I noticed that quirk of Wikipedia. They make an assertion about me that I know to be false, and can prove to be false by citation to the book of mine it refers to (GURPS Steampunk), but neither as the author nor by citing my own published book am I permitted to correct it, it seems.
The last time I looked into IWFNE I ended up reading the montages that opened many of the chapters, and skipping over the personal relationships in between. Volume 2 of Patterson's biography describes IWFNE as an intentional literary experiment, but I'm afraid its point escapes me.
Yes. I had a conversation with a Wikipedia editor which nearly drove me mental where I tried to amend my own entry ( not written or proposed by me) to cute my own works - eg to prove I was an international expert in copyright. Oh no no. It had to be proven by my as my times tertiary sources anyone could have invented. This still utterly boggles me.
I could also add that even when I was an enormous teen Heinlein fan - even read and re read Time Enough For Love - I couldn't get through IWFNE either.
Wikipedia is certainly not without its quirks. And by "quirks" I really mean "massive systemic dysfunctions". Not sure either of these qualify though -- unless I'm missing some sort of edit war on the "cyberpunk derivatives" page more recently than the 2008 edit in which this seems to have been removed (if admittedly for other than the reason mentioned here). In each case there was one bad edit by a passing contributor, not fixed when first noticed, then later without any apparent objection
( ... )
It credits me with originating the generic term "timepunk" for steampunk-like things set in any era and based on any technology. In fact, GURPS Steampunk does not use that term. It does suggest "clockpunk" as a Renaissance-based analog of steampunk (ornithopters, perpetual motion clockworks, and the like), and I think that can be found in its index; but the term "timepunk" was somebody else's generalization of the two terms-and not one I would have made, as I see "clock" and "steam" as species of the genus "tech" rather than of the genus "time" and shifting categories like that disturbs me.
I suppose it's a bit odd to be annoyed at unmerited credit, but the inaccuracy, if nothing else, is like a small itch I can't scratch.
Actually, I've read Job and I consider it the best thing Heinlein wrote after The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. It helps that it doesn't have Lazarus Long in it! But beyond that, it's a brilliant portrayal of someone who has badly damaged self-esteem as a result of being held in contempt by her culture, and who is rebelling against her treatment, without even realizing that that's what she's doing. I thought it was more insightful psychologically than is usual for Heinlein.
Comments 11
The last time I looked into IWFNE I ended up reading the montages that opened many of the chapters, and skipping over the personal relationships in between. Volume 2 of Patterson's biography describes IWFNE as an intentional literary experiment, but I'm afraid its point escapes me.
Reply
Reply
I could also add that even when I was an enormous teen Heinlein fan - even read and re read Time Enough For Love - I couldn't get through IWFNE either.
Reply
Reply
Hmm.
I shall correct when on pc.
What is the error in the above comment?
Reply
I suppose it's a bit odd to be annoyed at unmerited credit, but the inaccuracy, if nothing else, is like a small itch I can't scratch.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment