whether they're accurate or not, who knows? The Tom Holt nonsense (as far as I can make out) originated here on wikipedia. If you look closely at the "Internet Speculative Fiction Database" link, again, cited at the bottom, and then click "Interview with KJ Parker" (third bullet point), you'll see it's an interview WITH KJ Parker, BEING INTERVIEWED BY Tom Holt. 'Nuff said, and brief golf clap to the wiki-fiddler who mucked that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.84.21 (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha . . . so, I still can't be bothered to register, but believe it or not, this is the same commenter as the previous comment, written four years ago, now living in a different country (hence the change in IP address). So, how wrong was I? Hilarious. Also, ooops, and apologies to wiki-fiddlers, everywhere. In my (clumsy and awkward defence), the French website did indeed use the French pronoun for she (elle), and I was somewhat narked by the observation that someone had taken the fact that the interview that was supposed to be BY Tom Holt, meant that K.J. Parker WAS Tom Holt, which at the time, seemed to be a skim reader jumping to conclusions and editing as such. Ah well, lesson learned and all that, a reminder to aspire to a little more patience and humility in all that I do. 61.132.31.61 (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the article proper

[edit]

Please note: Bill from Subterranean Press here. We've just negotiated with "K.J. Parker" for a novella, and I can state unequivocally that "Parker" is not Tom Holt, though I am contractually bound not to reveal the author's real name.

  • This was written in the article itself, but belongs in the discussion page. If there are reliable third-party sources that verify this, then the article should be edited accordingly. Jeremiah (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Bill from SubPress here again. Afraid I can't offer verification of this without posting a pdf of the contract itself, which is simply not possible.[reply]
Can we at least state that the name is a pseudonym in the actual article since it is stated in the about the author section of the author's novels? 99.240.146.252 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classification as fantasy

[edit]

I'm uncomfortable with the classification of Parker as a fantasy author. Even though the novels (I've only read the Engineer trilogy and "The Folding Knife" so I don't know about the othes) take place in imaginary universes, they don't use the elements of magic and the supernatural which are charateristics of fantasy. Does anybody know if there's a better way category for Parker's work? Xenobiologista (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parker's work is very much fantasy and plenty of secondary world fantasy doesn't contain magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.135.119 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

Obviously it's early days in the revelation of Parker's identity, but I think there's a strong case for eventually merging and redirecting to Tom Holt. I can't think of any other cases where we maintain separate articles for multiple names under which one author writes, except for Lemony Snicket, and that's only because Snicket is also a character in the fiction written under that name. Brendan Moody (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have Stephen King and Richard Bachman. Choor monster (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, though that's also a case of the pseudonym being present within the fiction, albeit in a much smaller way. A more important distinction is that that article contains a level of well- and multiply-sourced detail about the history of the pseudonym that I doubt we'll ever have here, and allows for a shortening of a main article that's much heftier than Tom Holt is ever likely to be. For the moment I think it's best to wait and see what kind of coverage develops from the reveal, but since there's nothing in this article except bibliographic data, a couple bits of possibly-invented biography, and a "fictional universe" section that's entirely OR, I don't think that we'd lose much from a merge and redirect. Brendan Moody (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost always an author and pseudonym are merged, of course, and I expect the same here. But really, it doesn't hurt to wait. As an example, Elizabeth Peters and Barbara Michaels were independent articles for about 2 years before the two were merged with Barbara Mertz, her real name. Choor monster (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional universe section

[edit]

As I mentioned a few months ago in the merge discussion above, this section is full of original research and speculation ("seems"... "is indicated"... "possibly"... "likely"). I'm tempted to strip it out entirely, but in the long run the article might benefit from having some discussion of the setting of Parker's fiction; he did indicate in the Coode Street podcast interview that's it all the same geography over substantial spans of time. But most of what's in the present version is trivia with no encyclopedic relevance. Thoughts or suggestions? Brendan Moody (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section entirely. What would be left after trimming the OR and trivia wouldn't be worth the effort. Brendan Moody (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on K. J. Parker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K._J._Parker&oldid=1203549354"