Talk:The Mote in God's Eye

message: Someone just created an article for Crazy Eddie... unreleated, of course. ;-) AdmN 01:35, 23 August 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Crazy Eddie

message: This article reads like a typical book review, which has two problems (1) people don't usally write book reviews for Wikipedia, so this may be a copyvio, and (2) it's not NPOV.  I'll try to tackle the latter, but does anyone know where this may have come from?  -- Kaszeta 16:22, 5 October 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit history shows this was mostly written by anons. I'll do some googling to see if there's any copyvio here. func(talk) 16:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, that was quick. :) All hits from the original version lead to Wikipedia and her mirrors, so thi wasn't a copy and paste job from the 'net. func(talk) 16:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Under the Larry Niven entry, it says Heinlein contributed significantly to the book, yet the actual book page makes no mention of this. I find it odd that Heinlein would contribute a lot and then praise it so heavily. Clarification would be nice; enquiring minds want to know.     -Luke
:from a usenet discussion:
:From _N-Space_, p. 335-6:
:: "Jerry sent our 'finished' mansucript to a friend:  Robert Heinlein. Robert told us that he could put one terrific blurb on the cover _if_ we made some changes.  The first hundred pages had to go . . .
::"And we did that, and re-introduced characters and moved back- ground data from the last prologue to a later scene set on New Scotland, and did more chopping throughout.  'There's a scene I _never_ liked,' I told Jerry, and our whole relationship changed. This was when we learned not to be too polite to a collaborator; it hurts the book.
::"And we sent it back to Robert, _who did a complete line-editing job_.
::"I know of a man who offered Robert Heinlein a reading fee!  The results were quite horrid.  But in the case of _Mote_, Robert hadn't expected us to take his advice.  Nobody ever had before (he told us). But if "Possibly the finest science fiction novel I have ever read" were to appear on the cover above Robert Heinlein's name, then the book had to _be_ that.
::"It took us forever to write.  We won the LASFS's 'Sticky' Award for 'Best Unpublished Novel' two years running.  It was worth every minute."
:A comment later in the thread says, "Larry Niven said that RAH's comments on _mote_ ran to 70 pages single spaced." I don't know if that's also in N-Space.
:—wwoods 01:56, 3 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited by Heinlein 

message: The handheld computers in this 1975 novel are quite close to the capabilities exhibited by PalmOS 4.1, released circa 2001, when the PDA operating system gained the Notepad application that can store sketches and handwriting, but can't translate handwriting to editable text.
:Actually, I heard Jerry Pournelle say on several occasions that today's smartphones were more or less what he was thinking about when he described the pocket computers.  JDZeff (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A noteworthy element 

message: What is the unexplained key element of the Moties that Theodore Sturgeon talks about? --Againme (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Left unanswered

message: King David's Spaceship? It's set in the same universe, but I have difficulty calling it a preceding work in any meaningful way. That article even states that the events in it are contemporaneous to what happens in Mote. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I view King David's Spaceship as either set contemporaneous or at the end of the action in The Mote in God's Eye. Toward the end of King David's Spaceship, we learn that the Imperial Navy's being drawn down all over to deal with a development out near the Coal Sack nebula, obviously the blockade of the Mote. loupgarous (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removed it from the infobox and this novel from KDS's infobox. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preceded by ...?