Talk:Robert J. Sawyer

message: Who's premise was flashforward? I'll give you a clue with the initials JT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.78.148 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Premise

message: I'm just reading Flashforward, and found it amusing/spooky that he mentions Pope Benedict XVI in the 2009 setting.
: Benedict is the most common Pope name, so if you're going to name future pope that's the obvious bet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.144.16.56 (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's simply false; at the time he wrote that, John was the most common, followed by Gregory: see List of Popes. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant for inclusion?

message: While some excellent work has been done here, we've lost the lede in a gigantic swamp of undifferentiated material. The new version needs some subject headings, and a bit of standard formatting (personal vs. professional life, etc.) to become useful. --Orange Mike  | Talk 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got to agree.  This article reads like a laundry list of accomplishments, and is (sorry to say) a bit of a tough slog to get through.  And while his list of accomplishments is impressive, a lot of what's here seems like puffery.  Is someone familiar with Sawyer willing to do some pruning?  172.134.44.120 (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While there may be a "laundry list" of accomplishments, I worry that removing note of these will cause the article to be less factually complete and therefore less informative. Frankly, if I were a student writing a book report, for instance, there isn't a piece of information on that page that I would feel comfortable being without. Drakkenfyre (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further cleanup 

message: This article still just resembles a puff piece written by Sawyer himself, or his agent. For instance the whole 'Critical Studies' section does not say anything about what the studies said about Sawyer's works, and seem to only be included to prove that Sawyer is a serious author who is taken seriously. 
Since he has an article in Wikipedia, we can assume he is notable, it doesn't need to be proven further. 
Compare this article to any WP article on a more influential author which focus more on the man, his works and style rather than just being an online trophy rack, listing the author's awards, honours, etc.Ashmoo (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Ashmoo about the Critical Studies section.  Big task, though.  It would take 1- or 2-sentence synopses of every "critical study" listed (which might lead to removing the items in that section that aren't critical studies, e.g. Cdn Encyclopedia, or renaming the section).  Any takers?  Kkken (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem with this article is that it focuses on Sawyer's work, rather than Sawyer himself. The bulk of this BLP should be biographical in nature. There is nothing wrong with listing awards, etc., but it must be in an appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a rough start at precis and reorganization, but have left large sections completely intact, including the Critical Studies section. There's still not enough biographical material -- does my attempt help anyone see their way clear to a better cleanup? Dgcuff (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional biographical material might be useful, but needs to be accurate and include source citations. Just randomly adding things you suppose might be true, such as that Sawyer's parents were both university professors (which, anyway, is info about them but not about Sawyer) but not citing it isn't helpful and it isn't accurate from the sources I have seen. Frex, his mother apparently was a lecturer only.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.169.121 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashmoo wrote, "Since he has an article in Wikipedia, we can assume he is notable." Hardly true. Notability of article subjects is much debated throughout Wikipedia and should be established within each article. Ashmoo also wrote: "article should focus more on ... works and style." Agree. Such material was in the article and should be put back in. Kkken says, "Big task, though. It would take 1- or 2-sentence synopses of every "critical study" listed." I will begin that task although don't have access to all the sources cited. Sybok (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Still requires cleanup

message: It's claimed that "Sawyer's work frequently explores the intersection between science and religion, with rationalism always winning out over mysticism", with "Calculating God" mentioned as an example. However, that's not quite right. In that book, mysticism very much has the last say, the religious aliens aren't shown to be wrong and the main character goes from being an atheist to actually praying. Not a good example! I haven't read any of the other books mentioned, so I can't say if this is a general trend. Niels E (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, that's interesting. That's very much contrary to how the many other books of his that I've read go. So you are right about Calculating God, but I will confirm that the books of his that I've read all go the other way. Drakkenfyre (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hybrids is the best example here. It is unequivocal. But simply changing the word "always" to "usually" would solve the problem. Sybok (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased with the current version of this article, including the recent changes to information about the writing style and themes of this author.  It better reflects the work of this writer for students and potential readers without sounding listy or like a puff piece.msklystron (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After a very,very cursory glance at the references section, here is a quote from an essay written by the author for the SWFA bullentin following Terminal Experiment having won the Nebula.  It describes the author's goals with this book:  "I believe science fiction is at its best not when it's making predictions, and not even when it's sounding warning bells, but rather when it is giving us unique insights into what it means to be human, examining the human condition in ways that mainstream fiction simply can't."<http://sfwriter.com/nebwin.htm> It's quite possibly available from the original SWFA bulletin.  This sort of quote could set the tone for this section.msklystron (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style and themes 

message: My apologies for the above. I generally lurk...  I agree that the William Gibson and J.K. Rowling articles suggested would be good exemplars for this ariticle.  The most glaring difference I noticed between the two articles suggested and this article was the insufficient amount of material on the subject's personal and professional background.  Expansion in this regard would make clear what led this living science fiction author to achieve awards and other accomplishments.  Cleanup should include further sourced details about this living author's early years.  I cannot provide acceptable sources for the following at this time, but, for instance, his parents' having worked at a university and his membership as a child to the Royal Ontario Mueseum had an impact on this author's outlook, interest in science fiction and future work.  Also significant to this author's career:  after winning the Nebula award for Terminal Experiment the author quit his former employment as a freelance (finacial/business) writer and devoted himself to writing fiction full time.  In addition, worth mentioning:  there is a complete lack of quotations about this author by experts and academics in his field and related fields.  Such quotes, which I am certain are available from acceptable sources, would add credibility to this article and would make the long list of awards, etc. appear less like puff.  These issues should be addressed in the cleanup of this article.msklystron (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a properly sourced section on the formative influences of the subject's youth and early career would be a valuable addition to this article.  Some of the references listed for the current article may provide appropriate secondary source material for such a section.  Bowrain13 (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can find time, (I'll just say here that I'm a beleaguered single mom of four struggling with an arts career)I'll dig around in some of those sources.  There's a wonderful story about young Sawyer submitting a motive for a light show contest.  He didn't win, but the motive was used.  Experiences like this, which encouraged the author as a youth, should be in the article.  He also belonged to an SF club in high school, where he happened to meet his wife.  I'm also curious as to why nothing about his wife is mentioned.  She has her own career, but has actively supported her husband in his.  Sawyer's experience at Ryerson no doubt led to his becoming called upon frequently on TV and Radio to discuss futurism and science fiction.  I guess what I'm saying is more connecting of facts and background details to the work are career are needed.msklystron (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early years 

message: There is dispute as to whether this section provides noteworthy NPOV information to the article or whether it is simply a "laundry list" of praise for the subject.  Bowrain13 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This material may be useful for a student researching the author, but I don't see that it has to be included in the body of the article.  Could this information be included as part of external links or further reading instead?  Looking at the Isaac Asimov article as an exemplar, what seems to be missing in this article is a true 'criticism' heading, which would include a short (and non-duplicative) sampling of quotes and/or paraphrasings of academic critical reviews which reflect the reception of this author's body of work or contribution to the genre of SF.msklystron (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that, while this material may be useful to someone researching the subject, it does not need to be included in the body of the article.  I would propose removing this section from the main article, but storing the information on the Talk page for now.  That way, contributors wishing to improve the styles and themes section as I have suggested below or create a true criticism section as you have suggested here would have easy access to a list of what I expect would be excellent secondary sources for accomplishing either task. Bowrain13 (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't have a section entitled "criticism", of course. Per WP:CRIT, that would not be appropriate. One could have a section called "reviews" or something similar, but best practices would be for professional critique of works to be on their individual articles, with only a summary in this BLP at the most. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  A summary of professional reviews would be useful.msklystron (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critical studies and scholarly works" section 

message: There is dispute as to whether or not the section regarding this legal dispute should be included in the article.  See this revision for the text under review.  Bowrain13 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I don't particularly want to be responsible for attempting to re-word the description of this dispute.  This would hold too great a chance for bias or even libel.  Looking at the revision, even referring to the Realms review as 'negative' without proper qualification and context provided could appear biased.  There are other examples of potentially contentious wording in the revision.  I would suggest leaving this out entirely as it doesn't appear to be groundbreaking legally and it appears to have had little impact on the reputation/ career of the subject.  In my opinion, if it must be included the description could be limited to the bare bones information:  date, name of the defendent and plaintiff, the charge, the finding with no description whatsoever of the details and arguements offered in court or the reasons for the finding.msklystron (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weiss v. Sawyer 

message: A repository for extraneous links and citations which should not be included in the main article (unless they are in the References section because they've been used to source encyclopedic content in the article).  I'm porting any such content I remove from the main article here so that editors working on researching new material and sourcing material for the main article will have easy access to possible sources. 
*Profile in Quill & Quire
*Entry on Robert J. Sawyer in The Canadian Encyclopedia
*Listing for Sawyer in the Locus Index to Science Fiction Awards
*Listing for Sawyer in the Locus Index to Science Fiction (1984-1998)
*Hollywood Reporter article on ABC TV adaptation of Sawyer's Flashforward
*Video of Sawyer's talk "Webmind: When the World Wide Web Gains Consciousness," related to his WWW trilogy, Authors@Google, Waterloo, June 17, 2009
=== Interviews ===
* Robert J. Sawyer interview on BookBanter (audio)
* Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Tor.com (text)
* Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by CBC's Words at Large (text)
*Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Something About the Author (text)
*Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Wotmania.com (text)
*Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by MarsDust.com (text)
*Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Roger Deforest (text)
*Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by CBC Radio's Sounds Like Canada (audio) 
*Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by CJAD Montreal on Wake (audio)
*Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by CJAD Montreal on Rollback (audio)
*Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by SpaceChannel.tv (video)
*Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Worlds Without End (audio)
*Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Paul Levinson (audio)
=== Conference papers ===
*"The Science and Religion Dialogue in the Science Fiction of Robert J. Sawyer," by Valerie Broege, presented at The Uses of the Science Fiction Genre: An Interdisciplinary Symposium, Brock University, October 2005; 
*"The Intimately Human and the Grandly Cosmic: Humor and the Sublime in the Works of Robert J. Sawyer," by Fiona Kelleghan, presented at the 29th annual International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts in Orlando, Florida, March 2008; 
*"Time and the Fiction of Robert J. Sawyer: Flash Forward to the End of an Era," by Fiona Kelleghan, presented at the 30th annual International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts, March 2009. 
=== Critical studies and reviews ===
* The Gospel According to Science Fiction by Gabriel McKee ["Though the novels [The Terminal Experiment and Hybrids] differ in their theories on the actual nature of the soul, both offer the hypothesis that the origin of human consciousness is an empirically detectable force" (p. 48)].
* Worlds of Wonder: Readings in Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature edited by Jean-Francois Leroux and Camille R. La Bossiere [the papers "Coding of Race in Science Fiction: What's Wrong With the Obvious?" by Sherryl Vint (which discusses Illegal Alien at length) and "Robots and Artificial Intelligence in Asimov's The Caves of Steel and Sawyer's Golden Fleece" by Ruby S. Ramraj).
* The Everyday Fantastic: Essays on Science Fiction and Human Being edited by Michael Berman [Valerie Broege's paper "The Science and Religion Dialogue in the Science Fiction of Robert J. Sawyer:" "I will focus on the following topics in relation to Sawyer's writings: his cosmological speculations that involve both science and religion and the question of the existence of God and His or Her nature, whether we live in a designed universe, how our religious thinking may have contaminated our scientific theories, and whether or not religious experiences or the human soul can reduced just to our physiology" (p. 141)].
* Science Fiction and Philosophy: From Time Travel to Superintelligence edited by Susan Schneider [Schneider's own paper "Minsdcan: Transcending and Enhancing the Human Brain:" "Sawyer's novel is a reductio ad absurdum of the patternist conception of the person" (p. 248)].
* Dinosaurs in Fantastic Fiction: A Thematic Survey by Allen A. Debus ["Collectively, Sawyer's Far-Seer, Fossil Hunter, and Foreigner are the greatest trilogy of tales ever written about intelligent, space-faring dinosaurs" (p. 118]).
* The New York Review of Science Fiction (including 5,000 words by Richard Parent on the "Neanderthal Parallax" trilogy in the June 2004 issue ["Robert J. Sawyer's ambitious new trilogy, The Neanderthal Parallax, presents a provocative challenge to literary analysis --  its hybridized nature brings together utopian, dystopian, and traditional sf tropes" (p. 19)], the essay "Robert J. Sawyer in Summer 2005: Mad Play" by Donald M. Hassler in the December 2005 issue, and commentary by Fiona Kelleghan in the cover story of the November 2008 issue).
* the SFRA Review; [citations are full text; see them for details].
* a scholarly afterword by Valerie Broege in Sawyer's own essay collection Relativity ["Sawyer places himself squarely in the American pulp-science fiction magazine tradition of the 1920s-1950s in his attempts to evoke a sense of wonder in his readers" (p. 289)].
* Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice ["Sawyer's fictional situations present readers with opportunities to apply their criminological imaginations, more implicitly, allowing one to relate to and distinguish criminological theory present in modern day society"].
Bowrain13 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources for further article improvement 

message: * The Gospel According to Science Fiction by Gabriel McKee ["Though the novels [The Terminal Experiment and Hybrids] differ in their theories on the actual nature of the soul, both offer the hypothesis that the origin of human consciousness is an empirically detectable force" (p. 48)].
* Worlds of Wonder: Readings in Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature edited by Jean-Francois Leroux and Camille R. La Bossiere [the papers "Coding of Race in Science Fiction: What's Wrong With the Obvious?" by Sherryl Vint (which discusses Illegal Alien at length) and "Robots and Artificial Intelligence in Asimov's The Caves of Steel and Sawyer's Golden Fleece" by Ruby S. Ramraj).
* The Everyday Fantastic: Essays on Science Fiction and Human Being edited by Michael Berman [Valerie Broege's paper "The Science and Religion Dialogue in the Science Fiction of Robert J. Sawyer:" "I will focus on the following topics in relation to Sawyer's writings: his cosmological speculations that involve both science and religion and the question of the existence of God and His or Her nature, whether we live in a designed universe, how our religious thinking may have contaminated our scientific theories, and whether or not religious experiences or the human soul can reduced just to our physiology" (p. 141)].
* Science Fiction and Philosophy: From Time Travel to Superintelligence edited by Susan Schneider [Schneider's own paper "Minsdcan: Transcending and Enhancing the Human Brain:" "Sawyer's novel is a reductio ad absurdum of the patternist conception of the person" (p. 248)].
* Dinosaurs in Fantastic Fiction: A Thematic Survey by Allen A. Debus ["Collectively, Sawyer's Far-Seer, Fossil Hunter, and Foreigner are the greatest trilogy of tales ever written about intelligent, space-faring dinosaurs" (p. 118]).
* The New York Review of Science Fiction (including 5,000 words by Richard Parent on the "Neanderthal Parallax" trilogy in the June 2004 issue ["Robert J. Sawyer's ambitious new trilogy, The Neanderthal Parallax, presents a provocative challenge to literary analysis --  its hybridized nature brings together utopian, dystopian, and traditional sf tropes" (p. 19)], the essay "Robert J. Sawyer in Summer 2005: Mad Play" by Donald M. Hassler in the December 2005 issue, and commentary by Fiona Kelleghan in the cover story of the November 2008 issue).
* the SFRA Review; [citations are full text; see them for details].
* a scholarly afterword by Valerie Broege in Sawyer's own essay collection Relativity ["Sawyer places himself squarely in the American pulp-science fiction magazine tradition of the 1920s-1950s in his attempts to evoke a sense of wonder in his readers" (p. 289)].
* Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice ["Sawyer's fictional situations present readers with opportunities to apply their criminological imaginations, more implicitly, allowing one to relate to and distinguish criminological theory present in modern day society"].
Bowrain13 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical studies and reviews 

message: Ralph Vicinanza, presumably Robert's agent, appears in Humans, taking out a neandertal to a book deal lunch. ps Ralph deserves an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Sawyer is about to receive an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from the University of Winnipeg, as stated by them here. I think that belongs under the "Major awards" section of this article, as should his Honorary D. Litt from Laurentian University (I can rustle up a source for that upon request). I don't want to add this myself, as I know him personally, so editing this article for anything other than error correction would violate WP:COS. So. Anyone agree with me about adding the honorary doctorates to the article? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. I've added it, but it didn't quite seem to fit under the awards section, so I've included it in an earlier part. No hassles if someone wants to move it around. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit - COI 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert J. Sawyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090514024120/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/news/e3i4b5caa365ad73b3a562218379433fee4 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i4b5caa365ad73b3a562218379433fee4
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100525125223/http://www.sfwa.org:80/pressbook/09/0112-Sawyer-Supernatural.html to http://sfwa.org/pressbook/09/0112-Sawyer-Supernatural.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708055304/http://obocwaterlooregion.blogspot.com/2006/04/one-book-one-community-2005-title.html to http://obocwaterlooregion.blogspot.com/2006/04/one-book-one-community-2005-title.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 04:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Robert J. Sawyer. 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/20070927191016/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit116.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit116.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014122618/http://www.speakers.ca/sawyer_robert.aspx to http://speakers.ca/sawyer_robert.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927013234/http://writersunion.ca/ww_alphalist.asp?L=S to http://writersunion.ca/ww_alphalist.asp?L=S
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) 17:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert J. Sawyer. 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/20110715092052/http://www.planetsmag.com/content.php?vn=7&is=17&an=1139&sc=1 to http://www.planetsmag.com/content.php?vn=7&is=17&an=1139&sc=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111075624/http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/robert-j-sawyer-red-planet-blues-cover-art-reveal-and-release-date to http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/robert-j-sawyer-red-planet-blues-cover-art-reveal-and-release-date
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) 04:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Currently the Bibliography section gives this as "(Ace, 1994)". However the (not reliable, because user edited) ISFDB lists the New English Library edition as published October 1994, citing the SF world's 'Journal of Record' Locus for this date, and the Ace edition as November 1994, and the (usually reliable) Encyclopedia of Science Fiction also credits NEL's edition as the first.
I have copies of both editions: the Ace (c) page is dated November 1994 and claims "never previously published", and the NEL's merely "First published in Great Britain in 1994" as is each's habitual style. I can believe that the Ace edition was intended to appear first (Sawyer's 'Acknowledgements', identical in both, mention only Ace editorial assistance), but Locus is highly reliable and the EoSF does not rely on ISFDB without good corroboration. I could well believe that some schedule rearrangement led to NEL's edition inadvertently appearing first.
Does anybody have another source to cross-check and determine whether the article should be amended to "(New English Library 1994)"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.174.88 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First publication of End of an Era