Talk:Janissaries (novel)

I removed the paragraph that bemoaned the unfinished series. The author of the paragraph stuck the same paragraph in all three books' articles, as well as the series article, which is excessive. The paragraph is a fair criticism, nevertheless I think it is adequate to leave in the article pertaining to the series itself and the last book, but not the first two. Mike 05:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kryptonita chose to stick the unfinished series complaint back onto the article, along with a completely atypical set of headings: The Book; The Critics. This is something that does not belong. There are standards for novels, and this doesn't follow them. Suggest checking out the article for The Mote in God's Eye. I have taken the complaint back out, and will flesh the article out shortly. Mike 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And I've put the comment back in again as it belongs. And I see someone else has added a further comment. Anyone reading this series needs to be warned in book one that it's not complete, otherwise why bother to start. However, no doubt because of the critism noted on Amazon and both the author and publisher's (Baen) own blog sites, the author seems to have decided to at least post the first three chapters of the fourh book in the series. A teaser. Let's hope he follows through. User:Jackaman 21:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackaman, Kryptonita's original addition was way over the top, and qualified as POV in my opinion. A simple warning suffices (as yours is), but if it must be on the first book, then why not the second, too? And I notice you didn't add it back into to that one. In the talk page for Janissaries: Clan and Crown Eldarone agreed with my reasons for taking the warning off Book 1 & 2, and leaving one in the last book and the series category page. But besides that, if you have read Janissaries (novel) you should recognize that the book could have stood just fine without a sequel. All important plotlines were brought to a reasonable conclusion, so a warning in the first book is out of place in my opinion. The same is actually true for Book 3 (there's an important plotline in Book 2 that is not completed, however, and had to wait for Book 3 for resolution). But the series was popular enough that readers wanted to read more about the characters, and after Book 3 the author wasn't producing. There is NO cliffhanger at the end of the third book. The battle is won, Lord Rick and his wife are happily reunited again, and everything is peachy keen. If it were otherwise and it were a cliffhanger, then let slip the dogs of justifiably enraged readers! But it is not the case. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise. Mike 06:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Easily done. The major plot line is the future existance of Earth itself and what happens to the human bred slaves. Un-resolved. Then there is the the future existance of Tran itself, not to mention if any of them survive The Time or the nuclear weapons attack that follows. Also unresolved and all from book one. Book three has continuances of these major plotlines and they are still unresolved at the end of the book. Reads like a cliffhanger to me, and certainly there are many others that agree with me. User:Jackaman 04:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's arguable. There are lots of novels out there (and movies too) that have backdrop settings and plotlines that never get resolved. Do we worry about what happened to the Troglodytes in H.G. Wells "Time Machine" after the novel finishes? No. At least I don't. But they are there, and what happened to their civilization after the time travelers left? OMG! Well, anyway. But arguable or not, I guess I am grudgingly convinced that there's a cliffhanger here, even if it's a stretch in my mind. I still would like to know what happens to Tran, and the Confederation, yeah. You've convinced me. Mike 06:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover Janissaries Novel by JerryPournelle.jpg

Image:Cover Janissaries Novel by JerryPournelle.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 19:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How many Mercs?

37 or 38, including Rick. Link to Janissaries text.[1]

(1) 37. Mason is already in the cockpit, Rick is standing outside talking to Elliot as the men file past: Rick had been counting. “Only thirty-four went aboard.” Elliot looked ashamed. “I can’t find any more, Captain.”

(2) 37. Mason is in the cockpit, Rick and the men are locked in the hold with their weapons: We are, he thought, thirty-six armed men and some heavy weapons

(3) 38. Best guess is Pournelle lost count here and only 21 deserted from Parsons. Odd thing is none of the mercs seem to be killed when following Parsons and facing something "like Vietnam, only worse."

• 22 - Desert from Parsons with Gengrich & Warner (search for twenty-two)
• 12 - The dozen men Elliot brings over at the end of Book 1
• 1 - Elliot
• 1 - Rick
• 1 - Mason
• 1 - Parsons
• 38 - Total

Bromley86 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

More muddying of the waters. Per Elliot in C&C, p.249:[2] “Colonel Parsons had not yet attempted to plant surinomaz, but it’s reasonable to suppose he’d have done no better at that than he did in holding the land,” Elliot said. “While he was in command, we lost Corporal Hartford to guerrilla activity. Five more troopers were severely wounded. A total of twenty-three successfully deserted. “Since you took command, Private Reznick has been killed in action, and three others have been severely wounded, all in battles. There have been no losses to guerrillas. Ten former deserters, eleven counting Mr. Mason, have returned to duty, and no-body has run off.

So:

• 1 - Rick
• 1 - Mason
• 1 - Hartford, died under Parsons
• 1 - Parsons himself
• 22 - deserters (23 including Mason, who Elliot identifies as a deserter)
• 1 - Elliot
• 12 - the dozen Elliot brought with him when Parson's died
• 39

So looks like Rick miscounted when they boarded the spaceship; 36 boarded and there are actually 39 total. Another way of looking at it:

• 1 - Rick
• 1 - Mason
• 1 - Parsons
• 1 - Hartford (guy who dies under Parsons)
• 1 - Elliot
• 12 - dozen Elliot brought with him
• 10 - deserters returned to Rick
• 12 - "dozen off with Gengrich" and "Gengrich's ten men" (plus Gengrich & Schultz)[3]
• 39

Bromley86 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Title

Why is it called "Janissaries"? Drsruli (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)