Talk:James Blish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you follow that link to amazon I think you'll see why KQ probably changed it--they have it wrong there.
- Actually are you sure the book company doesn't have it wrong? The Library of Congress has it "judgment" too: :http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&FT=james+blish+day+after&PID=15017&CNT=25+records+per+screen&SEQ=20011014130051&SID=4
- Searching http://www.loc.gov/cgi-bin/formprocessor/copyright/locis.pl shows that it was registered first in serialized form as "The day after judgment":
2. Registration Number: RE-803-122 Title: [Contributions by James Blish] By aJames Blish. Note: Serialized novel. In: Galaxy magazine Claimant: Judith L. Blish (W) Effective Registration Date: 14Dec98 Original Class: BCONT: Issue Aug-Sept70. The day after judgment. PUB 23Jul70; B604348. Dec70. Dark side crossing. PUB 10Nov70; B625506.
- The registration as "The day after judgement" (with the extra "e" was later:
1. Registration Number: RE-796-907 Title: The day after judgement. By James Blish. Claimant: acJudith L. Blish (W) Effective Registration Date: 9Feb99 Original Registration Date: 15Jan71; Original Registration Number: A210961. Original Class: A Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: additional text.
- But oh well. So both are coomon. It's not an issue unless you want an entry on it, then a #REDIRECT from one to the other should probably keep people happy.
-
- I think its a matter of english/american spelling: the English (Penguin books, 1974) paperback that I have has it as judgement, as does the 1st edition of the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (ed. Peter Nicholls & John Clute, both english). It's not worth the argument really, I'll just go and correct a detail i got wrong instead -- Malcolm Farmer
Contents |
[edit] POV
This article is currently partially written in the first person, and is highly POV in places. In particular, in a section I just removed, it cited a Blish character talking about playing with differential formalisms as an example of "absurd physics": in fact, this sort of formalism-play is not uncommon in mathematics, and is a useful and fruitful notation. -- The Anome 01:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I cleaned up some of the worst stuff a few days back. Definitely pretty opinionated (and not exactly mainstream opinion, either.) If you (or anyone) think there is more, post it here (I watch this page) and I'll see what needs done, if anything. In the meantime, I've pulled that NPOV flag off. That kind of thing really isn't very useful, except to annoy readers of the article. That's what the talk pages are for. fyngyrz
A section about themes is probably in order.
[edit] Black Easter/The Day After Judgement
Does so much space need to be devoted to these stories here? It's stuck in the middle of the biography section. The article is supposed to be about a prolific author, not about two short novels he wrote somewhere in the middle of his career. 12.22.250.4 18:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blish's personal life
Blish is said in the Arrowhead SF article to have been married to Virginia Kidd, the literary agent. The only wife mentioned here is fellow science fiction author J. A. Lawerence. Doesn't some mention of divorce and remarriage need to come in here? I don't want to turn Wikipedia into some sort of trashy tabloid, but isn't this a material fact that needs to be covered? Rlquall 12:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Virginia Kidd article says they were married 1947 to 1963. -- Beardo 03:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Works - Cities in Flight
The 'SF Masterworks' collection gives the year 4104 for the end of the universe, which makes the text concerning 4004 vague and potentially misleading. I do not have knowledge of earlier editions, but perhaps someone more knowledgable could expand the section to give citations relating to a specific edition including the earlier date. Retrograde 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
