Talk:The Baroque Cycle

message: Redirected The Baroque Cycle (novel) to here under the assumption that there is no other Baroque Cycle other than the novel of that name. - Tim Shell
All the links in the "Main Characters" section are just circular redirects back to the article.  If these characters have articles of their own, the links should be fixed; if not, they should not be links but just plain text.  76.118.82.108 (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: There is a pretty big mistake in this series. The IJsselmeer does not exist in 1600 something. It only was created in 1932. Also the capitalisation is incorrect, as that of IJ. Anyway thoughts on where and how to hack this in to one the entries regarding this bookseries. Spearhead 14:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deviations from Real History

message: "Solomon - Anachronistic, Travelling as Solomen Kohan" Is it implied in the books that Kohan is in fact King Solomon? I never noticed that or came across it in any analysis.
:He refers to himself as "the wise," and he goes way back with Enoch.  Also remember all the discussion of Solomon's gold in The Confusion.  Mr. Kohan has enough gold on him to prove his merit when Peter the Great finds him, and when Waterhouse et al submit Solomon's gold in the form of punch cards, it's him that identifies it and develops a scheme to have all such gold locked away in St. Petersburg, rather than floating around the world being con-fused by coiners and eaten by upstart alchemists.  It's also hinted at: the tomb of the Templars is modelled after Solomon's Temple, which prompts Waterhouse to say something like "If you're that Solomon...", a question which the character dismisses without answering.  Unfortunately I returned the book to the library several months ago, otherwise I might have more support.  At any rate, I came to that conclusion, but I'll admit that it was never explicitly stated, and that King Solomon's use of Kohan as a last name would probably be inappropriate since he was more involved with government than with priestly activities.  By the way, you can sign your messages with four tildes, like this:Joel 02:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's never confirmed nor denied, but the way it is written it's clear that the reader is supposed to have suspicions in that direction. Kungtotte 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Solomon Kohan

message: Why does this entry tell us that witch-hangings were a "vestige of the Middle Ages", when in fact the Middle Ages were one of the few periods in history when supposed witches were *not* routinely executed? The major periods of witch executions were antiquity and early modern times, specifically the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries - in other words, shortly before the action of the novels. 90.197.127.144 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Witch-Hanging

message: Given that these novels are a work of fantasy-fiction, not history, I think it's a bit strong to call these discrepancies 'Errors'. We simply don't know which elements are 'wrong' because Stephenson deliberately manipulated history for the sake of the story, and which are due to his lack of knowledge. We might make a reasonable guess in some cases, but if we're to call them all errors, we might as well add to the list the facts that Newton didn't really bunk-up with Daniel Waterhouse, there is no known elixir that will revive someone from death, and people don't live as long as Enoch Root. --DudeGalea 14:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this entire section. This kind of material is analagous to "differences between the book and the movie" sections in film/novel articles. We would not expect such trivia to appear in any article on a work of historical fiction. Indeed, that there are so many discrepancies reinforces the notion that these books are not intended to be held up against textbooks and scholarly work. And beyond all that, only a single one is cited to a third-party source. --EEMIV (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Renamed 'Errors' to 'Deviations from Real History'

message: I changed Comstock to Silver Comstock, and also Roger Comstock to John Comstock.
I thought this befitted the background... Any suggestions? Thereforethelordgod 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the move away from Roger?  It has been a while since I read the books, but I seem to remember him being the major Comstock in the story.  He was to Daniel Waterhouse what Ari was to Randy Waterhouse.  I remember Daniel even saying "I don't want to live in a world with Roger Comstock in it".  Am I remembering it wrong?  -Armaced (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't the line "I don't want to live in a world withOUT Roger Comstock in it."? DaddyWarlock (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right - that was a typo on my part. Daniel liked Roger. -Armaced (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: As far as I can remember, Roger Comstock is far more important than John and any of the "Silver Comstocks", as a friend of Daniel and as the Whig leader in "The System of the World". But why not mention both the Silver and the Golden Comstocks? I see no problem doing that! --Meile (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, is there in "Cryptonomicon" a distinction between the two Comstock families? --Meile (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reread "Cryptonomicon" and I didn't see any reference of any kind to a difference in the Comstock families. DaddyWarlock (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: On the Comstocks

message: There seems to be some interest in this tree from "The System of the World". I had some free time in Hanover recently, and actually found it! It is the "bush form" of a genetic variant, or maybe a mutation, of the red beech tree. In German, it is called "Teufelsholz" or devilwood, because it could not be used for constructing anything. It's real name in German is Süntelbuche (Fagus sylvatica Suentelensis, or Tortuosa). This gives you the tags to search for. The tree I found in Hannover is in the "Berggarten", if you want to see pictures of the model for Stephenson's tree. It is about 120 years old. There is even a kind of cage "protecting" people from the tree. These trees do not come from the Hartz mountains but from old beech forests, of which the Suenter near Hannover is the one most famous for such trees. Very few remain there however, since many were burnt for firewood or to clear farmland. There is another lovely picture of one, just as I imagined it in the novel, on the German Wikipedia page for Süntelbuche (buschform).
Mynah (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: On the Teufelsbaum

message: I'm not sure Crypto-Jew counts as a "family" within the series. It simply means hidden or secret Jew in the Baroque cycle and Avi, in Cryptonomicon, doesn't meet this description. The only relation between Moseh and Avi is that both are Jewish. 142.1.157.147 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moseh runs off to live with the indians north of Mexico. Ari comes from a group of crypto-jews living among the indians in the southwest desert. Nitpyck (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crypto-Jews 

message: Upon reading this page, someone had stated that a falcy {fallacy} in the book was that gold only has a single isotope.  Although this is true, this has nothing to do with the book.  The special gold that is stolen in Bonanza in the books is described as a solid state solution (a material disolved in solid gold).  The more common word for solid state solution for metals is alloy.  Solid solutions are extremely common for minerals in raw form but upon smelting, gold is one of the few metals that commonly found in alloy form.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckymikemadziar (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your viewpoint is decidedly in the minority. Most of the discussions I found ( http://www.google.com/search?q=stephenson+baroque+solomonic+gold+compound+OR+alloy+OR+isotope ) consider it an isotope, and I do not see an official explanation from Mr Stephenson. In any case, the story is science fiction and therefore is allowed to deviate from real nuclear physics. - Frankie (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold 

message: Is this person a reference to Eliza's lover (Bon Bon) and her son?  Obviously, they're not the same person because the discrepancy in the their birth dates but perhaps Stephenson was alluding to him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckymikemadziar (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau Jean-Jacques Rousseau] 

message: The name applied by the Russian government to any subject of the Greek faith who dissents from the established church. The Raskolniki embrace many sects, whose common characteristic is a clinging to antique traditions, habits, and customs. The schism originated in 1667 in an ecclesiastical dispute as to the correctness of the translation of the religious books. The dissenters, who have been continually persecuted, are believed to number about 20,000,000, although the Holy Synod officially puts the number at about 2,000,000. They are officially divided into three groups according to the degree of their variance from orthodox beliefs and observances, as follows: I. "Most obnoxious." the
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.
Nitpyck (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raskolnik means heretic 

message: In September, the Enoch Root article was redirected into this one, seemingly without discussion or explanation. This effectively deleted all information, as ER gets one line in the Baroque Cycle article. Bridgman (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and "undid" the redirect (of both the Enoch Root article and its Talk:Enoch_Root page). Please continue this thread on that discussion. Bridgman (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the [[Enoch Root]] article? 

message: That article was pretty weak and can be incorporated into the Enoch Root article, but it should have been "decommissioned" with more consideration. Bridgman (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ditto on the Societas Eruditorum article

message: I'll explain my revert point-by-point:
*"(Crypto-Jews)" seems more appropriate to me than "de la Cruz" because it's Devorah who is descended from Moseh, not Avi.  Probably not a big difference, but it seems more suitable.  The section is labelled "Families", however, so I'm cool with it being changed back, but I'd like to see what others think.
*Multiple linking of Enoch Root in the same section definitely violates WP:OVERLINK.
*While I do think that Stephenson playfully hints at Solomon being Solomon Kohan, I'm not sure that's reliable enough for our purposes.  However, we definitely shouldn't be linking to Talk pages from articles.
As far as the above discussions regarding the Enoch Root and Societas Eruditorum articles, I'm not sure if they meet WP:FICT.  The novels are obviously notable, but I don't know if there are any reliable, third-party sources that discuss the individual characters or societies.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits by User:Bridgman 

message: This article is about one of Stephenson's works, not about him, and a photo of him adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the work.  The lead already links directly to the article on Stephenson, which has an image of him—to repeat the same image here is more appropriate, as I mentioned elsewhere, to a dust-jacket.  I've substituted an image of Wilkins. Hooke and Pepys would be appropriate as well.  EEng (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture of Wilkins is perfectly fine, and not objectionable in any way; but Wilkins is merely an historical person who appears as a character in the books, which were written by Stephenson.  Please show me anywhere on Wikipedia where a picture of an author is not allowed to be used on an article about one of his major works, and I will remove the image myself, but until you do, please do not continue to remove it without consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not that it is not allowed, its just, in this case it is not relevant not as relevant. Stephenson, as Stephenson, isn't very relevant to this article: the real world information related more to historical individuals and to literary critical examinations of themes, etc. If, say, Stephenson had some type of conspiracy or outrage related to these books then it would be more appropriate. The book would be related to readers by pictures of prominent historical characters. Sadads (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The author of a book - a novel - is always relevant to a discussion of the novel.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevant yes. But more or most relevant? Sadads (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I would have preferred some other image to the author's, but a search of Commons brought up nothing.   I think it's fine to add images of historical persons involved in the book as characters but I can't think of one who was significant across all three volumes to justify their being the main image of the article.  Perhaps a montage?  In any case, I landed on the image of Stephenson because that was the best option available to me, not out of some prejudice for having authors' photos in articles.  If someone can come up with a legitimate replacement, fine, but removing a relevant image on the basis on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not the best way to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, just thought EEng had a good position, hope I didn't fan any flames. Sadads (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: You know what would be an even better image, Mr. Eng?  A picture of Stephenson juggling small models of all the characters over his head!!!  That would be great!!!!!Don't talk about what would be good if they were available, go look for some images.  If you find something better, that's available and usable per Wiki policy -- put it in, that's what I did.  If it really is better, I won't beef. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: No response was necessary, your argument was unconvincing.  Consensus doesn't go to the person who made the last post.  Since thwere was no consesnsus to remove the image, and it is allowed under policy, and is pertinent and relevant, I have reverted your removal, which amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Do not remove it again without consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Why thanks, I will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the montage, gave me a good laugh - I do think it does a good job at illustrating who is important to the scholarship - Stephenson plus the whole cast. Sadads (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I wasn't particularly inclined to do it before, given your deletion of the image without discussion, the weakness of your eventual arguments, your reversion without consensus, and the time and effort it takes to do something like that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of author? 

message: A couple of reasons for this:
* As mentioned in the Baroque Cycle article, Neal claims that there are eight novels, but his publisher condensed them into three.  And the first three books were released separately in paperback form.
* The individual articles are mostly redundant in information including characters and general Baroque Cycle information.
*:Common stuff like this can be put into a separately constructed subpage and transcluded. --Matt Westwood 19:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For future record, when writing the Quicksilver WP:Good article several years ago, I came across enough source materials to do justice to both of the other books, especially in the way of book reviews but also in the use of the books in a scholarly context (mostly outside of literary criticism). It doesn't really matter what Stephenson thinks, these books have been talked about sufficiently as individual works, thus have enough public conversation to be their own articles, Sadads (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combining articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Baroque Cycle. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223001851/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=100703A to http://tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=100703A
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)