Talk:A Wizard of Earthsea

Revising article

This article was written primarily in an in-universe style and had an excessive plot summary. There was little discussion of the book's real-world notability within the fantasy and young-adult genres. I've attempted to describe the book's notability with sources and cut down the plot summary (it's probably still longer than it needs to be - this isn't a long book). I believe this is a good start but there is plenty of room for expansion, on this and other Earthsea pages. Also categorized this as "mid" on the women writers project. Geethree (talk)

harry potter

Harry Potter is not and should not be the frame of reference for all children's fantasy! Needs a mild rewrite -- Tarquin

Done. -- Henriette

Nice job :-) -- Tarquin

Does "The Worst Witch" have anything to do with Le Guin? If not, that ref should be on a Harry Potter page, not here. Vicki Rosenzweig

No it doesn't. But neither does HP have anything to do with LeGuin. It's merely another "school for wizards" book for kids. -- Tarquin

See Harry Potter influences and analogues#Analogues for a chronologically ordered catalogue. The creator of Potter and Hogwarts J. K. Rowling has credited Le Guin as one inspiration, iirc. It may have been more recent than LeGuin's 2005 remarks, even prompted by them. --P64 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

dragons & names

IIRC, it wasn't the tongue of dragons that was used to give things their 'true' name, but an older language. The tongue of dragons was merely the closest actual spoken language on Earthsea. But I don't have the books, and it has been a while since I read them, so I may be making this up. -- Kimiko

Not so. The 'True speach' is inate to dragons. Le Guin explains this fully in 'A Description of Earthsea' which is part of 'Tales From Earthsea'. -- Daran

Also, the concept of a thing's 'true' name having power over it is fairly common in Fantasy stories AFAIK. In the SF novel Snowcrash (sorry, forgot the author) explained it from as coming from ancient Sumerian mythology or something. -- Kimiko 22:06 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

discovers powers

"While saving his village from pirates, he discovers that he has the inborn aptitude to practice magic"

Actually he discovers his magical powers accidentally while herding goats. Don't recall the details of the pirate scene, but the paragraph in question certainly needs a rewrite. -- Lee M

Shadow

Recently, this:

In the end, Ged confronts the shadow that hunts him, and defeats it by realizing that it is his own shadow. He calls the shadow by name, that which was thought to be nameless; he calls it "Ged". In doing so, he reconciles both sides of himself and takes responsibility for his past mistakes, which until then, he had run from.

was replaced by this:

In the end, Ged confronts the shadow that hunts him, and defeats it by realizing that it is the shadow of his own death. He calls the shadow by name, that which was thought to be nameless; he calls it "Ged". In doing so, he reconciles both sides of himself and takes responsibility for his past mistakes as well as his own mortality, which until then, he had run from.

I really don't think it is an improvement. But perhaps "shadow" should be linked to the Jungian concepts, or something?--Niels Ø 20:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with that edit, either. I don't think UKL is talking about mortality at all -- except maybe, remotely, as one single aspect of the Shadow; it certainly isn't central. And, anyway, as we find out in the last books, that land whence it comes isn't really death at all, but only some inadequate substitute for limbo. Linking to Shadow (psychology) would be super-duper, IMHO. –Hajor 01:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The article says the shadow is called a "gebbeth". I believe that "gebbeth" is the term used for a person the shadow has possessed, not the being itself.JBPostma 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. Kind of silly to identify it and then have Ged unable to defeat it because of its namelessness. Clarityfiend 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Symbolism of the Shadow

For a full explanation, see below under the discussion of its name. I disagree with the view above that Ged runs from his past mistakes. This is certainly untrue, since he takes full responsibility for them from the moment he recovers after unleashing the shadow. This is why he loses all his pride and ambition, he fears at first to use his power at all, and he acts very responsibly afterwards, always concerned about the consequences of his actions. He does NOT deny or ignore his past mistakes at all!! On the literal level, what he runs from is just an unknown creature that threatens to possess him. Symbolically, his running from the shadow represents being ruled by passions and lacking self-knowledge. At this time in the story, he is ruled by fear, but earlier he was ruled by pride and ambition. Yes, "gebbeth" refers to a possessed person--probably someone possessed specifically by their own spirit of death. The threat of becoming a gebbeth symbolizes the common condition of being ruled by one's passions.

I'm not sure what is meant by the last remarks about silliness, but I think there's misunderstanding. First, the shadow is NOT nameless, so its being nameless is NOT the reason he cannot defeat it. Secondly, he never "defeats" it but reunites with it or reestablishes his natural bond with it through recognizing it as himself. The problem initially is that Ged does not KNOW the shadow's name because he does not understand that it is his own spirit of death released from the land of the dead. Symbolically, it represents Ged's egotism, passions, or irrational nature, and his naming of it at the end represents his final understanding of his own nature. As explained below, the story is an allegory about the quest for self-knowledge and self-control. Moreover, true names in Earthsea are directly connected with the true nature of things, which is not only the basis of magical power but related to understanding the nature of the world. Those who are mageborn can guess true names because they have an innate understanding of the true nature of things.Seoulseeker (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Jung?

Is it just me, or does a guy going on a quest of learning and self discovery that ends in re-integrating himself with the dark side of his personality sound a bit Jungian? 82.1.7.156 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly not just you; see the themes section, where the connection is mentioned. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

My Point of View

It was a great book and really shows extrodinary topics in the Fantasy world. It is a great book and I recomend it to everyone.Ursala K. Le Guin did a great job writing this book and I am looking foward to more. You should definetly read it. ==

Trivia Removal

Deleted "The author is famous for her science fiction and fantasy works; over her career she has received about an award a year,[1] among them a total of ten of the most prestigious of them all, the Hugo and Nebula awards."

While probably true, this has nothing to do with the book itself. If anything, it should go in the Le Guin article. Clarityfiend 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone adopted a semi-creative form of vandalism for this page (replacing all B's with "Chunky" and all d's with "sex"). If I could easily fix it, I would, but I don't remember how to revert a page. Samer 12:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

The plot summary in this article is helpfully labelled "Plot summary". Easy enough to understand, I can't see anyone reading beyond those words and not expecting to see a plot summary. Accordingly I've removed the superfluous warning message. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The disputes about spoilers are properly conducted on the pages about the template, not here. Goldfritha 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with the dispute at the moment, only the unnecessary and intrusive text that messes up the article. And please don't use that word "unilateral" when it's obviously you who are repeatedly reverting edits by multiple editors. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you are not concerned; you are enforcing one side while the consensus does not exist.

And please don't complain about the world "unilateral" before looking up and seeing that it means "one-sided" and then checking to see that you are not, indeed, acting unilaterally. Goldfritha 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

needs summary

This doesn't fit here, but doesn't fit anywhere else so... This page does almost nothing except provide a summary for would be readers. Why doesn't it have more detailed summaries and analysis like other books. (To Kill a Mockingbird for example) This book has issues on growth and about tragic heros and flaws. Surely this is reason enough to at least try to improve this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slein (talk • contribs) 03:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wizard earthsea.JPG

Image:Wizard earthsea.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 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 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. We have exemplary FUR for the image currently used.[2] --P64 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Shadow's Name

It's not that Ged discovers the shadow's name and uses it against it. What he does is more significant and more powerful than that. The shadow represents the dark aspects of himself, and as such has no unique name. He names it with his own name when he says "Ged" in their confrontation, thus accepting and integrating his shadow-self as part of himself. And, of course, destroying the shadow as a separate being. It's fairly clear (to me, at least) that le Guin was referencing Jungian psychology here.

That aside, the shadow definitely doesn't have a name until he Names it! -Sir Ophiuchus (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my reading of the book too. It's not that he discovers that it is part of himself, but that he makes it part of himself by naming it with his name. I thought I might have misinterpreted that, until I saw your comment here. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agreeing here. This is classic Jung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afalbrig (talk • contribs) 07:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It has a name because it is Ged himself

I think there's some misunderstanding here. It's a mistake to think the shadow has no name, and people appear to be conflating literal and symbolic levels of meaning by thinking that the shadow is actually "dark aspects" of his character, such as pride perhaps. The phrase "dark aspects" is vague, so it's not clear exactly what is meant by it. On a literal level, the shadow is only Ged's spirit of death. Symbolically, it represents his egoistic passions (e.g., pride & fear), which are not well described as "dark" because they're not evil. The problem with them is that they can be destructive when they're not understood and controlled.

Regarding the name issue, the Archmage Gensher thinks the shadow is nameless, but the dragon Yevaud tries to bribe Ged by offering to reveal its name and Ogion declares with utter certainty, "All things have a name" (143). That is some of what is said in the text about the matter. The shadow is also described as "the black self that reached out to him" (198), indicating its identity. As others stated above, the shadow is symbolically part of Ged--"the dark aspects of himself." More specifically, it represents egoistic passions such as pride. This is suggested first by Gensher's statement, "It is the shadow of your arrogance, the shadow of your ignorance, the shadow you cast" (79). Maybe the idea that Ged confers the name was inferred mainly from Vetch's understanding at the end, "Ged..., naming the shadow of his death with his own name, had made himself whole" (199). But this only means that he states the name, NOT that he gives it. As these lines show, the shadow is literally "the shadow of his death": it is Ged's spirit of death, the reflection in the Dry Lands of his living self. It is not just "part" of him but the shadow of his whole being created by his life. This balance and interrelationship of life and death is obviously important in the story, expressed also in the repeated rhyme from the Earthsea creation story: "Only in silence the word, / only in dark the light, / only in dying life: / bright the hawk's flight / on the empty sky." The balance also applies to morality, though NOT as a balance between so-called good and evil but between egotism and wisdom, passion and reason. The basic ideas are probably more influenced by Chinese philosophy (yin and yang) than by Jung.

The story is mainly about understanding and respecting the inherent value of all things in nature and learning to live wisely by controlling one's passions, thus limiting the harm one causes by one's actions in life. In short, it's about living responsibly through achieving self-knowledge and self-control. Most of the story is an allegory in which the shadow represents the passions that can govern people, causing them to act ignorantly and irresponsibly. The threat of becoming a gebbeth (a body possessed by the shadow) represents the threat of being ruled by one's passions just as Ged is ruled by his pride in the first part of the story, then by his fear. Ged's conflict with the shadow represents the quest for self-knowledge and self-control. When he at first flees from it, ignorant of what it is, the shadow is described as gaining strength from his ignorance and resulting fear, "feeding...on his weakness, on his uncertainty, on his fear" (113). This represents the control that passions can gain over people's minds when people lack self-awareness and inner balance (i.e., control)--not examining their thoughts sufficiently and understanding what informs them. Later, when Ged first tries to confront the shadow, the mere act of willing to face it causes the thing to flee, symbolizing the decreased power of passions when a person begins to look inward and examine his own thoughts. As Ged pursues the shadow, he sees signs that it is strangely similar to himself, using on him the same fog trick he once used on Kargish warriors. It also begins to take on Ged's physical appearance. Ged's increasing awareness of his connection with the shadow or shared identity with it represents the gradual increase in his self-knowledge, which culminates in the moment he names it with his own name--finally knowing himself.

Vetch's explanation also suggests the allegorical meaning: "Ged...had made himself whole: a man: who, knowing his whole true self, cannot be used or possessed by any power other than himself, and whose life therefore is lived for life's sake and never in the service of ruin, or pain, or hatred, or the dark" (199). Then there's a reference to the lines from the Creation of Ea (quoted above). It is quite explictly stated here that Ged knows "his whole true self." His victory in the end is not a triumph over an enemy or destruction of it (even by destroying the shadow as a separate being); his achievement is simply that he gains self-knowledge and true control over his own life. He can no longer be "used or possessed" by any powers other than his rational mind, as he was before by his own passions at the taunting of a witch-girl and a school rival or in fleeing in fear from the shadow.

The dragon and the Lady Serret try to manipulate Ged by appealing to his passions or selfish desires, but they fail because he has lost his pride and ambition, and he is then very concerned about the consequences of his actions. But at this point he has not yet achieved a true understanding of himself. It takes Ogion to tell him how to do that by facing the shadow, advising Ged, "Now turn clear round, and seek the very source, and that which lies before the source" (144). The source he refers to is, of course, Ged himself or his own nature. Facing the shadow, Ged faces himself, the inner source of the greatest threat to himself--just as misunderstood, uncontrolled passions and egotism are perhaps the greatest threat to everyone. Using one of his typically obscure metaphors, Ogion also likens a person's life to a river: "A man would know the end he goes to, but he cannot know it if he does not turn, and return to his beginning, and hold that beginning in his being. If he would not be a stick whirled and whelmed in the stream, he must be the stream itself, all of it, from its spring to its sinking in the sea" (144). This, too, is about self-knowledge and control of one's passions. The man who is like the whole river knows his whole mind and is fully in control of his life, whereas the one like a stick in a stream is aware only of momentary passions or desires that toss him about uncontrollably.

What happens to the literal shadow creature in the end is not entirely clear. The shadow itself is not evil but simply the reflection or shadow cast by Ged's life in the land of the dead, implying that a similar shadow is created in the Dry Lands every time a person is born. It only seems evil because it is out of place (having escaped into the world of the living) and Ged does not understand it. The shadow naturally wishes to unite with Ged because they are aspects of the same life, but the union will result in Ged's becoming a possessed gebbeth if he does not know what the shadow is and accept it as himself. When Ged names it and unites with it at the end, presumably the shadow passes through Ged back to the land of the dead where it belongs. It probably could not be destroyed because it is a natural part of Ged's existence. Maybe it could only be unmade by somehow unmaking Ged himself, or changing history so that he never existed and had a counterpart in the land of the dead. A somewhat puzzling part of the story is their meeting on the open sea in what appears to be a temporarily manifested borderland of the lands of the dead. Why is it there, and why does it then disappear? It seems likely that the existence of this place is connected somehow with the unbalancing of the world caused by the unleashing of the shadow. Thus, when Ged accepts the shadow into himself, the world returns to normal. Before his last journey, Ged tells Vetch that the shadow might escape: "It has found a way to escape me, and so doom me....If I lose it, I am lost" (191). I assume this means the shadow has found another way to return to the land of the dead. But what would happen if it succeeded? Though I'm not sure why it should be so, it seems that the shadow has to physically reunite with Ged in order for the normal bond between them to be restored. If his spirit of death managed to return to the land of the dead without passing through Ged, what would be the effects for him and Earthsea? It is not clear. Somehow, he would not be "whole," and perhaps Earthsea would be somewhat unbalanced. Would the land of the dead continue to encroach on the open sea, perhaps spreading further into Earthsea? Perhaps the mere fact that their natural bond was disrupted upsets the natural balance between life and death in the world. But this all relates to the shadow as a being (i.e., the literal level of meaning), not its symbolism. Symbolically, Ged has to unite with the shadow to represent the achievement of self-knowledge and self-control. Seoulseeker (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The story is not an allegory. What you call allegory amounts to interpretations and ways of understanding. Compare Tolkien's reaction to descriptions of LotR as allegory:

I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. (Goodreads)

--Thnidu (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Cover art

Do we really want two versions of the cover of this book? there have probably been a few dozen so far. the first ed hc makes sense, as would the ace sf special paperback, but is the puffin ed important?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is the listed paperback cover artist Brian Hampton and paperback edition did he create?

By mistakes I didn't delete or tag {citation needed} and I placed the superscript for ref ISFDB at the end of the entry. That source covers only cover_art="Ruth Robbins (first)" and the first edition data in some other fields as marked. ISFDB doesn't name Hampton and does list several cover artists for later editions including David Smee for a 1975 Puffin edition among others http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?118991 --P64 (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin at Parnassus Press

"March 16", Anita Silvey's Children's Book-a-Day Almanac. 2011-03.
quote

"March has been set aside to recognize the contribution of small presses to our literary heritage. ...

"Le Guin was best known, probably as she still is today, as a writer of adult science fiction and fantasy novels like The Left Hand of Darkness. In 1967 the publisher of the small California publishing house Parnassus Press, Herbert Schein, wrote to Le Guin, asking her to consider writing a book for children/young adults. Schein had published Ishi: Last of Her Tribe by anthropologist Theodora Kroeber, Le Guin’s mother. Although Le Guin had not considered writing for this audience, she crafted a coming-of-age story, A Wizard of Earthsea, set in a fantasy world.

unquote --P64 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Title of Indonesian translation

The title of the Indonesian translation really is just the English title. See picture of its cover on Goodreads and in this Indonesian review. --Thnidu (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Translations

I am not certain whether the list of translations is encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is, after all, not a directory. We don't seem to have anything substantive to say about any of them, we're just listing them. I'd like to hear other folks' thoughts, though. Vanamonde (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I tripped over this issue awhile back; I was going to start an RFC, and then never did anything about it. The problem is that some want those lists, and others don't, and it's hard to find any guidance at all. You can read a little of my take here and here. — Gorthian (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. In that case, an RfC might be best. I'll start one here shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cunard: Not sure if you noticed, but I readded the translations section according to the GA review conducted by Chiswick Chap. Given that, would you still read the RfC as consensus to remove? I would, but I was involved in the discussion, so I wanted to be absolutely sure. Vanamonde (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I still read the RfC consensus as remove the translations section. Cunard (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I do think that any Good Article on a book ought to describe the translations. What is a book article about? - Context, Plot, Contents and Illustrations, Publication and Translations, Reviews and Reception, I'd say. It's a core part of what a book is, so I don't really know where you guys are coming from. It might be brief or it might need to be long - we do not complain if Mozart wrote a lot of notes in a lot of works, we just write a lot of articles about them. That a book merited many translations is of direct interest, and a direct measure of its notability around the world. That a book can appeal in, say, China and the Czech R. as well as Iceland and Indonesia gives a direct measure of its appeal. Of course it's relevant. If people object to lists, then we must try to work it in some other way, but I think a list is a sensible and direct way of formatting what is after all a naturally listlike structure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

To avoid wasting time, I've added a sentence in the Publications section. The books are cited both to their translated selves and to WorldCat. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you: I was about to do something similar. I think this might be the best solution to the issue. Vanamonde (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Changing Citation format

I plan on rewriting/expanding the article a fair bit soon. Since this will involve several book citations, I would much prefer to do this with WP:SFN formatting for the refs. WP:CITEVAR exists, though, so if anybody at all has a preference for the current format, please let me know, and I will modify my activities accordingly. Vanamonde (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment about "Translations" section

The consensus is to exclude the section, which has been done here. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There have been a couple of inconclusive debates about whether the Translations section of this article is encyclopedic in nature. The (brief) debates are here, here and here. Although I could simply have removed the section and continued from there, I think it would be beneficial to obtains firm consensus on this issue, because it would have implications for other pages, too. 08:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude Personally, I do not believe this section should be included, essentially per WP:NOTDIR. At this point the information is simply in the form of a list, with no context as to why it is important. If there are any specific translations (or any translation-related information) that is significant and covered by secondary sources, then it can be included with publication history without difficulty. Vanamonde (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Since there has not been any response here whatsoever, I am going ahead and removing this section: if folks have issues with that, I'm happy to discuss it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Basic facts required: I am not convinced that a week around the end of the holiday season is necessarily sufficient notice to obtain consensus, especially since opinions had already been voiced in earlier discussions without reaching consensus. I have mentioned in the GA1 page that "If you want a reason [for a translations section] beyond simply describing the book thoroughly, then consider that a list of translations demonstrates the international interest that the book aroused, and that the specific languages involved demonstrate precisely how far that interest reached." In general, in my view, an article on any book that has been widely translated ought to describe that fact, just as any book with a long publication history should have that mentioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - We are referring to the version where the translation section was a collapsible list correct? While this is better than keeping the list in the body, it isn't necessarily pertinent to keep. I'm leaning towards excluding. Meatsgains (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No suggestion on format; a paragraph of cited text would be far better than a collapsible list, but the article requires some verifiable information on the matter for GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - all that's needed is a short general statement, such as "At least X editions of the book in Y languages were printed between (date range)", or if a little more history information is wanted, "The book was translated into X in 19__, then into Y in 19__, and later into Z other languages." (sigh... the feedback request service finally calls me to an RFC about a book I have actually read, more than once, and the question has nothing to do with the content of the book...) —Anne Delong (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude. A sentence or two is sufficient summarizing how many languages the book has been translated into. Additionally, the instructions at Template:Collapsible_list tell us to not to use the template in the main article body per MOS:DONTHIDE. If the big list of various translations is so out-of-place that somebody felt it ought to be hidden from sight, then that's a very strong indication that the list should not be there. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gebbeth

I have fixed the redirect for Gebbeth to link to Earthsea (universe)#Gebbeth, which is where the former text ended up after being merged. — Gorthian (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Disputed changes

I don't understand your objections. My phrasing is more accurate about the wrecking of the boat. The reverted version gives the shadow a more active role than is justified. It doesn't wreck the boat, it merely lures Ged into striking the reef. As for the sea turning into land, who cares if it is temporary or not as far as the synopsis is concerned? You also haven't addressed the biggest problem: the claim that the shadow is part of Ged. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Somehow, I got no edit conflict warning when I saved my second set of changes, inadvertently undoing your reversion. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where you reverted me. I've a few issues with your changes. With your first set: the shadow does not destroy the boat, but the book is fairly clear that it leads him to the reef with the intention of wrecking the boat: hence that wording. I don't think the word "nemesis" is justified, though that's minor. Vetch's wizardry is already implied by the previous paragraphs, and mentioning it again isn't required, though again that's minor. The sea does not become more landlike; only Ged sees it that way, for a while. Vetch tries to walk on it and nearly drowns; and so does Ged, a bit later. Finally, the "Shadow is part of himself" comes from scholarly sources describing the plot. There isn't necessarily a problem relying on the original, but a secondary source is certainly preferable to our own summaries. With respect to your second set of changes; I'm okay with most of them, but a couple of minor points; the old powers are not "creatures" as such; they tend to be described as more elemental beings; and the fog summoned by the young Ged very clearly hides the entire village, not just its people. Vanamonde (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My changes are in the present version, so there must have been some hiccup. In any case, my big objection is that the interpretation is not identified as such; it is not in the book, but someone's musings. Unless that was Le Guin herself, it belongs in an analysis section, not the synopsis. The sea does become more like land; it becomes harder and harder and finally impossible (?) to row the boat. Ged also walks on it, which seems pretty landlike to me. Creature vs being: tomayto vs tomahto. The old boat luring is misleading. (Signing off now. Back tomorrow.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Only your second set of changes is currently present: the first is not. It's not really an interpretation, though. It's Cadden's summary of the story; as opposed to your summary, or mine. And as such, I'd prefer to use a scholarly summary. There really isn't such a thing as a summary completely free of interpretation. The sea becomes more like land only from Ged's perspective, for a time. Vetch sinks in it; so does Ged, later on. Since it's clearly complicated, why do you feel the need to mention an incomplete description of it? The book is fairly explicit about the luring. From page 220 of the 2016 edition: "for the shadow, having tricked him onto the rocks, might have had him at its mercy all the while he lay half-dead on the shore..." I take it by your silence on those points that you do not have a problem with the other minor changes I wish to revert (village to villagers, and the second mention of Vetch's wizardry)? Vanamonde (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It is an interpretation, Cadden's interpretation. Nowhere in the book is it stated that the creature is and has "always" been part of his spirit. In fact, the word "spirit" is also OR. I don't recall any mention of that concept in the text. The synopsis should only include, as Joe Friday would say, "just the facts".

Rereading the last few pages, it Ged does say he is made whole and healed. That should be in the synopsis, nothing more. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the sea becomes more like land to both Ged and Vetch, though to different degrees. The text itself repeatedly states this explicitly: "If this were an enchantment of illusion, it was powerful beyond belief: to make the Open Sea seem land." Also, "The sea had turned to sand, ... Nothing moved in the dark sky or on that dry unreal ground ..." A few pages earlier, before they leave known territory behind, Ged himself says, "Not on the sea but on dry land."

I'm really puzzled by your championing of the current phrasing of the earlier wrecking. The creature does not literally drive the boat onto the reef, but merely lures Ged into foundering. My wording supports the latter, while the older version implies the former. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

On what basis are you insisting that a plot summary cannot rely on a secondary source? I accept that the "all along" part is too much, and so I've removed that sentence. I also think you're wrong about the wrecking, but it's too minor a point to make argument worth my while. I don't think the hardening of the sea belongs; even if your interpretation is correct, which I do not believe, it would be too much detail in an already lengthy summary. I've also made a couple of other minor changes from above. Vanamonde (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:PLOT#Plot summaries of individual works: "the plot summary must not present interpretations of the creators' intent." Also, why do you insist on calling what Le Guin has written in black and white "my interpretation"? Are you really Vanamonde or (shudder) the Mad Mind? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should include interpretation. I'm saying that Cadden, like most scholars discussing this work, presents a summary before getting into interpretation, and this summary is preferable to any that we may write. I appreciate the reference to Clarke's work, but its unclear from your words whether you mean that to be a joke or a snide comment. Given the strength of your views on this, I suggest that you open an RFC; not simply for this wording issue, but on the question of whether a secondary source is acceptable/preferable for a plot summary. The version prior to your edits is identical to that which was passed at FAC and GAN, after all, so it's hardly just my personal preference. Vanamonde (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the current last line, it's almost acceptable. "Ged merges with the shadow creature and joyfully tells Vetch he is healed and whole." would remove the last taint of interpretation. Synopses don't need references, as the works themselves are sufficient, so sources are a sign that there is third-party interpretation in play. Finally, small font is used to indicate jokes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm well aware that synopses do not require references. But there is no policy, anywhere, stating that they should not use references; and indeed, the section of MOS:PLOT that you linked above states clearly that an out-of-universe perspective is sometimes required. I'm fine with your proposed change here, but I would still strongly urge you to begin an RfC, because otherwise we are likely to relitigate this issue on every story article we both edit, and I have no appetite for such argument. I strongly believe that where sources are available, we should use them. Vanamonde (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You can, if you wish, start an RfC, but I don't see the point. As I've noted before, the Manual of Style explicitly rules out interpretations. It also states that a synopsis "might necessitate a real-world perspective due to its structure" (bolding mine), which has no relevance to this case. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of starting an RfC, because I am not proposing any changes to accepted practice. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated that content from secondary sources is interpretation by definition, a view which is certainly not shared, as this article passed FAC in its current form. Also, I do not appreciate the suggestion (in your edit summary) that the content you changed was original research. It was explicitly supported by the cited sources; its verifiability was not in question at any point in this discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will open an RfC at your insistence. I apologize about the OR; it isn't OR as narrowly defined by Wikipedia. I got a little sloppy there. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The concept is much older

"The notion that names can exert power is also present in Hayao Miyazaki's 2001 film Spirited Away; critics have suggested that that idea originated with Le Guin's Earthsea series." This idea occurs in the Old Testament, among other places, so is certainly much older than Le Guin.

The article does not say the concept originated here; the article says critics say it does. Which is accurate. Vanamonde (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair use cover image on French Wikipedia version of this page?

Hi, if a publisher has supplied an image to help illustrate the Wikipedia article on the Wizard of Earthsea on French Wikipedia can it be hosted on French Wikipedia on a fair use basis? Publisher wants the image only to be used on that page only so cannot release openly. Seems a shame if the page cannot be illustrated. I'll leave a message on French Wiki too. Stinglehammer (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment about synopsis contents

User:Vanamonde93 and I have a disagreement about what is acceptable in synopses (see "Disputed changes" section above), specifically:

Here Ged realizes that the shadow has always been a part of his own spirit. Naming it with his own name, he merges with the shadow creature, understanding and accepting it as part of himself, and thus healing himself.

References

I believe that this violates MOS:PLOT: "the plot summary must not present interpretations of the creators' intent. [...] Interpretation of the plot taken from reliable sources can be included elsewhere in the article to provide additional information." The fact that it requires two sources to back it up demonstrates, in my opinion, that this is the case here. Author Ursula K. Le Guin never reveals the exact nature of the shadow creature, leaving that to the reader's imagination. She also, as far as I can recall, doesn't refer to any "spirit" whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of that sequence exactly matches the sentence you give above, but I haven't yet pulled out the book to see if it supports it. Vanamonde93, can you support this sentence from within the book, or do you think it requires external sources to support it?

However, I'll add that the quote from MOS:PLOT specifically applies "where there are narrative ambiguities, for example as a result of an unreliable narrator or cinematic technique", and I wouldn't have thought that applied here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a tad busy to dig out my sources right now, but off the top of my head; no, the book does not say this explicitly. BUT, I think this is very much an "unreliable narrator" situation. Le Guin uses a narrative style which is third-person, but not omniscient (this is mentioned in the article). More or less all commentators I've read agree that the shadow is a part of Ged, and his quest is essentially about understanding that. However, as the book is largely told from his perspective, it does not mention this fact; because until the very end, he is convinced it is external. Therefore, an unreliable narrator, requiring external sources. Vanamonde (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Vanamonde93. I think this sort of material belongs in a discussion of the author's writing, or perhaps in a meta-article about the themes in the Earthsea trilogy, e.g. coming of age, knowing oneself. It doesn't fit in a plot summary because it's a resolution of the story, which I would distinguish from an element of the plot. It's a spoiler. It needs an explanation outside the plot. Wastrel Way (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Eric

I think it should be explained in the article that this interpretation is supported by external sources, but MOS:PLOT seems pretty clear that the plot summary is not the place for information that requires external sources. It seems fine to me to place this information elsewhere in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• No secondary sources for summary. (Summoned by bot) I believe the PLOT's "unreliable narrator" exception exists to cover cases the story text is purposely misleading, not merely from a somewhat limited but otherwise faithful viewpoint; otherwise most plot summaries would be covered by this "exception". We can certainly add interpretations from secondary sources elsewhere in the article, in fact we should do so, but not in WP's voice as the one-and-only plot summary. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree this doesn't belong in the plot summary; if it's a common interpretation it would belong in an "analysis" section and not the plot summary. Gimubrc (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Individual review

By the looks of it, excellent article! I have agreed to have a look and nitpick.

• The structure of the story is similar to that of a traditional epic, although critics have also described it as subverting this genre in many ways, such as by making the protagonist dark-skinned in contrast to more typical white-skinned heroes. - For this statement in the lead, context is required regarding the literature timeline and "epic" should probably be wikilinked. Vanamonde93, quick shout-out to you. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: Adding that link is not a bad idea, and I have done so: but I'm quite baffled by the rest of your comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

My explanation was unfortunate. I wanted to say there could be many types of "critics" depending on thw time period in which they were made. Since it's on the lead, it seems quite vague and I would suggest citing it or using explanatory footnote. Haven't checked the full Body yet, so can't say much more about this. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body, where the various critical views are discussed in detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate source listing

These 2 entries are for the same work:

• Nicholls, Peter (1995). "Children's SF". In Clute, John; Nicholls, Peter (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. New York City, New York, US: St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 195–198. ISBN 9780312134860.
• Nicholls, Peter (1995). "Le Guin, Ursula (Kroeber)". In Clute, John; Nicholls, Peter (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. New York City, New York, US: St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 630–634. ISBN 9780312134860.

E.g., the authors, urls, ISBNs are exactly the same. Would it be better to eliminate the 1995a & 1995b, and then adjust the inline sites to the page numbers, along with the notations to the 2 encyclopedia entries? – S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia in which the entries can be written by any of dozens of people, so I think it makes sense to do it this way -- if we were to cite another article from it, written by someone other than Nicholls, it would be odd to have to change these two citations at that time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but the particular authors for the two sections are not listed. Nicholls and Clute are the editors for the entire encyclopedia. – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The author of both sections is Peter Nicholls -- it's confusing because Nicholls is also one of the editors, but I think the citations are formatted correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Re subverting epic structure & race

Re-reverting an edit in the intro, because it doesn't make any sense.

Original pre my reversion: "The structure of the story is similar to that of a traditional epic, although critics have also described it as subverting this genre in many ways, such as by making the protagonist dark-skinned in contrast to more typical white-skinned."

I removed the last clause because being "white skinned" isn't a characteristic feature of the traditional epic (that makes no sense). My edit was reverted by user Mike Christie. I am re-reverting with this note given the nonsensical nature of the removed clause. Xris0 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Xris0, if you look in the body of the article, you'll see that this is cited to three academic sources. The one with online access says "Ged is dark-skinned, and by making him so she set him 'outside the whole European heroic tradition, in which heroes are not only male but white'." The inner quote is from Le Guin herself. We can't get rid of material we personally disagree with; we have to go with what reliable sources -- in this case academic sources -- say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The critics are obviously referring to Western/European epics, in which heroes have traditionally been white. Le Guin's departure from that is mentioned in a very large percentage of critical material about Earthsea, and I don't see how calling it "nonsensical" is helpful. If there's any ambiguity here with respect to which epics are being referred to, I'm happy to attempt wordsmithing, though I will need a little while to consult my sources (I wrote this some time ago). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Why criticize LeGuin's creative choice on Earthsea with prejudices from our Earth? The word "subvert" definitely sounds critical. Perhaps describe it as a "departure? 2600:1700:3D40:BEC0:2CA2:5612:FA93:7117 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't personally see "subverts" as negative; when used in literary criticism I think it tends to be a positive connotation, because it's usually used in the context of subverting stereotypes or tropes. Regardless, though, I think you'll find that the sources that write about Le Guin use the term quite often, and that's ultimately what matters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Le Guin's use of a dark-skinned protagonist has been quite widely praised, and 'subverting racism' is certainly praise. The mention of skin colour in the article is both relevant and, as has been said above, necessary in the circumstances. We might hope that many editors and readers would also find it uplifting, given Le Guin's pioneering work in the Earthsea series. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)