Is it time for a dedicated Janny Wurts sub-topic?

[Clansman]

I took a good look, and it appears that there are at least 7 threads dedicated to Janny Wurts stuff, one of which is quite old. I have forborne (is that a verb?) from posting any new threads on her stuff recently as I thought there were enough in the General Discussion already going.

There are at least three or four new members who are posting with regularity on Ms. Wurts' stuff, or who would do so in a dedicated chat, and I am certain of at least one moderator having a real appreciation of Wurts' writing style. Therefore, I would suggest that posting in a sub-topic is likely to be sustained.

The recent release of Stormed Fortress has had some significant sales success, as the trade paperback is almost sold out just a few months after its release.

Therefore, with respect, I submit that this author should have her own sub-topic in the Authors' area.

[Rane Longfox]

Please god, yes.

[j. d. worthington]

Clansman: As has been pointed out before, it's not just the number of threads, but their staying-power. They have to show enough activity over a reasonable period of time. Be patient on that one -- after all, as I've mentioned before, it took quite a while for Asimov and Niven to get their subforae, as well; just as was the case with many another writer. Edgar Rice Burroughs still doesn't have one, and there are a lot of Burroughs fans around here....

The best thing you can do is to keep some good discussions on your favorite writers going, invite new people to join in, and avoid artificially inflating this by posting "empty" posts -- that is, posts empty of genuine content. (I'm not referring to that happening here, as that doesn't seem to be the case; but it has happened before.)

[Teresa Edgerton]

Whatever happens, it will be Brian's decision, and he's sure to weigh many, many different factors in the balance.

A lot of people get confused about the author sub-forums. They think if an author has a sub-forum it's a form of recognition, or something Chronicles does to promote interest in an author's work -- therefore if there's no forum it's like saying the author isn't deserving. And that's not the case at all. Unless the author is actually present as a Chronicles member, it's just a way of organizing active threads, and it has no more effect than that.

[j. d. worthington]

As Teresa says, it has nothing to do with whether a writer is considered worthy or not; if it did, there would be an awful lot of absolutely egregious omissions: Edgar Rice Burroughs (certainly one of the most important names in sff for close on a century now); Clark Ashton Smith; Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore (either together or separately); Robert E. Howard; Lester Dent, Walter Gibson (commonly under the pseudonym Maxwell Grant -- think The Shadow); Cordwainer Smith; Frederik Pohl; C. M. Kornbluth; Andre Norton; Alfred Bester; Anthony Boucher; John W. Campbell; Harlan Ellison; John Brunner; J. G. Ballard; Brian W. Aldiss; John Sladek; Kate Wilhelm; Joanna Russ; James Tiptree, Jr....

[Grimward]

Excellent word evolution with "subforae", JD! The online dictionaries take exception of course, indicating that "forums" or "fora" are the plurals of "forum", but then they also officially allowed "dis" to be corrupted into a verb on its lonesome, so what do they know?! Subforae has my vote!

I'd love to see Janny with her own sub-forum. Nothing's better than that which is earned on its own merits, however, so I'll just cast my chad here in support of the notion, recognizing that the Chrons is not a democracy all the while. Of curiosity, you'll have to point me in the direction of the argument that kept Azimov on the ropes for so long...even now, 16 years after his death, he still has 3 posts/references in the past 10 days!

As always, my thanks to you, Teresa, Brian and all the others for such a great site.
I was hardly a newcomer to the genre before I found Chrons, but my reading and exploration lists have grown more in the past month from content herein than I can begin to tell you.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Grimward

Excellent word evolution with "subforae", JD! The online dictionaries take exception of course, indicating that "forums" or "fora" are the plurals of "forum", but then they also officially allowed "dis" to be corrupted into a verb on its lonesome, so what do they know?! Subforae has my vote!

LOL! Well, it's probably not quite correct -- though I have seen the plural of "forum" given as "forae" in a lot of older references; these days it tends to be "fori" or "fora" -- but I rather like going a bit against the grain now and again....

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Grimward

Of curiosity, you'll have to point me in the direction of the argument that kept Azimov on the ropes for so long...even now, 16 years after his death, he still has 3 posts/references in the past 10 days!

Yes, people have been posting in the Asimov forum a lot lately. But if you look back at the older threads, you'll see that there were very few posts made through all of 2005. With that level of activity, there was simply no point in a sub-forum.

For another example, the Roger Zelazny forum was only created late last year.

[Grimward]

*Staggers!*

Now you cut me to the quick, Teresa! Zelazny is probably my ALL TIME favorite, although I have been known to wander, especially since his untimely death more than a decade ago.

I do get the one of the points then, that being "topical" is a relevant consideration here? Don't get me wrong, just looking for comprehension here (maybe my avatar should say "where grey matter vanishes..."). Amazing, what with all the press that Zelazny must have received when Betancourt put together that set of prequels (a decent enough writer himself, but can't hold a candle to the original in my opinion) for the Amber series, that there wasn't more ongoing currents of Chronversation ( OK, I'm sure you've seen that one before, but I couldn't resist! ) before 2005....

Thanks for the reply. It's getting late (early?) here, so the right coast bids the left coast Good Night (tell Karn North of you to go to bed, too! )

[Clansman]

Thanks for the explanations, JD and Teresa. I see what you mean. Also, I suppose that creating a sub-forum for an author might ghettoise (how's that for an invented word) that author's fans if there aren't enough posters to regularly contribute, and those who don't otherwise know of the author may never open that sub-topic. That particular phenomenon is not good for the denizens of the Chrons, and it certainly goes against what I perceive to be the point of this website: to spread the word about good books (and to warn against bad ones).

Obviously, there is not a pre-set formula to this kind of decision, but more of a balancing of the best interest of the Chrons and the best interests of the members and viewers of the Chrons.

All the above being said, it may be a bit early for a dedicated Wurts sub-topic. JD, your list was truly impressive, and obviously many more names could be added to it. In fact, I started this thread because of the suggestion in the "Tigana" thread, where someone suggested a dedicated Kay topic, which I would love, as I am a big fan of his also.

IMHO, all of these authors are worthy of a dedicated topic, but the denizens of the Chrons may not yet be ready...

I will abide by I, Brian's decision, and if it is negative, that is likely not a bad thing.

Oh, and the plural of the word "forum" is "fora".

[Grimward]

You're late and out-numbered on the plural of forum, Clansman my buddy (see my earlier post for details). JD and I have decided that fora is boring, unimaginative and way too close to plant life for comfort, while forae is daring, smart, and much more likely to be associated with it's phonetic cousin foray (implies adventure!).

With you all the way on Janny, but I have faith that, in addition to speaking for itself, her work will cause others to speak for it, too!

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Grimward

You're late and out-numbered on the plural of forum, Clansman my buddy (see my earlier post for details). JD and I have decided that fora is boring, unimaginative and way too close to plant life for comfort, while forae is daring, smart, and much more likely to be associated with it's phonetic cousin foray (implies adventure!).

Bravo! I was hoping I wasn't the only one getting the homophonic pun there... I also like your description of the term.... *now, you'll excuse me while I quietly slip out the back door....*

[Clansman]

Okay, I can accept "forae", but not "fori". The latter, like "5", is "right out!"

[Rane Longfox]

Not forii?

[Clansman]

No. Most definitely not "forii".