RickK: "it's fantasy, not SF, and 1781 IS a part of the universe, as Flint himself says on his website"

Alternate history and time-travel are conventionally classed as SF ( unless there's, you know, magic involved).

Agreed. It is no fantasy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In reality, the Grantville Disaster was the result of what humans of the day would have called criminal negligence. Caused by a shard of cosmic garbage, a discarded fragment of what, for lack of a better term, could be called a work of art. A shaving, you might say, from a sculpture. The Assiti fancied their solipsist amusements with the fabric of spacetime. They were quite oblivious to the impact of their "art" on the rest of the universe.

The Assiti would be exterminated, eighty-five million years later, by the Fta Tei. Ironically, the Fta Tei were a collateral branch of one of the human race's multitude of descendant species. Their motive, however, was not revenge. The Fta Tei knew nothing of their origins on a distant planet once called Earth, much less a minor disaster which had occurred there. The Fta Tei exterminated the Assiti simply because, after many stern warnings, they persisted in practicing their dangerous and irresponsible art.
http://www.baen.com/library/0671319728/0671319728.htm

And 1781 is an "Assiti Shard" story, as his website says, but it's not part of the 163x universe -- the 1781 from which George Washington disappeared can't happen in that world and his appearance in classical Roman times didn't.

Yep. The 1632 (or 163x) universe is aare a diffrent parts (series) of Assiti Shard universe, not the other way around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another volume in the Assiti Shards universe is entitled 1781. That novel has the same "starting point" as the 1632verse -- an "Assiti shard" striking the Earth and causing a time transposition -- but the actual story is completely different. In 1781, a "shower" of Assiti shards strikes the Earth during the 18th century and sends (in separate incidents) both Frederick the Great (and his army) and George Washington (along with all the forces gathered at the battle of Yorktown) back in time to the Roman Empire during the "third century crisis" when the Empire was falling apart. In essence, the story is about two alternate approaches to rebuilding Roman society.
http://www.ericflint.net/wip.htm

--wwoods 06:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't recognize the title, but By Any Other Name is also not a 163x book.

Finally, there’s been a new development regarding the novel I’ve been under contract with for time -- yet another separate Assiti Shards novel -- which had the working title of "Shaxpur." That title has now been changed to By Any Other Name. Both titles are something of an in-joke between Jim Baen and myself, which derives from the fact that the Earl of Oxford — whom both Jim and I think was the real author of Shakespeare's plays — will figure as a major character in the novel.

By Any Other Name will be a rather different novel from the others, in that in this novel humans and Assiti actually come into direct contact (and conflict) with each other. Although part of the novel will take place in Elizabethan England, it's really more of a straight science fiction novel than alternate history as such.
http://www.ericflint.net/wip.htm

--wwoods 06:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that the first two sections need to be wikified.--Hannu 14:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead para, especially, is rather glowing. Any phrasing like "1632 is a hugely popular, entertaining, thought provoking, educational, and extremely successful upbeat novel", in my view, either needs rewording to return to PW:NPOV or to be a quote with a cite. This tone seems to continue throughout the article, at least in spots. Comparing it to Tolkien smacks of literary criticism, a kind of original research. If there are cites for these comparisions, include them, but even then it should be worded as a cite. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cc from Lar: Thanks for your comment, btw, talk: 1632 (novel). I'll think on your input, lean that way myself. Personally, enclopedic standard would eliminate most Pop entries in entirety, so the article would be speedy vote in WP:AFD fm me philosophically speaking. Not 'mature' enough to be noteworthy historically speaking. Unless I see some hope (and examples) that this sort of thing has chance at WP:FA, the book involves too much work to expand much farther. I feel like its waste of time. Got any answers on that concern? (FA examples)  ::FrankB 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond later... One other tip is that {{inuse}} typically is only placed on articles for a short time. and when a date is given it's usually good to adhere to that date... the date given is now 2-3 days or so in the past so it's not totally unforgivable that the anon reverted the change (although I don't agree). Also your edit comment could have been a bit more charitable, I think. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]