Talk:A Princess of Mars

message: I removed a sentence from the intro that read "Though considered science fiction at the time of it's publication, A Princess of Mars, due it's innacuracies in atronomical information, is today regarded as pure fantasy". As far as I can tell, this is total nonsense. It is contradictory with the first sentence ("...is a science fiction novel..."; if the genre was not absolutely clear then it would be noted further down and discussed). I do not know of anyone who regards Princess as anything but science fiction, nor could I find any such examples. Certainly, the book is not hard science fiction by any means, and would rate fairly low on the Kheper Realism scale, but that does not mean that it is considered fantasy. Science fantasy, maybe. My point is that I don't believe that this article should make judgements on the book's content. It should summarise the feelings of certain people and/or groups, but doing that requires citations, and not just broad generalisations about what it is "regarded" as.--SB | T 08:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantasy 

message: It seems like Tars Tarkas is a major character who deserves mention in the summary--particularly since he shows up without explanation as an allusion in a video game. Nareek 00:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tars Tarkas 

message: This passage appears in several different places in the text, worded almost identically each time:
:The novel also shares a number of features of Westerns in the inclusion of desert landscapes, women taken captive and a final confrontation with the antagonist.
Umm, none of these features are exclusive to Westerns.  Desert landscapes also appear in 1001 Nights, Lawrence of Arabia, and adventure tales of the French Foreign Legion such as Beau Geste, unless you are suggesting that they are all Westerns.  The other two "features" are common to all forms of adventure fiction.  The "source" posted for these statements is The Student Companion to James Fenimore Cooper, which would seem to have nothing whatever to say about the work of either Edgar Rice Burroughs or Westerns.  I think that a more reliable and relevant source is required to back up this statement, which would seem to be original research by someone who hasn't given very much thought to the subject.  Unfortunately, the same passage exists at least once and usually more than once in every related Wikipedia article. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would invite other editors to check the reference - the Google Books scan includes the cited passage and determine wether this anonymous editors concerns are justified; if so this claim can go. I agree the reference work is not ideal, but then Burroughs is not the subject of the kind of wide literary analysis more mainstream writers might be, so it can be necessary to use more varied sources to construct an article on him. Eg, some of the reference works cited here are academic studies on pulp fiction or machismo and racism, not specifically on Burroughs. I have removed the original research tag from the article in the meantime however, while the ideas here may not be felt to be worthy of inclusion in this article (although research into Burrough's life and writing would suggest otherwise, I feel personally), it would seem erroneous to call something cited from a published reference work original research - these are not my ideas, they are ideas presented by writer published by a non-vanity publishing house amid an extended passage of analysis of Burrough's works in a book on a wider topic .Mesmacat (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westerns? 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i45a4bf33efc179178ca1aefbace6b9ce
** In Dejah Thoris on 2011-03-17 05:57:00, 404 Not Found
** In A Princess of Mars on 2011-06-20 02:21:54, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I noticed some conflicting accounts of when the book was first published.  The article currently says it was published in 1917, but I'm also seeing [] it as a 1912 release.  I normally work on film articles, but I picked up on this while working on the John Carter (film) article.  Perhaps this should be changed.  --TravisBernard (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Released in 1912 or 1917 

message: This page calls The Outlaw of Torn Burrough's first book.  That page calls this book his first one.  Does anyone know which it is?  According to the dates listed, this one was first serialized in 1912, and published as a book in 1914, while the other one was serialized in 1914 and published in 1927, so it sounds like Princess of Mars is earlier.  But maybe the other one was written first?  -- Walt Pohl (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First book? 

message: Why was the image of the original publication removed? The image was appropriate to the article and public domain, and the IP user that removed it left no edit summary. Euchrid (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Question:  If John Carter and Deja Thoris can successfully mate, doesn't that make the Barsoomian races mammals?  If so, are they a special case of monotremes rather than just oviparous?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.69.68 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oviparous?