Talk:Edmund Cooper

message: Hi, I just wanted to add that in the book Jupiter Laughs there is a short story entitled Welcome Home.
This short story was made in to a film called Mission to Mars in 2000.
Ingotblue (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

message: Edmund Cooper (April 30th 1926 - March 11th 1982)Critic, poet, playwright, short story writer, best known as a writer of British Science Fiction, published under his own name and several pseudonyms.
On advice the Literary Executor and legal copyright holder of the works and estate of Edmund Cooper, the Edmund Cooper Literary Trust, has removed the previous information on this site because of the factual errors and misleading information it contained. From the archives held by the Cooper Trust the present bibliography being compiled by The Trust runs to over eight hundred (800) pages which should give the reader some indication as to why the previous entry was so misleading and the extent the work being undertaken by The Trust. 
Edmund Cooper set up the Literary Trust before he died to ensure the preservation of his archive and the accuracy of information on his life and works. 
Once all permissions have been granted and all facts verified the Trust will then provide information about Edmund Cooper on this site.
The Trustees welcome enquiries about Cooper and the work of the Trust, if you have any enquiries about his autobiography, biography or bibliography, then you should contact Dee Page, Administrator for the Edmund Cooper Literary Trust by e-mail on dfpcantab@yahoo.co.uk—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee page (talk • contribs) 2006-07-04t11:18:29z
:Dee page, please indicate what is wrong with the 2006-07-03t22:04:31z version of the article, so it can be fixed; instead of blanking most of the article, which is considered vandalism. Challenging and removing unsourced info and copyright violations is fine, but please indicate when this is done in the edit summary. -- Jeandré, 2006-07-04t12:11z
The Trustees are an unresponsive bunch. As one of Edmund's sons I can say they have done a first class job of trying to stifle all information about Edmund and have done a pretty good job. As someone who actually knew the bloke I can safely say he would find what they do idiotic but then Edmund being Edmund wouldn't be surprised by this as Dee Page is a woman.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.38.213.226 (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page is not subject to the imprimatur of "the trustees" or of Dee Page. If there are inaccuracies, state what they are and/or correct them. Stop turning this page into a statement of the policies of the Literary Trust. Ben-w 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Trustees

message: Look, if there are inaccuracies, FIX THEM. Just correct the inaccurate information, and explain why in the edit note. Stop banging on about the permissions of the Trustees: you do not have a monopoly on factual information. Simply remove the inaccurate information and replace it with accurate information. Issues which are more subjective are open to discussion. But you are going about this very much in the wrong way. Ben-w 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits, Changes, etc.

message: I confess to being somewhat dismayed at the apparent rift between the Trustees of Edmund Cooper and the author(s) of the Cooper entry on Wikipedia.  Both sides are obviously interested in promoting Edmund Cooper and I would have thought a little more tolerance and understanding would have helped on all sides.
FWIW, I was a long-time fan of Edmund Cooper (I say "was" as I haven't read one of his books for many years) and have a collection of all of his books that I am aware of (including the psudonymous ones) as well as many of the stories (including many published outside the SF genre). I am also the author/publisher of 56 bibliographies of assorted SF authors and while I do not claim to be an "expert", I think I do have some credentials in this area.
Reading through the current entry for Edmund Cooper and the comments made by the Trust, my view is that many of the comments/corrections/additions proposed by the Trust are perfectly reasonable, although I deplore the attitude taken for criticising the original author for not knowing about the stories published during the war given that the Trust has never made any attempt to release this information to the general public.  Quite why the Trust has allowed Cooper to slide into oblivion since his death is a puzzle to me, but is also outside the scope of this discussion.
My personal view is that most of the Trust's proposed corrections be included in the Wikipedia article with the following caveats/exceptions:
>> delete and detective novels – hardly relevant as he only wrote one
As EC did write a detective novel then it is unreasonable to delete the reference or to claim it is "hardly relevant".  However, a rewording to stress that he primarily wrote science fiction but also wrote widely outside the field, including one detective novel, would seem a reasonable compromise.
>> wrong – he did not join the Merchant Navy at the age of 15
I have no information on this to hand, but if the Trust would care to clarify when he DID join the Merchant Navy then I'm sure the fact could be corrected.
>> Short stories, poetry and novels had been published both in the UK and USA during his
>> Merchant Navy Service – 1944-46 – infact he had started writingf at the age of 14 and
>> his first story was published when he was 16 – his first poem was published a year earlier
Again, this is information that the Trust has but, for some unknown reason, chooses not to share with the wider community.  I'm sure we would all love to know more about these stories and poems.
>> a new UK edition was published the next year with a variant text and cannot be considered
>> as anything other than a new book
This betrays a basic lack of understanding of bibliographical principles.  IIRC, the variant text in DEADLY IMAGE/UNCERTAIN MIDNIGHT is relatively minor and would NOT generally be regarded as a "new book".
>> It is important to note that Seed of Light was written in 1955, but not published until 1959
This is certainly of interest, and would be addressed in any many bio/bibliographical study of his work, but is not generally relevant in a simply bibliography whose purpose is to list the first publication dates only.
>> [Pseudonyms] This is not true and if you intend to make personal statements of this
>> nature you must verify them or remove them – at no time did Cooper say that he was not
>> proud of any of his work and his autobiography states quite the opposite
That's an interesting comment.  I am not aware of any published biography of Cooper so I assume the Trust is again quoting privileged information that they choose not to share with the general public.  The general perception is that the pseudonyms used on the books sold to Curtis Warren (by Cooper, John Brunner, Ted Tubb and many others) were precisely to disguise the author's name as these were generally just "hack work" to pay the bills.  If this was not the case with Cooper then he would be an exception and it is unreasonable to expect somebody not privy to the bibliography to know it.
>> {Cooper] was living off his literary earings and writing full time by the age of 25
>> i.e. 1951 – there was a hiatus in his literary career when he left the woman he
>> considered his inspiration and lived with Valerie Makin, who was to become his second wife]
Again, this is interesting information that has not been released in the public domain (AFAIK). Cooper was well known as a book reviewer for the Sunday Times so he was certainly employed for some of the period after 1951. As such, while the correction has some merit, it does need qualification.
>> The following year The Uncertain Midnight was adapted for Swiss television, in French
If I understand the comment from the Trust correctly, this is correct but unauthorised (and hence plagiarised).  A correction to indicate this fact would seem reasonable.
>> Cooper was regarded as the catalyst who changed the face of British SF for ever
While I admire the Trust's loyalty to their cause, this is just plain ludicrous and I would be interested in seeing citations from any credible SF historian to this effect.  Cooper was a very competent author, who wrote some excellent books, but his impact on the "fact of British SF" was minimal compared to, say, Wells, Wyndham, Ballard, Aldiss or Brunner.
>> he died of a haematemisis after an operation that morning and it is incorrect to say he
>> died of alcohol-related illnesses
This sounds a reasonable correction.
>> Cooper’s use of the word atheist is subjective, he particularly disliked the effects
>> of organised religion
I'm unclear as to the distinction being made here - was Cooper an atheist or not?
>> In fact he used Science Fiction to illustrate the wrongs in society and he had a
>> messianic zeal in standing up for the underdog
Looking at the whole published oeuvre of his work, one would have to say that the original description of his themes is a more accurate one than one of "standing up for the underdog" - I'm sure he has a messianic zeal for the latter, but he was constrained by the demands of the marketplace.
>> Why are you concentaring on the Expendables when he wrote over 30 novels and he only
>> considered the Expendables as a necessary means of earning money while he researched
>> his first major non SF novel.
I would tend to agree - The Expendables are very minor work, which is no doubt why they were original published under a pseudonym (although no attempt was made at the time to hide who was behind the pseudonym).
>> Why do you and Stokes concentrate on this – it has not proved to be controversial –
>> no reviews of the TWO books that concentrated on the excesses of women’s lib – he hated
>> anything excessive in the political field – were detrimental, it was only the journalists
>> in the UK who stirred up a storm
Whether or not the controversy was justified is another question, but there is no doubt that he did stir up controversy at the time - it might have been inadvertent and unjustified, but it certainly happened.
>> Several of his books depicted future worlds dominated by women, often to the detriment
>> of all [two, perhaps three, which is not several and you give the wrong impression].
A reasonable comment.
>> We have told Stokes and we are telling you that Cooper was quoting a psychiatrist and
>> he thought this statement to be ridiculous
Certainly the original statement, i.e. that Cooper has been quoted as saying this, is, I believe, correct - the issue seems to be whether he was quoted correctly or not.  As such, obviously, the onus is simply on either "side" to provide a public citation that supports their case rather than just stating an opinion.
>> Foreign editions such as Gender Genocide are not listed as ‘also known as’ as they
>> are considered as separate books
This is nonsense in any bibliography (serious or otherwise) - two books with identical (or virtually identical) texts and different titles are always regarded as being the same book.
>> and what about all the other editions that are not mentioned and without which
>> this cannot be considered a serious bibliography
This is a Wikipedia entry and NOT a serious bibliography.
>> together with incorrect dates and ISBN numbers that were not applied at the time
>> eg the first edition of A Far Sunset has a date of 1967 without an ISBN number,
>> it was only subsequent editions published at a later date that were given a number
The comment on ISBNs is a bit of a red herring - I don't see their value myself, but if it helps someone find and buy an Edmund Cooper book then all well and good.  Certainly any errors in first publication dates should be corrected.
>> how have you verified pseudonyms?
The four pseudonyms listed have been well known in the SF community for the last ten years or so.  Obviously it is always difficult to verify pseudonyms, particularly when the author is deceased, but these seem pretty solid.  If the Trust feels the list is inaccurate or incomplete then I'm sure we would all love to see corrections and additions.
>> A specific bibliography, such as this should indicate to the reader the publications
>> listed are those written by the author, so you cannot put in screenplays he did not write
Fair comment
>> and take out the ‘see Edmund Cooper’s Biography’ as it is as inaccurate as yours is at
>> this time
I see no reason to remove this link - all websites (and indeed all documents) are inaccurate to a degree and, at the moment, it seems to be the best website around to discuss Cooper's life (there isn't much competition!).
>> and it would be courteous to make mention of the Edmund Cooper Literary Trust as we
>> hold the full archive and all copyrights
Wikipedia isn't really aimed at people trying to purchase the rights to reprint stories or anything similar, so listing the copyright holder or agent or similar is rarely relevant.  Obviously if the Trust was prepared to produce its own website with a correct statement of the "facts" then a link to that would be justified.
>> If, after your bad tempered outburst
From what I have seen of the discussions, the reaction to the Trust's deletion of the page was perfectly justified - calling it "bad tempered" is unhelpful.
>> bibliogaraphy (standing at over 800 pages at this time – will Wikipedia be able to cope?
Wikipedia is a website with tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of entries, so of course it could cope with an 800-page bibliography (as long as it was well structured).  Is the Trust prepared to make this bibliography available on the web (I will gladly host it on my own website if Wikipedia is inappropriate) or is this just an empty gesture?
>> if you have any questions please ask us and it will be so much easier than us
>> having to waste time over the Wikipedia entry
Except that the Wikipedia entry is public and allows everyone with an interest to see the information.  Private e-mails might be "easier" for the Trust but also smack of a desire to control/limit the free flow of information.
I am sure I speak for all Cooper fans in saying we are delighted to hear that the Trust is finally doing something to promote Edmund Cooper (though a biography and a collection of poetry is much less interesting, to me at least, than reissues of his main books and/or collections of his uncollected fiction).  However, I am concerned that, after many years of total neglect, it appears to be more interested in suppressing others who wish to promote Cooper than in making the effort to promote the author themselves.
:The above was contributed by Phil Stephensen-Payne, who tells me that his failure to sign was accidental. --DeafMan 14:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An impartial view 

message: The Trustees or anyone else who wants to can edit the page to make it more accurate, and they have been encouraged to do so.They have chosen, instead, to engage in lengthy boring lectures about their Sacred Rights As Trustees. If there are inaccuracies, EDIT THE GODDAM ARTICLE AND FIX THEM. Ben-w 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP with the ten-page rambling essays

message: Christ, Dee, did you have http://ecoopersf.org.uk designed by a meth-addicted hamster? 
It'd be really great if you could express whatever it is you want to say about Edmund Cooper in a paragraph of about this length without getting all upset and making vague threats about the moral rights of the trustees. Ooooooh, the TRUSTEES! That's you, right? Anyone else? No? Ben-w 11:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloody hell

message: To say "planet colonisation" is  only used in Transit & Seahorse is wrong: 
  
Seahorse in the Sky, concerns kidnapped humans from three separate planets, colonising a new world.
  
The Expendables series, concerns proving planets fit for colonisation.    
 
Seed of Light is about a generation starship which sets out to colonise another world and eventually ends up in Earth pre-history, colonising a planet which is essentially alien to the crew who are hundreds of generations removed.
Far Sunset is based on the idea that the planet voyaged to, is a planet originally colonised by Mars, as was Earth (an idea also visited in his short story Welcome Home)
Tenth Planet concerns a man waking after 5000 years on the 10th planet of this solar system which has been colonised by Earth after an eco-disaster (on Earth, and a failed 1st colony on Mars). 
Also:
Last continent is about Earth being visited by a descendant society produced through the colonisation of Mars after a race-war.
In Transit, the prize for winning against the aliens is the planet to colonise. 
In The Overman Culture, the machines that wiped out man, rebuild the human species in order to re-colonise Earth.
That is eleven novels, the metier of nine of which and the denouement of two of which, in each case derive directly from the idea of planet colonisation, ergo a common theme in over half of his novels.  
  
Please don't confuse the concept of a 'Plot-Theme' with that of a 'Plot-line' (The actual action).  Only one EC book concerns planet colonisation as a plot-line and that is Seed of Light.  
Not even the expendables uses colonisation as a plot-line, the plot-line for that sequence is that of planetary proving.
You explicitly say that "colonisation" is a common theme, that *then* gets used in The Expendables..  now you INCLUDE the Expendables as examples of colonisation.  I will admit colonisation was used as a theme *in* The Expendables, since that was exactly what the series was about (preparation for colonisation), but it was not "common" in his work.  Among your examples are Seed of Light (humanity returns to Earth), Far Sunset (human lands on planet populated by humans), Last Continent (human descendants of an exiled community return to Earth), The Ovetrman Culture (repopulating NOT recolonising Earth).  You might as well include All Fools' Day (the insane inherit an Earth depopulated by the plague), or Five to Twelve (the male sex is reintroduced) or The Tenth Planet (the disparate societies come to a rapprochement to reinvigorate Earth).  You are spindling the word "colonisation" to mean what it does not mean, and the word "theme" to the same extent - the majority of his works can indeed be seen as humanity re-inheriting Earth after an apocalyptic event, but "to colonise" means to establish a colony in another land, or "to take up residence" - humanity cannot "colonise" a place it already inhabits.  To suggest a multiply-defined "colonisation" is "common" should be matched with similar "common themes": love, hate, despair, loss, disappointment, genocide, madness, poets, countryside, that is, the accoutrements of being human, and alive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.195.125 (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonisation of Planets

message: One thing that stands out as missing from this article is any hint as to why he died at the relatively early age of 56. If anyone could add that information, many readers would be grateful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.77.80 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of Death? 

message: I find it strange that there is no official website again for Edmund Cooper, now that some of his e-books have been released, surely it would be favourable to promote Edmund's work further if there was an active website of his?
DJ  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.14.20 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's his website then? 

message: I am quite frankly amazed at the pettiness of this article on Edmund Cooper. I wonder whether this is because the family members who write disparagingly here about the Trustees role in promoting ,or lack of it ,the; information regarding this writer and who appear to be more concerned about promoting their version of the events and dates of Cooper's literary output , mainly it seems through letters written by both Cooper and their mother during an adulterous relationship. As both an author and researcher , I know that information in such letters is often deliberately skewered to give the appearance of one or both being the reason certain books,characters are being written in the way they are. Here the trustees have given information which contradicts the letters through contractual and business letters but these are and I have noted, continue and consistently to be ignored.I wonder why? And of course there is the usual guess work which shines through all the articles and summaries I have read by Cooper's family and friends;and I can tell you that Dee Page is not a woman ,so the son of Cooper who wishes his name to remain anonymous, remarks about this employee is not only hurtful but unjust, as are his comments on Cooper's reactions to how the Trustees conduct themselves. Perhaps if he was more aware about his father's estate he would have ascertained that in the words of Cooper's executors, "Cooper was hopelessly bankrupt" at the time of his death which in itself poses problems of how to deal with the estate and bequests etc. 
As to a web site I have been told that this is well advanced but as yet has to have new data added from Cooper's letters which have come to light.
It has been suggested that there should be more information on the death of Cooper at such an early age. I was with Cooper on this day as was one other who knew him much better than I having been his loving and literary companion for over 30 years . If she feels that such a request invades Cooper's privacy then I see no reason to make any additions to this request. His companion feels that since the Trustees have put the truth out there as far as they are able under the strictures  and rules given to them by Cooper ;and subsequently all that has happened is a total disregard for the truth ,then information that she could provide should remain with her. Furthermore if she did provide such information it would open a much wider door to a relationship that provided Cooper with much needed intellectual and loving companionship and would demonstrate the contribution that she made to his works thus causing even more fluttering in Cooper's domestic dovecote and with all that that entails. signedEmpirejohn (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edmund Cooper 

message: This was printed in 1975, a copy's just been put up on the web:  - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1975 interview with Cooper 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edmund Cooper. 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/20050424105634/http://www.stoke5399.freeserve.co.uk/cooper/ to http://www.stoke5399.freeserve.co.uk/cooper/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050424105634/http://www.stoke5399.freeserve.co.uk/cooper/ to http://www.stoke5399.freeserve.co.uk/cooper/
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) 13:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edmund Cooper. 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/20110719125159/http://www.stoke5399.freeserve.co.uk/cooper/index.htm to http://www.stoke5399.freeserve.co.uk/cooper/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309003956/http://www.bondle.co.uk/edmund_cooper/a_far_sunset.html to http://www.bondle.co.uk/edmund_cooper/a_far_sunset.html
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) 05:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified