Talk:Iain M. Banks

In regards to the last sentence, I would argue that the whole "Chairmaker" bit in Use of Weapons might rise to the level of Consider Phlebas' opening. Possibly surpassing it, imho. 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the entire genre of science fiction falls within site missions. There are hundreds of other wikis to cover that ground.  Making false scientific assertions in a novel for the sake of story doesn't really make an author on-mission, as their works are intended to be fictitious.  Unless this author's work is particularly concerned with the RW mission themes, I don't see the point in an article on him.   18:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, the "let's add everyone's pet favourite author" section in the science fiction article could do with a trip to the barbers too. 18:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Culture novels have a mission connection, if the author does not. They frequently make statements (via allegory or direct mention) about conditions on Earth, like the death penalty, religious fundamentalism, and communism. And a key feature of the books is the "sentient machines," which could be connected to either science woo or science. 19:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But the same goes for many sci-fi/fantasy authors, & what it looks like here is using some vague connections to the mission to justify an article about a favourite author. We've had similar problems before with people writing articles on various musicians & songwriters, on the basis that they've done a few protest songs.  If we let it get out of hand, we'll end up with dozens of fairly irrelevant fanboy articles.  It's a hard line to draw, but I think it's better to limit ourselves to writing about only a few significant figures in literature & entertainment  - e.g. ones who've had an impact beyond fiction or entertainment, on scientific thinking, politics or philosophy.   19:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very good way of doing it, I think. There are lots of articles with a similarly tenuous mission connection, though, which should go if this article goes. 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There probably are, but "if X is deleted, Y & Z should be deleted too" isn't the best rationale. Best to mission-tag & discuss them individually.  It might also be a good idea to start a Saloon Bar/Forum thread, or move part of this thread over, to gauge other people's opinions on this aspect of the site & missions.  22:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Started forum thread here. 23:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It was the scientific blunder in Surface Tension that prompted me, but that the Culture is taken seriously by AI researchers (read: particularly abstruse philosophers) that made me think an article would be worth having. So that bit needs expansion - David Gerard (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious that SF is not included in the mission statements. On the other hand this article has alerted me to the existence of a new culture novel which is certainly a plus.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the key with this sort of article is to lead with the reason why it is on-mission, ideally. As it is, all it says is that he once got atomic masses mixed up with atomic numbers.  Pretty trivial.  Ironically, Clarke wrote a novella (The Gods Themselves) as a "response" to another sci fi writer making a mumbo-jumbo mistake about a Po isotope that can't exist in our universe. But if we were to write articles about every sci-fi/fantasy author who ever bungled their physics... I dunno.  Seems a bit out there to me.  03:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to be a pedant and point out that The Gods Themselves was written by Asimov, not Clarke. Carry on  17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh, oh course. There was no scuba diving in it, after all.  20:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I finished Surface Tension yesterday and I must say that it's a wonderful galactic romp. For those who like the "culture" novels it's a must-read.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So are we keeping this off-mission stub or not? if nothing else, can we at least get rid of "YOU FAIL PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY FOREVER SIMULTANEOUSLY AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"?
 * Yes please. I think that was just a side-effect of DG going off his meds while reading it. The same thing also popped up on Twitter and Facebook. 17:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly I can see no obvious reason to keep it.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it does remind me of the "you fail physics forever" article from TV Tropes. I'd say we need an equivalent here, but most of the wiki is devoted to it already. 17:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)