Talk:The Night Land

Novels: Fantasy Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force.

Public domain?

Being published in 1912, is this book in the public domain yet? --66.235.32.223 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add description and plot summary

Paul R. Potts 18:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC) It would be nice to put a description and plot summary of The Dream of X on this page. -[reply]

The current "plot" and "Technologies" sections poorly convey the book's contents and should be replaced. Cosmicdense (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy or Science-Fiction?

Is it appropriate to describe The Night Land as fantasy or horror? Surely Science-Fiction would be more appropriate. As the article states, the timeline and the fate of the Sun were consistent with the scientific understanding of the time (i.e. Lord Kelvin's calculations).

Further, the book contains many recognisable SF devices (some of which may be appearing for the first time)- a force-field (can't remember its name, but there's a field which holds back the night creatures), an arcology (the last redoubt) and so forth. X's dream also contains a vision of the evolving technology of the future (e.g. the cities on rails which travel around the Earth to keep up with the Sun).

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it science-fantasy. There are attempts to make things scientifically plausible; however there is also reincarnation and an overall romantic, mythic tone. Yet if I had to pick the one I'd call it SF. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following

I took out the following and made some changes to the plot summary:

"Strangely, at the conclusion of the adventure the narrative does not return to the framework story, leaving open the possibility that the narrator has gone mad with grief and chosen to continue to exist within his vision of the future, or has literally been transported there."

I believe this is original research as the primary source does not imply the above at all. If we start listing all the possibilities that are left open at the end of this story (or any other) we will outstrip all the other sections in length with our personal speculations. If some noteworthy scholar has built an argument to support the above "possibilities" as being more than just possible, but in fact likely, they need to be sourced. Otherwise, like I said, it just looks like original research. I'm not trying to dismiss the ideas above or say they lack interest or intelligent thought, but I believe strongly that they simply don't belong here (contigent on my belief that it's original research). Thanks. --Jpwrunyan (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed gioto (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary is simply mistaken. The main narrative of the book is not a vision of the future; the Victorian era prologue is a dream of a past life. It is not a framing device at all.--141.211.11.35 (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A warning on Stant Litore's Night Land fan fiction.

On further examination this appears to be a fan fiction that has been vanity published. Everywhere you find TNL online you will find Stant self inserting his fan fiction as if it's canon. Basically he decided that because he liked TNL to just take what he likes about it, and write himself into it as his Mary Sue main character who single handedly built everything, did everything, fought everything. It's really quite dreadful. It's absolutely not notable, and does not aid the article so I have removed that section. I have no doubt Stant himself inserted that segment, which is why out of all the homages it is the largest paragraph in the entire article. But just be aware in future if he attempts another self insertion. 2001:8003:2953:1900:D2F:299B:F522:C6C8 (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]