Talk:Invasion literature

message: Should some note be taken of the alternative history writing tradition here? Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. The genre refers to a specific set of novels between 1871 and 1914 and their notable influences leading up to WWI. One can extend it pre and post Dorking, and there is a section for that in the article, but I think it might be Original Research to label works as part of the genre, so if we do add more material outside the timeframe, it should be not a central theme of the article, but influences and traditions. I've also added alternative history (fiction) to the See Also section. --Stbalbach 23:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: alternative history

message: I think it should be noted in the opening paragraph that this genre appeared right after the Franco-Prussian War rather than having it look like it spontaneously appeared. The unexpected nature of that conflict was one of the main factors in forming the social background that caused the genre's success. I also think that if The Battle of Dorking is one of the seminal works of the genre, a link to that work is relevant. But I'm willing to hear the other side before restoring this information. MK2 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The genre took off, or became a notable genre, starting with the appearance of Dorking in 1871. But in fact the roots of the genre existed before the Franco-Prussian war, invasion stories using new technologies go back to the 1780s (in France) with hot air baloons. It would be a mistake to say that the Franco-Prussian war was the roots of the genre. -- Stbalbach 02:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize The Battle of Dorking was the first manifestation of the genre. But a story doesn't become a popular success for no reason. Its success was due to the anxiety caused by the unexpected outcome of the war. If The Battle of Dorking had been published two years earlier it would have been ignored and forgotten. The article should explain the context of the times in which the events it's describing occurred. MK2 16:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. The Wikipedia:Lead section is just a summary of the article. The article proper discusses the war. Expand on it if you want-- Stbalbach 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: opening paragraph

message: I proposed the merge as it was an odd orhpaned entry with nothing linked into it that could easily be tagged on the end of the "Notable invasion literature" section. (Emperor 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a general article about a literary genre. England Invaded is a proper noun which describes a cycle of books by one particular author. We don't merge book articles into genre articles. Books and book cycles have their own articles. I would recommend that England Invaded be merged into the author article, and one or two of those books be listed in the notable invasion literature section. -- Stbalbach 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: hmm I just looked at it more closely, England Invaded is a book published in 1977 as a collection of stories from the Invasion Literature period. The problem with listing them individually under "notable invasion literature" in this article is I'm not sure they are all that notable (I don't think any of them are mentioned elsewhere in the article). In which case probably the best thing to do is just leave it as a separate article and link to that article from this article. -- Stbalbach 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you have discovered it is a single book that reprints various stories from the genre. I can't see any reason why it can't fit in here - if theya ren't notable then the other entry should be deleted which I think is a pity as they are solid contributions to the genre. Perhaps the best idea would be to put the merge tags back and let everyone else decide the best way forward? (Emperor 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable in the sense that they should be listed in a genre survey article ie. that they are historically significant in the genre, representing milestones or new developments in the genre. However they are certainly notable enough to be in their own article. There is nothing wrong with the current set up, there is no reason to merge these articles (the stories are not significant enough to be part of a genre survey) nor delete the article (the stories are notable enough to have their own article). If you want to include the stories in this article, you need to show why they deserve to be noted. The genre is very large, this is not a "list of" article, it is a survey showing a select few of the most important works. -- Stbalbach 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[England Invaded]] merge

message: I suggest the article might well be served by the inclusion of a mention of Michael Moorcock's England Invaded anthology. Although the stories it contains are largely second rate, Moorcock's foreword is  a useful introduction to the genre. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Moorcock 

message: Although Blackwood's Magazine may have been politically partisan, it was hardly a political magazine in the modern sense. I suggest either suppressing the word "political" altogether or replacing it by the phrase "politically partisan". Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackwood's Magazine 

message: While it may seem self-explanatory, there should probably be some brief definition of the genre. —Malnormalulo (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I suggest there should be a section about British literature of the 1960's and 70's which describe American invasions of Britain: A Cure For Cancer by Michael Moorcock; Theatre of War by J.G.Ballard and Rule Britannia by Daphne du Maurier all imagine what the Vietnam war would have been like if it had occurred in Britain. Jeffgwatts (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Britain Invaded As A Metaphor For Vietnam

message: This sentence:  "Red Dawn (1984) and Amerika (1987), which despite being a movie and miniseries, respectively, are hereby shoe-horned into an article on literature."?
To me, it sounds unnecessarily snarky, I'm guessing written by someone who disagreed with the inclusion of these works into this article. From my perspective, we should either decide that this article should only discuss books, in which case we don't even mention Red Dawn and America, or else be inclusive of motion pictures that fit into the genre, and if we decide for the latter, we should omit personal commentary on things being "shoe-horned" into the article. I am going to go with inclusion of the two works, and excise the commentary that fails to maintain an impartial tone. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...are hereby shoe-horned into an article on literature." 

message: "However, it was not until the Prussians used advanced technologies such as breech-loading artillery and railroads to defeat the French in the 1870 War that the fear of invasion by a technologically superior enemy became more realistic."
So the Prussians won the War of 1870 because they posessed railroads and breech-loading artillery and France didn't? Fascinating; I was not aware of that. How on earth does one bring railroads along with you when invading a foreign nation? 
For some reason I thought it was more due ot superior tactics than to superior technology that the Prussians beat France.
Idumea47b (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of 1870 

message: There are examples of invasion literature in 1930s USSR also, notably "Perviy Udar" ("The First Strike") by Nikolai Shpanov. I think it's worth adding to the article in order to show that this genre was common worldwide. --46.39.56.55 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion literature in USSR