Talk:Quicksilver (novel)

message: Have we decided not to give a plot overview? And apparently in the Confusion Dappa is said to have come from Nigeria, but there was a mention of Angolan ancestry somewhere in QUicksilver?
Why cant we have a plot summary? The first time i read this  article I was a bit lost... Apart from a list of characters there is no indication of what the novel is actually about. The Nouv 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: revolving around characters, such as Isaac Newton, who are not distinguished in any obvious way from the corresponding historical figures.
I'm not sure what this means, so I expunged it. -- Tim Shell, 8 Aug 2004
:Well Newton in the book is basically the same as Newton in real life except for his interaction with the ficitional characters. 218.103.132.85 09:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: edit

message: Neal Stephenson did not want his novels to be thought of as a trilogy. They shouldn't be called "Baroque Trilogy" as done in the article. Stephenson has titled the The Baroque Cycle. --Phoebus 00:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: not a trilogy

message: When will the paperback edition of Quicksilver be published? - Bevo 20:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: October 2004 according to a website I just found. - Bevo 22:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Paperback edition

message: I gather from the book's appendix that no one of the "Jack Ketch"s referred to in the text is the historical Jack Ketch, but that the characters simply use the epithet as a synonym for "hangman," as we'd use "John Hancock" or "Davey Jones" today. Anyone with textual support is welcome to add it here and put "Jack Ketch" back in the list of historical figures. --Quuxplusone 23:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Ketch 

message: In the list of actual historical figures, there is a mention to a young Ben Franklin.  The books are set during the English Civil War and the reign of Charles II and one of the James', say about 1677 to the 1680's.  There is no possible way that this could be Ben Franklin.
I am new to wiki, so I didn't want to just edit the article without discussing it first.
Any reason why the reference to 'Ben' should not be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.136.15.158 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The part in which Ben appears is set in 1713. —Andux␅ 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ben" cannot be a young Ben Franklin 

message: :Image:NealStephenson Quicksilver.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NealStephenson Quicksilver.jpg

message: Hi, an editor asked me for some suggestions on bringing this article toward GA status. So here's what I think:
1. The plot summary is by far the largest part of the article. A long one would be expected for such a long book, though it needs to be balanced with other material.
2. The lead discusses Quicksilver's relation to the later volumes in the series. This is important information, and there probably should be a section dealing with it. The lead however must summarise and introduce the article. Perhaps a "background" section?
3. Suggested section: Composition and publication. Given the length of the work and the scope of its ambition there must surely be interesting information to relate on the writing. Changing between discussing the "cycle", "volume" "novels" and "parts" and then further splits when printed for paperback is confusing to a reader unfamilar with the subject. Put this in a publication history sub-section.
4. Themes is very short and weak for such a long work of historical fiction. How does the author's treatment of historical events differ from the history books? What does he aim to teach the reader?
5. Style could again be longer and perhaps use better sources. More explanation of the literary methods used to develop the project. 
6. Sources are insufficient. The complete review lists several reviews, more should be used here. I know it is hard writing articles about relatively new novels that have not been the subject to academic research yet.
7. Critical Reception poorly written and bitty. 
I don't mean to sound overly negative, but these are the weaknesses of the article as I see it know. I congrulate all on taking on such an ambitous subject as this, again especially when there is relatively little published about it. Be sure to avoid using fan websites and other wikis. 
Best of luck, believe me, --Ktlynch (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Sadads (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Think I fixed most of these. Sadads (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A short peer review 

message: Moved from Sadads' user page:
Hi Sadads!
 
-	
Decided to respond here instead of the article talkpage. Hope that's okay.
 
-	
I've read most of the article (to be honest, it's been on my watchlist for months, but I got caught up with Hemingway instead) and am pleased to see the development. Some points to consider: plot could use some trimming (excruciatingly difficult in a work this size) so the reader isn't greeted with a wall of text. In my view, the best way to do this would be to present only the most important plot developments. On the other hand, the themes section could use some development. I haven't had a chance to see what's available critically, or whether scholarly sources exist, but by now I'd expect criticism to exist in more than the popular press. Trying to find a Publisher's Weekly review would be helpful. Finally, try to avoid falling into Stephenson's prose style by using 17th century capitalization rules (i.e. Science, Mathematics, etc.). Will return with more. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't find anything in Publisher's Weekly and expanded criticism section and cut plot since. Sadads (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have access to databases try a search on Baroque cycle. I see at least three entries from Publishers Weekly for Quicksilver and more than one from Kirkus. These publications are excellent for reviews and also in explaining the odd publishing history of separating a single volume into three. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also try google news archives. Here's a sample of one of three reviews from Slate.  Apparently either Time or Newsweek also wrote about the Stephenson. Don't forget to check for scholarly articles as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Already have those, and their aren't any articles in Muse or JSTOR, and Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus both reinforce already moot points from reviews. Sadads (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't realize you had the Salon piece already. Sorry about that. I do believe that WP:NOVSTY encourages industry sources if they are available, but will go check again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, meant already have one of the solon articles. I don't think the Leonard adds much, it just reinforces. That is the problem I am having with most reviews: the sound like the same thing over and over again. Sadads (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's most likely true with a work like this. The trick is to read carefully and pick out the bits that are different. Also, I noted that you have trade paperback as the separate editions. A trade paperback is larger in size (almost hardback size) than a mass market paperback. I have the first edition, so don't know whether the paperbacks are trade or mass market, but check to see whether you have it correct (this btw is the reason for industry journal sources). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: * During copyedit I went to check the reference for the second sentence under the Style heading: The book is written in "an omniscient modern presence occasionally given to wisecracks, with extensive use of the continuous present". I did not find this quote in the referenced article: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/quicksilver-by-neal-stephenson-735267.html Please verify. -- Dtgriffith (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed URL, same reviewer, same book, different day. Sadads (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to check reference

message: The fact that Eliza blows off William is of minimal importance to the plot. The fact that Jack is off on a slaving mission is of critical importance (it significantly influences the motivations of Eliza from then on, and is contributes in a major way to the plot clincher in the final few chapters of the entire cycle) and so perhaps should perhaps be expanded on.--Matt Westwood 17:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right. Now that I am thoroughly immersed in the plot of the rest of the series, I realized how minor that is. I will expand a bit, and you can go modify and so on until we have something good!  Sadads (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thought of something else which might merit a mention: the man who kidnapped Eliza in the first place, the one who eats rotten fish. I'd need to re-read it to establish who he was again (one of the D'Arcachons?) because I'm fairly sure there's something important in there which I never actually got. --Matt Westwood 07:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the plot should explain that Eliza is not a member of a harem, but a slave. She's from Qwghlm and becomes/is (?) the Countess of Qwghlm. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Technically, she's a harem slave.--Matt Westwood 22:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

text: He was duc d'Arcachon, but she doesn't figure that out until Confusion. Modifying character description now.Sadads (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This paragraph still needs work. I might have a go once I've worked out exactly what is relevant and what is mere padding. This part of the work is absolutely crucial for the understanding of the climax of the cycle.--Matt Westwood 14:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last para of King Of The Vagabonds plot summary 

message: Per WP:Close paraphrasing I'm posting here. Yesterday I acquired a reading copy of Quicksilver with the intention of rereading the book. The edition includes a Stephenson interview as backmatter. The following sentence is included as caption to an image of Stephenson's manuscript:
The manuscript of the Baroque Cycle was written on on 100 percent cotton paper using three fountain pens: a Waterman Gentleman, a Rotring and a Jorg Hysek. Later the manuscript was transcribed using eMacs and TeX. When it was totally finished a TeX version of the manuscript was converted to QuarkXPress using an eMac LISP program written by the author. ("P.S.: From Pen to Printed Page". Quicksilver. Perennial. 2004. p. 3)
I've commented out the following text from the article, and will rewrite it:
Stephenson wrote the original manuscript on 100 percent cotton paper using three fountain pens: a Waterman Gentleman, a Rotring and a Jorg Hysek. Later the manuscript was transcribed using Emacs and TeX, then converted to QuarkXPress using a program written by Stephenson in LISP.
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More fundamentally, I wonder whether such details are worth readers' time and attention.  If they e.g. somehow reflect Stephenson's philosophy of writing etc., maybe they belong in the article about him, with an explanation of their significance.  Here they sound, to me, a lot like fancruft. But I'm just butting in. EEng (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. The source mentions the Baroque Cycle in general and not Quicksilver specifically, so perhaps it's worth adding this to an article there or about the author. I'll remove it altogether. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry the statement was a little to similar, I was trying to include information that editors suggested. But it is all factual, so is hard to paraphrase. Sadads (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

text: * Oh, and another thing! This isn't really necessary: "orthography" is wikilinked, so even if a reader doesn't know what it means (and I suspect you may be overstating it when you say "noone knows what it means") they can simply click on it to find out. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close paraphrasing 

message: Given the comments on the thread above, I decided to the article could do with a spot-check of the sources. Quite a few errors have been found, and I've cleaned up as I've gone along. Based on the number of errors from the spot-check, all the sources should be checked and the text recast as necessary. Am almost done with that task. When I'm finished (hopefully in the morning)  I'll swing through again to copyedit the changes I've made. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, I don't see errors in many of the changes you have made. Many of the changes you have made are the choice between identifying the sources interpretative position through paraphrasing or quotation. Quotation, in many of those cases, seems excessive and unnessary. However, I do think that many of your changes have increased the quality of the language. However, you are losing some of the factually important information, such as the variety of narrative styles which the review did emphasize. Thus far, I don't see any "source" errors. Thank you so much for the help and quality support. Sadads (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added quotations in instances where the text is a verbatim copy of the source, in which case quotation marks must be used. There were a number of such instances (essentially everywhere I've added quotation marks). Also, in some cases a source was used to cite material that did not exist in the specific source. I've fixed those cases, which is the reason the errors are now gone. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just, some of the changes have obscured a more comprehensive approach to the literary analysis, such as the edit I just made which integrates factual statement with the interpretation present in the source. Sadads (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the edit because it's not what the source says. It's one thing to provide a comprehensive literary analysis and quite another to put words into the mouths of reviewers. It may be true that Stephenson uses period sentences structure, but to verify it you must find a source that discusses the sentence structure. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source verification 

message: Truthkeeper, I agree that the exact specifics of the web campaign and the additional information about the signing tour are unneccessary. However the number for the initial publication run, and the use of an internet campaign  say alot about the amount of effort being put into the first run of the novel. I think removing these would harm the comprehensiveness of the real world information in the article, Sadads (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine - agree. I just took it back to an earlier version before restructuring. I have some of the sources printed out and am trying to figure out what comes from where. Unfortunately the way the refs are formatted, if a sentence & a cite is deleted, the ref breaks. So, I just deleted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is a little frustrating. I am kindof regretting whoever came through and organized the refs like that (not to point any fingers), Sadads (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the original citation style of the article shouldn't have been changed, so if you wanted to, you'd be well in your rights to reestablish your original style. I find the original style easier to edit. I'm essentially done; just wanted to check the sections I'd worked on against the sources I printed. Everything looks fine, but the attributions and quotes are necessary. Unfortunately it's very choppy - I've recently lost a lot of confidence in my writing, so leave it you to fix. Am returning in a moment with a link to a page that I think is relevant to the plot.  Sorry, this is off topic, but I thought this page was interesting; had never read it until this afternoon. I've unwatched the novel project pages, but am wondering if this is information that needs to be posted there?  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I want to redo the whole referencing right now though. We can work with it, it isn't too bad. On the point of writing style, feel free to make changes. I am very overconfident in my own writing, no matter how many times my flaws get pointed out to me (at least I know I am right? and I do try to fix many problems, but some of them are pretty ingrained). As for the plot thing, that is interesting, I will go through and make sure there isn't too much detail. But I think condensing a 944 page plot into 1500 words is not too much detail, especially considering how important plot complexity is to the critics. We might want to bring that up on the novels page, though participation in it has died down since the last havoc I created :) Sadads (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go through the plot section and add inline comments. I'm thinking it probably should be presented in broad brush strokes and avoid specific scenes, but honestly I haven't read the section in almost six months, and I haven't read the book in years, so will take some thought. I'll also open a thread at wikiproject novels (once I find it again - became one of hundreds unwatched pages) re: writing plots and we can discuss there. I think adding to the guidelines for plot sections wouldn't be bad idea either. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The frame story of the ship chase of Daniel is extremely important thus his decision to board the ship is really important, I would make sure we aren't ommiting it, Sadads (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah agreed. How about just mentioning that there is a frame story - I only remember the battle scene as they're leaving Boston and can't remember what happens at the second part of the frame. Maybe the best thing to do is to trim down a little at a time over an extended period. One of these days I'll get to the book too, but it's a long read. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing campaign & plot 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Quicksilver (novel). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20061004010701/http://metaweb.com:80/ to http://www.metaweb.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified