Latest comment: 1 month ago446 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not reverting your edits to the article, but some would probably dispute whether Seven Days in New Crete is a "science fiction novel" in any usual sense. AnonMoos (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello, experts and critics of the genre clearly determine the affiliation of the novel to speculative fiction: though thoughts are divided, some of them call it a science fiction novel, others consider as fantasy novel.
Graves's only sf (science fiction) novel, the Utopian Watch the North Wind Rise (1949; vt Seven Days in New Crete 1949) complexly dramatizes some ideas concerning the nature of Poetry and its ideal relation to the world that he had earlier expounded in The White Goddess: A Historical Grammar of Poetic Myth (1948; rev 1952; further rev 1966)
"Seven Days in New Crete" in most famouse italian speculative fiction base http://www.catalogovegetti.com/catalogo/A0372.htm#2339 Catalogo SF, Fantasy e Horror. A cura di Ernesto VEGETTI, Pino COTTOGNI ed Ermes BERTONI (Indice Cronologico per Autore)
Thanks, but there was no real need to conduct such thorough bibliographic researches just to reply to my comment. I was basing it on there being no science or futuristic technology which is described as operating in the book. (There are very brief mentions of a few things such as "AIRAR" and "cic-fax" which are futuristic from Venn-Thomas' point of view, but only vague folklore as far as the New Cretans are concerned.) It doesn't seem plausible that we're meant to understand that the magic that Venn-Thomas sees working is actually accomplished through hidden scientific means (anyway, if that were to be the case, all the main characters of the novel are completely ignorant of it).
By the way, I have the David Pringle book, and what it says about "Seven Days in New Crete" is not all that accurate or useful -- for example, Pringle doesn't understand that the "surprisingly little sexual activity" remark applies only to the poet-magician estate, the smallest of the five "estates"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hello AnonMoos, The fact is that all utopian works traditionally refer to the majority of social science-fiction works, because they demonstrate the social changes of mankind. I envy you having this Pringle`s book.
and AnonMoos I already spend in different wikipedian linguistic sections of the poll to determine the best speculative fiction novels among Wikipedians. Do not you want to participate? If yes, I wanted, that you to think and gradually create (if you like the idea) a list (as long as possible, but not more than 50) of the best genre novels of different authors, regardless of the language of the works (it is desirable: 1 author - 1 novel, but not necessarily) personally read by you. The list can include all novels containing speculative fiction elements - science fiction, fantasy and fairy tales, horror & supernatural fiction, alternative-historical, etc. The place of the novel in the list should correspond to the quality of the work and your impression received from him. The first novel in the list will be scored at 50 points, the last - in 1 point. And when there are enough respondents to collect - we sum up the number of points and get a list of 100 best novels. I hope for your agreement and that you will get 50 or less less read novels and there will be time and desire.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but assembling a list of 50 would be too much like work for me, and not enough like fun (12 or 15 would probably be more realistic). My choices would probably be rather idiosyncratic, anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! 50 is the maximum possible number, although the more the better, and more than 20 survey participants reached this number. The system of calculation allows you to take into account your choice of 15 novels. This will greatly enhance the representativeness of the generalized list, because I have not yet interviewed any participants from the Western Hemisphere. Initially, the survey focused on the countries of Eastern Europe. Therefore, I would very much like to see the choice of the US representative. Because for example, even the choice of users from Ukraine and Russia is seriously different.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
In the case of consent, I propose the following version of the profile
# [[author]] «[[title]]» ({{langx |en| «Original title», year of first publication}})
AnonMoos Hello! You said that you can name speculative fiction 12-15 novels, if you agree, you can list them directly on this page in this section and without formalization.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Once I got started, I ended up doing 50 after all:
50 "The Lord of the Rings" by J.R.R. Tolkien
49 "1632" by Eric Flint
48 "Ice Crown" by Andre Norton
47 "Norstrilia" by Cordwainer Smith
46 "A Million Open Doors" by John Barnes
45 "Dune" by Frank Herbert
44 "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" by C.S. Lewis
43 "The Mote in God's Eye" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
42 "The Lathe of Heaven" by Ursula K. Le Guin
41 "Memory" by Lois McMaster Bujold
40 "The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov
39 "The Charwoman's Shadow" by Lord Dunsany
38 "The Spirit Ring" by Lois McMaster Bujold
37 "The Unwound Way" by Bill Adams and Cecil Brooks
36 "The City and the Stars" by Arthur C. Clarke
35 "A Wrinkle in Time" by Madeleine L'Engle
34 "Boundary" by Eric Flint and Ryk E. Spoor
33 "Iceman" by Cynthia Felice
32 "A Voyage to Arcturus" by David Lindsay
31 "Star Rider" by Doris Piserchia
30 "The Vor Game" by Lois McMaster Bujold
29 "Forerunner Foray" by Andre Norton
28 "Tale of Two Clocks" a.k.a. "Legacy" by James H. Schmitz
27 "Dreamsnake" by Vonda McIntyre
26 "What Mad Universe" by Fredric Brown
25 "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams
24 "Empire Star" by Samuel R. Delany (as illustrated by John Jude Palencar)
23 "Eon" by Greg Bear
22 "All the Weyrs of Pern" by Anne McCaffrey
21 "Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen" by H. Beam Piper
20 "King David's Spaceship" by Jerry Pournelle
19 "The Mutant Weapon" by Murray Leinster
18 "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis
17 "Always Coming Home" by Ursula K. Le Guin
16 "Rendezvous with Rama" by Arthur C. Clarke
15 "Cities in Flight" by James Blish
14 "Starship" a.k.a. "Non-Stop" by Brian Aldiss
13 "Re-Birth" a.k.a. "The Chrysalids" by John Wyndham
12 "The Worm Ouroboros" by E.R. Eddison
11 "Sorceress of the Witch World" by Andre Norton
10 "Star Gate" by Andre Norton
9 "The Last Legends of Earth" by A.A. Attanasio
8 "Fourth Mansions" by R.A. Lafferty
7 "The Stars My Destination" by Alfred Bester
6 "Dragon's Egg" by Robert L. Forward
5 "1984" by George Orwell
4 "The Uplift War" by David Brin
3 "No Proper Lady" by Isabel Cooper was "Knave of Dreams" by Andre Norton
2 "Crystal Flame" by Jayne Ann Krentz
1 "The Dying Earth" by Jack Vance
I snuck in "The Dying Earth" at the bottom, since it's really a short-story collection. David Weber is probably the SF author I've read the most of over the last 5 years, but no one single book of his really stands out. Also a little sad that there's no John Brunner book... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Thank you very much for your list, I knew that the opinion of a representative of another country would be significantly different from the 70 users of the different countries already surveyed. Indeed, in your list at least half of the book was never called by anyone, often because they simply did not translate into their languages. I've seen 48 titles from your list. I have 32-33 novels of your list at home, but now I only read 10 of them: "Non-Stop" (number 6 in my list), "Rendezvous with Rama" (10), "The Lord of the Rings" (11), "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (46) & others, by Greg Bear, Alfred Bester, John Wyndham, Lois McMaster Bujold, Ursula K. Le Guin, Isaac Asimov, David Brin — I have other novels in my list, by of Samuel R. Delany, Jack Vance, Larry Niven & C.S. Lewis I read some novels, but they didn`t pass by quality.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm from the USA, and I guess all the books on my list were originally written in English (though British authors are fairly heavily represented). If I had included a book originally written in a non-English language, it would have been "Star of the Unborn" by Franz Werfel. I thought about including "The End of Eternity" in my list, but ultimately the characterization in that book falls far short of the ideas. If I had included a John Brunner book, it wouldn't have been "The Dramaturges of Yan" (I have an old paperback of it somewhere, but have never read it), but probably "The Avengers of Carrig" or "Times Without Number" or "The Shockwave Rider"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Another anomaly of my list, is that usually I think that I don't like Jerry Pournelle very much, yet two books by him made it in (the opposite of David Weber). Probably the most recent on the list is "Boundary" (2006), and the oldest is "The Worm Ouroboros" (1922). AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Lately, I give preference to living classics and screened works. I read only 2 novels and 4 novellas by Brunner, I regularly read the blog at https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/ from Purnelle and was just about to take on the "The Mote in God's Eye" when he died, so while she put it off. Unfortunately classics often die before they have time to read them in life. I am now reading the Rite of Passage by Alexei Panshin. Although I think it was worth reading it 15 years earlier.
By the way, you don’t have novels by Clifford Simak, Robert Sheckley, Philip Dick, Julian May, Orson Scott Card, George Martin and Robert Heinlein. Why is it interesting?
If you want to include "Star of the Unborn" by Franz Werfel, you can replace the last novel by Andre Norton "Knave of Dreams". Especially since he is below your list. By the way, I forgot to ask you: are your novels already ranked in the ranking order - from the best to the least interesting?--Yasnodark (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have a conflicted relationship with Heinlein -- I still like some of his earlyish short stories (sometimes partly for the semi-camp value), but I haven't read any of his novels for many years (in the 1980s, I read "Podkayne of Mars" roughly around the same time that my sister was reading "The Number of the Beast" and recounting selected plot twists to me, and I pretty much decided "No more Heinlein novels!"). I've had a vague feeling for a long time that I probably should read "Stranger in a Strange Land", but I never have... If I were to include a Sheckley book, it would be "Crompton Divided" (a.k.a. "The Alchemical Marriage of Alistair Crompton"), but though I laughed a lot when I first read it, I haven't re-read it for many years. Some Robert Sheckley short stories are among my favorite short stories of all time, but not eligible for a list of novels. My favorite Martin is "Tuf Voyaging" (definitely not anything Game of Thrones!), but it's really a collection of short stories. ("Jirel of Joiry" by C.L. Moore is another I might have included except that it's a short-story collection.) I don't think I've ever read any Julian May book at all.
I like "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking-Glass" a lot (and have read them many times since I was a teenager), but they didn't really fall within the parameters I had in mind for the type of writing I was assembling my list from.
I don't feel any urge to alter my list to include Werfel -- I looked at the spine of "Star of the Unborn" as I was assembling my list, and decided not to put it in. I only got through the first half of "Rite of Passage". I've read several Stanislaw Lem books, and at least one by the Strugatsky brothers, but otherwise I know nothing about Eastern European scence fiction. Yes, the list is intended to be ordered. AnonMoos (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Robert Silverberg is another case like David Weber -- I've read a lot of books by him, but no one book stands out... AnonMoos (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
According to Silverberg, it is a similar impression, but I would still be able to distinguish it.«We, the Marauders», 1958 & «A Time of Changes» (1971), although they did not fit into my list.
Of non-English-language works I would have allocated The Master and Margarita (1941), Voyage au centre de la Terre (1864), «La Planète des Singes», 1963 & "The Tomorrow Thief" (1965) by Sakyō Komatsu (in my list), «Memo», 1984 by André Ruellan, «Les Seigneurs de la guerre» by Gerard Klein, 1970, «Der Elfenbeinturm», 1965 by Herbert Franke, «Uår. Aftenlandet», 1974 by Knut Faldbakken, Amphibian Man (1927) by Alexander Beliaev. Lem and Strugatsky I also did not turn on.
«Dimension of Miracles» (1968), «Mindswap» (1965), «The Status Civilization» (1960) my favorites by Robert Sheckley, «Miles to Go» (1995) by David Weber, Intervention: A Root Tale to the Galactic Milieu and a Vinculum between it and The Saga of Pliocene Exile (1987), «The Many-Colored Land» (1981) by Julian May.
Maybe you started to get acquainted with this author not from those novels, I advise you to correct the flaw and read others. I read 30 novels by Heinlein, and at least more other 15 of them could get into my top-50. If I did not read others. I arbitrarily chose the «Stranger in a Strange Land», but could also be in my top. I randomly chose «Stranger in a Strange Land», but others could also have been in my top-list.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oops, I told myself that I wasn't going to revise my list, but then I realized that I forgot about a book that definitely should be on my list of favorites ("No Proper Lady" by Isabel Cooper) -- I don't really think of it as being either science-fiction or fantasy in any conventional sense, which is why I overlooked it at first...
I vaguely feel like I should read "Stranger in a Strange Land" because it played a role in both the hippie culture and the nerd culture of the 1970s[1] (and not because it was written by Heinlein).
AnonMoos Hello! The name of the new novel ("No Proper Lady" by Isabel Cooper), that you included and the name of the author I see for the first time. Now I will know, although we have not published it yet.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
If you suddenly want to, then you can group the other novels read by you who did not go to the main list in the top 50, "not passed by the number", "not passed in quality", "not passed by size". This is an optional part for those who particularly liked to work on the list.
By the way, Martin's book "Tuf Voyaging" is suitable, because with other participants of the survey, we agreed that the cycles of short fiction combined under one cover.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I actually read Heinlein's, "If This Goes On--", "Sixth Column", "Space Cadet", "Time for the Stars", "Citizen of the Galaxy", "Podkayne of Mars", part of "Starman Jones", and part of "Orphans of the Sky", mainly back when I was in my teens and twenties. I kind of liked "Time for the Stars" and "Citizen of the Galaxy" (I was impressed by the use of anthropology concepts in Citizen of the Galaxy"), but I have no desire to read any new Heinlein novels at this point, especially those from his later period... "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag" as a book is a collection of unrelated short stories (it includes one of my favorite short stories "—And He Built a Crooked House—", but is not eligible for a novel list).
I've discovered that of the 43 unique authors on my revised list, there seem to be en.Wikipedia articles on 40 of them -- all except Bill Adams, Cecil Brooks, and Isabel Cooper. I'm thinking of starting an article on Isabel Cooper...
Also, I analyzed my list by assigning 50 points to the author of the first entry on the list, 49 points to the author of second entry, and so on, down to 1 point for the author of the last entry on the list. Where a book had two authors, I divided its points equally between the two. The results are interesting (at least to me) -- Bujold and Norton rise far above the others, while Pournelle has distinctly the fewest points out of all the authors with multiple books on the list:
109 Lois McMaster Bujold
98 Andre Norton
66 Eric Flint
62 C.S. Lewis
59 Ursula K. Le Guin
52 Arthur C. Clarke
50 J.R.R. Tolkien
47 Cordwainer Smith
46 John Barnes
45 Frank Herbert
41.5 Jerry Pournelle
40 Isaac Asimov
39 Lord Dunsany
(No other author got more than 35 points.) It doesn't entirely agree with what I think of as my favorite authors, but provides an alternate perspective... AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yasnodark -- I guess "Lord of the Rings" being at the top of the list is kind of predictable. Even when there are some of the same authors on this list and my list, often very different works are preferred -- "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Childhood's End" are really not my favorite Arthur C. Clarke books, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is one of the Narnia books that I like the least (it was the first that C.S. Lewis wrote, and he was still kind of figuring things out), and while I was impressed by "The Left Hand of Darkness", it wouldn't be my top Ursula K. Le Guin pick (and I've kind of tired of the Earthsea series). If I included any Zelazny, it would be "Doorways in the Sand", not "Nine Princes in Amber"...
I've read Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" and Saint-Exupéry's "The Little Prince", but I didn't think of including them on my list for the same reason I didn't think of including Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland": too many fairy-tale/nursery-rhyme elements, and too little overall coherent plot. I read the first half or so of Zamyatin's "We" («Мы»), but I couldn't really get through it. Aelita is known among science-fiction film buffs as an early Soviet SF movie, but probably few in the West have seen the movie or read the book. I wonder what the heck "Человек-амфибия" is about -- does it have a premise similar to Kobo Abe's "Inter Ice Age 4"??
It seems slightly odd to me that no books published in the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series (which had a big influence on me in my teen years) are included in the master list...
Unless I'm missing something with one of the Cyrillic-alphabet entries that I know nothing about, it seems that the top-ranked book written by a woman in this overall list is number 39 ("Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire") -- rather different from my list. Also, "Fundation" should be "Foundation"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
This is a preliminary list, because not all the novels are counted (less than 200 out of 800). That is, there may be individual changes, although they are unlikely, because the calculation is carried out mainly in the order of mention. But you are right: I did not notice that in the generalized list Rowling's book is the highest of women's novels. In my personal list there are more women’s novels, but still not so much: 23 - Julian May, 34 - Ursula K. Le Guin, 37 - Amy Thomson, 38 - Joanne Rowling, 39 - Lois McMaster Bujold, 40 - Maryna and Serhiy Dyachenko (with husband), 44 - Esther Friesner, 50 - Susanna Clarke. But as I said places - conditional.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Norton and Bujold were unlucky, probably because they had written many equally good novels, so people called different works. Although they were mostly not considered yet, so surprises are possible. Maybe some kind of a novel and get into the top 100 or even top 50.
Thanks, but there was no need to put links to Jules Verne novels, and I can usually understand the Cyrillic titles if it's a book that I've read or have heard of (it's just the Cyrillic titles of books that I haven't heard of that throw me). I've never actually heard of Amy Thomson, and I had no idea that Julian May was a woman (I guess I've read her short story "Dune Roller", but none of her books).
On your list, «The Postmane» should be "The Postman", and «Shard of Honor» should be "Shards of Honor" (plural). Also, it's English-language practice not to capitalize words like "of" in titles like «The Psalms Of Herod». I might have included "Macroscope" on my list, except that Piers Anthony destroyed his reputation with me by subsequently writing many books that I really hate. Edmund Cooper's "The Overman Culture" made a strong impression on me as a teenager... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I strongly advise you to read an extremely interesting May series, to get the best impression read best in the following order:
"Intervention: A Root Tale to the Galactic Milieu and a Vinculum between it and the Saga of the Pliocene Exile ISBN 0-395-43782-2
"Jack the Bodiless, ISBN 0-679-40950-5
The Surveillance
The Metaconcert
"The Many-Colored Land" , ISBN 0-395-30230-7
"Golden Torc", ISBN 0-395-31261-2
"The Nonborn King", ISBN 0-395-32211-1
"The Adversary", ISBN 0-395-34410-7
"Diamond Mask", ISBN 0-679-44177-8
"Magnificat"
The Color of Distance by Amy Thomson - also advise you to read.
Thank you for noticing my typos. As you can see from me, the "Macroscope" also flew out of the top 50, it is still a pity but I do not know what to exclude, it is also insulting for Silverberg and Anderson, but there are only 50 places. I would exclude Susanne Clark, but I have included so few fantasy novels. I liked Douglas Adams and Wells less, but I included them through the humor of the first and the scale of the thoughts of the second.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but I frequently came across those "Pliocene Exile" books in used bookstores in the 1980s and 1990s, and never ended up reading one then, so it's not too realistic that I'll read them now (when I rarely come across them in used bookstores). My favorite Silverberg might be "The World Inside" or "The Masks of Time", though I have a nostalgic fondness for "Time of the Great Freeze"; also, I read many Silverberg novels in the 1970s and 1980s without always remembering later on that he was the author...
As for women authors, it's not just Andre Norton and Lois McMaster Bujold, it's that I have works by ten women scattered throughout my list, while the overall averaged list has works by only three (J.K. Rowling, Ursula K. Le Guin, and Mary Shelley), concentrated toward the bottom. That was what mainly struck me... AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos It’s a pity that you don’t get acquainted with the books of May, apparently you, like me, prefer paper books, but if not, then note that I gave a link to the first novel in free electronic form, there are other novels in the series. I consider Silverberg to be a good author, but his novels also didn`t hit my top-50, as well as with Paul Anderson - he chose for a long time, chose, and then excluded the chosen novel. “We, the Marauders”, or "Invaders from Earth", 1958 & “A Time of Changes”, 1971 I liked the most, although ” Up the Line” & ”Tower of Glass” also has its merits. Other 5 novels - "Three Survived", "Hawksbill Station", "Master of Life and Death" ets by Silverberg made a good impression "without a surge of emotions" and I remember much worse, to say the least. "The World Inside", "The Masks of Time", "Time of the Great Freeze" you have not read now.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would also like to ask you, Doris Piserchia Star Rider (1974): Star woman rider or Star man rider? And in the novel The Ring of Ritornel by Charles Harness, what does the word "ring" mean? Which of the meanings of the word. If you read.
I wonder if you have seen any of the famous authors alive?
Also, you do not accidentally know other users of the English-language Wikipedia section, who would like to take part in the survey? Because I am not so active in this section and I know not so many participants.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
My favorite Poul Anderson books are probably the Time Patrol series and the Hoka series (with Gordon Dickson), but they're collections of short stories and novellas. I'm not a convention-goer, but I passed by Isaac Asimov's table at a Jewish book fair in the 1980s; I didn't approach him, because I didn't see much point in exchanging a few words of awkward small-talk.
In the "Star Rider" book, all normal evolved humans (Jakalowar or "jaks") can ride among the stars on "mounts" (evolved dogs), due to the "jink organ" in their brains, but the female protagonist comes to realize that she can see and go farther than others...
I'm not sure I've ever read anything by Charles Harness, but his most famous book was apparently published in an Ace Double with Dome around America by Jack Williamson,[2] and I DO remember Dome around America, so who knows... AnonMoos (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have no problem reading books that I've already read, or written by authors that I know well, in electronic form. I don't usually like to read works by unknown authors in electronic form.
If I can add one of those supplemental lists of books which didn't quite make my main list, it would include:
"Garments of Caean" by Barrington J. Bayley
"The End of Eternity" by Isaac Asimov
"Doorways in the Sand" by Roger Zelazny was "The Caves of Steel" by Isaac Asimov
"Restoree" by Anne McCaffrey
"Accidental Goddess" by Linnea Sinclair
"Kajira of Gor" by John Norman
"Angelica" by Sharon Shinn
"Watch the North Wind Rise" a.k.a. "Seven Days in New Crete" by Robert Graves
"The Penultimate Truth" by P.K. Dick
"Watchstar" by Pamela Sargent
"Illuminatus!" trilogy by Richard Shea and Robert Anton Wilson
"Star of the Unborn" by Franz Werfel
"The Martian" by Andy Weir
"The Honor of the Queen" by David Weber
"Macroscope" by Piers Anthony
"An Alien Heat" by Michael Moorcock
"Changing Planes" by Ursula K. Le Guin
(Again, I snuck in a short story collection at the bottom.)
There's a higher proportion of "guilty pleasures" than there were on my main list above...
I was also struck by how many pre-WWI entries there were on the overall averaged list. I wonder if that's for reasons similar to the "Jack London" syndrome -- Jack London was the favorite American author of many in the Soviet Union because he was one of the few American authors translated and published in the Soviet Union. Most of the pre-1914 books on the list are classics, though -- with the conspicuous exception of "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court", which is a very heavy-handed and sometimes just plain dumb satire of the High Middle ages (which occurred well over 500 years after Arthur's time, by the way). If I were going to include anything vaguely science-fictional by Mark Twain, it would be "Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven". I haven't read "The Picture of Dorian Gray", but it seems to be pretty much "mainstream" literature with just one symbolic element of "magical realism". I've apparently only read Jules Verne books in old bad English translations which are sometimes not too faithful to the original... AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos It was interesting to familiarize yourself with your additional list, although I did not read much from it.
Hello! As for the "ancient" novels, the really main reason is probably the "speculative fiction famine" in the countries of the former USSR before its collapse, so it is so important to expand the geography of the survey participants at the expense of other Americans and representatives of NATO and the EU. So far with this tight and the results are such, I just know little of users and these countries. If you can persuade someone to participate in the survey and create a list of them, I will be glad and grateful.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Although I would not say that there are so many old novels, and on the contrary, I consider their presence to be objective, but I consider the presence of some novels to be very doubtful, for example «Гиперболоид инженера Гаріна».--Yasnodark (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've come across some Wikipedia users over the years while editing science fiction articles on en.wikipedia, but they're not really my friends, and I wouldn't feel comfortable asking them to participate in a survey. This would be an ideal case for Usenet (specifically rec.arts.sf.written, which doesn't appear to be covered on Wikipedia), but I haven't been on Usenet in about ten years (it was kind of replaced by website discussion boards in some respects, and then the website discussion boards were replaced by social media)... I gave some places where science-fiction-interested users may hang out in my message of "17:59, 12 July 2019" above. AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! Are you also interested in choosing the best novels of individual years? I propose to start in 1968. My example is here . And below is a link to my article in Ukrainian wiki a list of novels of this year, and even lower is a list of the best 111 novels of all years according to 73 participants at the moment.
You can choose the 10 best novels of the year. The first - 12 points, the second - 10 points, the third - 8 points, then from 7 to 1 points.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I noticed that when you expanded the listing above on this page from the top 52 to an updated top 100, then "The City and the Stars" appeared on the list. I'm not sure if there are any new women authors there beyond Ursula K Le Guin, J K Rowling, and Mary Shelley. I really would not consider "Lord of the Flies" to be science fiction or fantasy in any meaningful sense...
The top 111 list on the other page adds one by Andre Norton at the very bottom, but a very early one by her (Sargasso of Space, 1955) which I haven't read for many years.
I know "Anvil of Time" as "Hawksbill Station". I think I've finally figured out my favorite Robert Silverberg novel, but I don't remember the title, just the plot (at the beginning, a man living in a city where homes are genetically-engineered trees discovers, using a telescope, a comet which he calculates will fairly soon hit the earth; at the end of the book, the "comet" actually turns out to be space travellers returning to Earth for the first time in many years -- there are various adventures in between). I'm pretty sure it's by Silverberg (but not absolutely 100% positive).
I don't usually think of things I read by the year they were released. To participate in your latest project, I would have to be constantly looking up a lot of bibliographical details, which doesn't sound like very much fun, sorry... AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Silverberg’s novel "Hawksbill Station" was on my preliminary list, but I deleted it, because although I was sure that I read it, I didn’t see it on my list. Given that I read a lot of his novels then, I could forget to write it down or mistakenly decided that I read it. In any case, its contents have been erased from memory. My final list of 1968 is above the list of 111 novels and it is not there.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I didn't have the patience to go through all 1000+ entries, but I noticed that the highest-ranking Bujold was #256, and that Watership Down became «Вотершипське пониззя» (no attempt to translate the word "Watership")... AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I would like to move a little away from the annual lists and suggest one more idea. I see that you have read a lot of Andre Norton's novels and they rank high on individual lists. I have more than half of her books but have not read a single one yet due to a number of reasons, including one unflattering review. So I would like you to rate her novels like the general top 50 and you list her best novels from best to least successful. I want to have a guideline for the future. 50 points - first place, and so on until 50th, if you have one or the lowest. And I, in turn, will distribute my favorite author - Robert Heinlein. Then let's compare what happens as a result.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that I've read 50 novels by Andre Norton, though there's a good probability that I've read more books by her than by any other SF/fantasy author. 20 might be more realistic... By the way, I'm not sure that Heinlein even wrote 50 novels. AnonMoos (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK, here's a list of 24 Andre Norton speculative fiction novels that I like, and a list of 4 that I dislike. Some of her early works were later released in revised form from the 1990s on; I'm not really a fan of the later versions, and am ignoring them here (of the books on my "like" list, at least "The Time Traders" was later revised). I'm including "Perilous Dreams", though it has a kind of complicated history -- two novellas (written in different years), joined together into a short novel, and accompanied by two short stories set in the same world... AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Heinlein wrote less than 50 (his 40 novels & novellas have 100 or more pages), but it was from him that I read most of the speculative science fiction novels, I probably read 29, at least I did not remember more. The bottom 3 I could send to the dislike list, but their quality is still better than many novels by other authors. At the same time, I read novels at different times and this leaves an imprint.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I like some Andre Norton books a lot, and during some periods of my life I've read a lot of Andre Norton books, but she does have some limitations -- in her writings, the civilization of the narrative present can never be at a higher level (of science or magic) than anything that came before it, but there always must be some greater predecessor. When she attempts to write about an ancient evil force persisting to the present, she's not always very successful (she should have left that to H.P. Lovecraft). But one of her particular talents was transforming indifferent source material into a readable book -- for example, in the case of "Operation Time Search", she worked with sources that were complete and total garbage, and somehow made them into a middling-good novel... Another of her talents was writing books that librarians would probably consider to be "young adult", and still have them be good books by any measure. During most of Andre Norton's writing career, young adult books (or "juveniles") didn't get much respect (it's true that young adult books were slightly less segregated from mature books in the science-fiction area than in some other literary areas, but that was mostly because science-fiction books as a whole also didn't get much respect). But she didn't let any of that stop her from trying to write the best books that she could (which in many cases are fun to read...). AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoosThanks for the comment. Have you remembered any other Norton novels you read? I forgot to give you the link http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?209 , can something else help remember.
Fixed inaccuracies in Heinlein's list. I advise you to read at least the first 14 points of my preference list. By the way, what are you reading now and reading during quarantine?--Yasnodark (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've already read at least six Heinlein novels, and liked two of them somewhat (as explained in my message of "17:11, 18 June 2019" above), but I'm not sure that I have any real desire to ever read any more of them. I now sometimes re-read a few Heinlein short stories ("Roads Must Roll" somewhat ironically, "--And He Built a Crooked House--" with honest admiration, etc), but that's about it. I've had a vague desire since at least the 1990s to read "Stranger in A Strange Land" because of its cultural importance, but I never got around to it. (I want to have read it more than I want to actually read it...)
By the way, as someone in the United States who's been a steady science-fiction reader since around the mid-to-late 1970s, it's basically impossible for me not to have already been exposed to Heinlein and to have formed an opinion of him. In the 1970s and even 1980s he was hard to avoid as one of the "Big Three" English-language science fiction authors of the late 1950s (Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein)...
During Coronavirus, my main systematic reading has been going through the books of David Weber's Safehold series again (I skipped forward through one of the books, but fully re-read all the others) -- and also reading for the first time his sequel volume to the original series. In addition to that, a bunch of miscellaneous stuff... AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC) 20:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos As I said, you started with the wrong books of Heinlein, as you can see you haven't read any of his best books. Is that part of the "Stepsons of Heaven". Therefore, I hope that you will change your mind in the future. «Methuselah's Children», «The Door into Summer», «Waldo: Genius in Orbit», «If This Goes On ... », «I Will Fear No Evil», «The Star Beast», «Friday», «The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag», «Double Star» & «Have Space Suit - Will Travel» deserve to be read regardless of the reader's experience and prejudice, because I see that your impression of the master was spoiled by his unsuccessful novels, which started acquaintance and other people's reviews.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I haven't actually had a lot of extra free reading time during Coronavirus (compared to normal), except when I was disconnected from the Internet. The "Safehold" series was my main systematic SF reading, as I said, but I also did some non-SF reading... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
The Andre Norton novels in the above list are my personal favorites, and not necessarily those I would recommend to someone starting to read Norton for the first time. I'm not sure what book I would recommend to a Heinlein fan, since I don't fully understand his appeal. Maybe "The Zero Stone", since it contains no fantasy elements, no significant female characters, and no love interest of any kind. -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I'm I am not a fan of the Heinlein you know, or just and not so much a fan of the Heinlein you know, unfortunately your last theses once again confirm your ignorance of the real Heinlein in its diversity, because "Friday" 1 , "I Will Fear No Evil" 2, "Stranger in a Strange Land " 3 , «The Door into Summer» 4 , "Magic, Inc." 5, "Podkayne of Mars ", "Glory Road" 7, since it contains the love interest, significant female characters or elements of fantasy. I haven't read "Job: A Comedy of Justice"8 , "Time Enough for Love" 9, "To Sail Beyond the Sunset" 10 and only read the beginning of "For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs", but all of these books also contain your designated items. I gave you links to the texts of the novels, maybe you can sort it out and read something from Heinlein unknown to you.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)`Reply
Yasnodark -- I already read #9 on your first list, and didn't actively dislike it, but I thought that it was a little bit mediocre, and had no real desire to re-read it (though it was interesting to see the remnants of the theocracy in the unprotected zone in the "Coventry" story). And I read #15 on the list, and definitely liked some aspects of it, and re-read it at least once (which is probably not the case for any other Heinlein novel), but it's far from being one of my overall favorite novels. As I said before, as a steady science-fiction reader since the mid-to-late 1970s living in the United States, it's almost impossible for me not to already have fully-formed opinions about Heinlein. If I compiled a list of my 50 favorite SF short stories, there would definitely be at least one Heinlein story there ("--And He Built a Crooked House--"), and possibly others, but at this stage of my life, I'm pretty much done with Heinlein novels, since I assess that in all likelihood, the reward I get from having read them will not be proportional to my effort in reading them. Also, Heinlein was politically quite a bit more right-wing than I am, so I'm not sure that I have much interest in reading his non-fiction reflections about life in general. AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos The fact of the matter is that in most of Heinlein's novels there is nothing to the right of the next door, and to be convinced of this one must read something from another Heinlein. I still insist on this, because because of your prejudices and unsuccessful first choices, your view of Heinlein consists of impressions of not the best of his works and his later beliefs, which are reflected in 12 of his 40 speculative fiction novels and great stories of which you have read half. But unfortunately you haven't read any of the 28 books in Heinlein's other series. Some are deeply humanistic, like «The Star Beast», some are deeply philosophical with a love component like «Stranger in a Strange Land», or «Methuselah's Children», some are dedicated to art like Voldo, some are deeply feminist like "Friday", some are political, but quite not right, like "Double Star," some deeply lyrical temporal like "Doors to Summer". I ask you to spend one a week for a month and read the first 30 pages of 5 novels that I will offer, and if you are not interested, each of them can take turns to throw or finish. And in a month, I'll ask if your opinion has changed. After all, Heinlein's political views have changed radically after his visit to the USSR, during the Caribbean crisis, and I understand that. Give yourself a chance to change your mind about this writer. I have chosen for you 5 Heinlein novels that will help you make a more accurate impression of the author and at the same time will not seem childish and secondary to you, I have chosen novels:
AnonMoos I ask you to force yourself: 30 pages is not so much, but you can understand something about the level and theme of each book. If you make an effort and you don't like the way Pontius Pilate washes his hands and I don't bother about Heinlein, I just see your extreme misinformation about it and subjective perception. The main thing is to try. If we compare 10 Weber novels and these 10 Heinlein novels, the comparison will not be in Weber's favor. Although I really like it and continue to read it now, but such a variety of fiction as Heinlein, no one has. Although Leiber, Aldiss, Simak and Sheckley are very very good! As for Asimov and Clarke, their creativity is not so diverse, although not inferior to Heinlein.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I guess the two that I particularly had in mind don't meet that condition. There are others that might, but it wouldn't be too convenient to for me to verify this... AnonMoos (talk)
AnonMoos I would like to know from you who in your opinion will be named next SF Grand Master, and the second option: who you would like to see the next winner of the Damon Knight Memorial Award. 50 people in the first case and 50 in the second with a novel-like rating scale. Not necessarily just the authors you read.
I would like to add that no person under the age of 66 or over the age of 85 has received a title so far. The literary experience of the winners ranged from 34 (Bujold) to 61 (Beagle) years. Gibson and Bujold, 70, have been getting younger for the past two years, so it's likely to be an older person this year and more likely a man, because last year it was a woman. All authors are English-speaking, but very rarely British and Canadian. Only two - Bester and Beagle - wrote less than 1,111,111 words of speculative fiction.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
I want list:
Ben Bova
Piers Anthony
Barry N. Malzberg
Gregory Benford
Norman Spinrad
Ron Goulart
Michael Bishop
Christopher Priest
John Crowley
Alan Dean Foster
Ian Watson
Pamela Sargent
Greg Bear
David Brin
George R. R. Martin
Vernor Vinge
Orson Scott Card
Brian Stableford
Spider Robinson
Dan Simmons
Patricia A. McKillip
William Kotzwinkle
Stephen R. Donaldson
Chelsea Quinn Yarbro
Nancy Kress
Esther M. Friesner
John Varley
David Gerrold
Terry Bisson
Rudy Rucker
Stephen King
Jack McDevitt
Stephen Baxter
John Barnes
David Veber
Suzy McKee Charnas
Geoffrey A. Landis
George Zebrowski
Michael Swanwick
Robert Charles Wilson
Barry B. Longyear
Ian McDonald
Bruce Sterling
Robert J. Sawyer
Kim Stanley Robinson
Robert Reed
Tim Powers
Greg Egan
Paul J. McAuley
Geoff Ryman
I think list:
Gregory Benford
Norman Spinrad
Alan Dean Foster
Dan Simmons
Greg Bear
David Brin
George R. R. Martin
Vernor Vinge
Orson Scott Card
Brian Stableford
Christopher Priest
John Crowley
Patricia A. McKillip
William Kotzwinkle
Stephen King
Stephen R. Donaldson
John Varley
Nancy Kress
Kim Stanley Robinson
Jack McDevitt
Michael Swanwick
Bruce Sterling
David Gerrold
Chelsea Quinn Yarbro
Terry Bisson
Spider Robinson
George Zebrowski
Robert Charles Wilson
Ian McDonald
Robert J. Sawyer
Stephen Baxter
Esther M. Friesner
Ron Goulart
Robert Reed
Greg Egan
Neil Gaiman
John Barnes
David Veber
Suzy McKee Charnas
Geoffrey A. Landis
Paul J. McAuley
Rudy Rucker
Tim Powers
Geoff Ryman
Ben Bova
Adam Roberts
These are my preliminary lists, then I will add and rearrange.
I'm rooting for prolific oldies. This letter is helpful
I don't really closely follow such awards. I think it would be nice if David Weber were recognized, but I wouldn't be disappointed if he wasn't. I'm a little curious as to the presence of Suzy McKee Charnas on your list -- she writes some powerful books, but has a rather specialized talent. The only Christopher Priest book I read ("The Inverted World") came close to giving me nightmares (I have absolutely no desire to ever read it again). AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I don`t know for what such merits, but already so early they named the author, who does not have any rights to be called the SF Grand Master. She broke all records, not deserving it at all. Apparently because she is a black lesbian woman from Jamaica and Canada (do not be offended if you or your relatives or friends are African-American or LGBT, I just think that such awards should be given for skill to people of advanced age with great literary experience and great the number of quality and excellent books, regardless of gender, skin color or sexual orientation).
I haven't read her books, but it's not that important. I have read other masters and know about the merits of authors I have not read. And I know that she could not write better than them. But even if she would write at the same level, she definitely wrote several times less (only 13 books!?!), Has little literary experience in speculative fiction (24 years !!!) and is young enough (60 years !!!) , that is, because of such dubious awards, many worthy people simply will not survive. John Brunner was 61 years old in the year of his death, he never got the title, and by that time he had written about 70 books, of which more than 20 were super-outstanding and had 44 years of experience in speculative fiction to compare with this upstart. Octavia Butler had 35 years of experience, wrote 15 books and was terminally ill, but at the 59th year of her life she was also not announced a Grandmaster, and who, no matter how worthy she was. Kate Wilhelm lived to be 90 years old, wrote dozens of books over 60 years, but received only a fake "Solstice". Robert Sheckley was given the second class prize - Emeritus. John Christopher, Thomas Disch and Roger Zelazny never got it. Dixon, Herbert and Bradley were also out of luck.
I am incredibly angry because their fate awaits other worthy authors who have written dozens of high-level books over the decades. Ben Bova is 88 years old. He has written about 90 books of quality fiction and is still actively writing for the past 61 years. Even better books are from Card and the magnificent B-Four - Beer (53 years of experience), Benford (55 years of experience), Bishop (50 years of experience) and Brin (40 years of experience), and they are more than 70 years old, Benford in a month - 80 years old and his twin brother died, that is, how long he does not know. They all wrote 2-6 times more. And there are simply legends of popularity King and Martin, more than 90 books were written by Foster. There are also 77-year-old Englishmen Priest and Watson. Then there's Spinrad and Malzberg, who have been writing since the 1960s. There is Vinge and Simmons. More than 100 books were written by Pierce Anthony and they are all still writing ... Among women, Yarbro has been writing for over 50 years and has almost the same number of books. For many years, Gwyneth Jones and Nancy Kress have written with quality. But Hopkinson? For what?
Ten years ago I predicted the title of 2010 and my forecast still worked: out of the top eight applicants, in my opinion, 5 received the title and 2 more died, Bova remained. All the other Grandmasters were also on my list, but who knew 10 years ago about Hopkinson and who could consider her a contender. Even now I did not even think to include her in the list for 2021, according to all the laws, she had 0 chances. It is very sad that such an inadequate decision was made by Mary Robinette Kowal, the first SFWA President with Ukrainian roots.
And you have no way to duplicate my comment here Except for the phrase in the first paragraph "Apparently because she is a black lesbian woman from Jamaica and Canada (do not be offended if you or your relatives or friends are African-American or LGBT"?
I'm not sure who you're referring to. I'm sure that many of those who were overlooked have many merits, but I don't think that Piers Anthony deserves any awards (except for sheer volume). AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos You are not watching in vain, because this is the most important reward for merit in speculative fiction. I meant Nalo Hopkinson, I have not read her works, but for all the other indicators mentioned above, I consider her undeservedly awarded. Don't want to make your rating?
I consider Weber to be a narrowly specialized science fiction writer (military science fiction), so I believe that he also didn`t deserve the award. If you do not take a specific next year, and in general, I believe that of those from whom I read more than one work, the award should definitely in my opinion should receive David Brin, Greg Beer, Ben Bova, Orson Scott Card, George Martin, Vernor Vinge, probably Stephen King and Dan Simmons, I also disagree with you about Anthony, but I've read far fewer of his books than you. I haven't read much of Benford and Spinrad, but compared to Hopkinson, I think thanks to their creative careers and contributions to speculative fiction, they deserve to be called Grand masters. Of the living women, I have read few of the authors with a large number of books written, but I think Frisner and Kress, perhaps Jarbro is more worthy of Hopkinson. Unfortunately, most of these authors simply will not live to see the award, if I continue to award younger authors with little experience and a small number of books written.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
I certainly agree that David Brin, Vernor Vinge, and George R.R. Martin have written some good books (though I've haven't read any of George R.R. Martin's most famous books). I'm not sure that I've ever heard of Nalo Hopkinson (I've certainly never read any books that she wrote), so it's hard for me to have an opinion. You might be confusing David Weber a little bit with David Drake. I hadn't heard that Ben Bova died very recently. It's very likely that I read one or more of his books or stories in the 1970s or 1980s, but I can't remember which now, and looking over a list of titles doesn't jog my memory (by the way, I'm not sure how to contact the ISFDB people, but "The New Astonomies" and "Stamps and Emblams" probably contain typos). At some times in the past I kind of confused Ben Bova with Jerry Pournelle, but I think I have that sorted out now. P.S. There's a question about Ukraine issues at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities which you may have some information or opinions about... AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos `I wasn't saying that Bova was dead, I was saying that he and other masters of speculative fiction would die sooner than wait for the title of Grandmaster, if in front of them the awards will be received by all sorts of Hopkinson.
I understand what you mean, but as you can see, I'm right: Bova died http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?184 without becoming a Grandmaster, and less worthy people received and receive the title. I didn't confuse Weber with Drake: everything I saw or read from him was military science fiction.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I suggest you make your top list of the best novels by currently living authors, preferably also with the condition that one author - one novel. If there is not one author, both must be alive.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not looking forward to looking up all the authors to see if they're dead (though for some it's obvious, of course). The living-author requirement would probably eliminate about half of my list of 50 above. Maybe some guilty pleasures that I didn't include in my all-time 50 list would intrude into my living 50 list. I don't really keep track of science-fiction author deaths, but some that I happened to hear of in recent years were Ursula K Le Guin, Ben Bova, and Ron Goulart... AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos To make it easier for you to understand whose novel to include, you can refer to my list of living authors and the following links:
I cobbled something together from what remained of my Top 50 above (thanks for doing that for me) and then mostly from other stuff mentioned up and down this page. To do really serious research would have taken a lot longer, and might have resulted in a list that was only a little bit different. By the way, Brian Aldiss apparently died in 2017. I found that Vernor Vinge died just recently. I had the vague impression that Jack Williamson was immortal, but he died at age 98...
top-list
50 "A Million Open Doors" by John Barnes
49 "Memory" by Lois McMaster Bujold
48 "The Uplift War" by David Brin
47 "The Fall of the Towers" by Samuel R. Delany
46 "Heart of Gold" by Sharon Shinn
45 "Iceman" by Cynthia Felice
44 "The Last Legends of Earth" by A.A. Attanasio
43 "Macroscope" by Piers Anthony
42 "Accidental Goddess" by Linnea Sinclair
41 "Watchstar" by Pamela Sargent
40 "The Martian" by Andy Weir
39 "No Proper Lady" by Isabel Cooper
38 "The Honor of the Queen" by David Weber
37 "Light on the Sound" by Somtow Sucharitkul
36 "Valentine's Castle" by Robert Silverberg
35 "Wave Without a Shore" by C. J. Cherryh
34 "Crystal Flame" by Jayne Ann Krentz
33 "Redshift Rendezvous" by John E. Stith
32 "Kajira of Gor" by John Norman
31 "An Alien Heat" by Michael Moorcock
30 "Tuf Voyaging" by George R. R. Martin
29 "Ringworld" by Larry Niven
28 "Procyon's Promise" by Michael McCollum
27 "The Solarians" by Norman Spinrad
26 "The Wounded Land" by Stephen R. Donaldson
25 "2018 A.D. or the King Kong Blues" by Sam J. Lundwall
24 "Forever War" by Joe Haldeman
23 "The Ophiuchi Hotline" by John Varley
22 "A Door Into Ocean" by Joan Slonczewski
21 "Coraline" by Neil Gaiman
20 "Darwinia" by Robert Charles Wilson
19 "Doomsday Book" by Connie Willis
18 "Starhammer" by Christopher Rowley
17 "Master of Space and Time" by Rudy Rucker
16 "Vacuum Flowers" by Michael Swanwick
15 "Schismatrix" by Bruce Sterling
14 "The Planet Dweller" by Jane Palmer
13 "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson
12 "The Ships of Earth" by Orson Scott Card
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I ranked "The Uplift War" higher than I did on my all-time top-50 list (I don't know why I ranked it so low there). I guess including "The Mote in God's Eye" prevents me from including anything else by either Niven or Pournelle... For Samuel R. Delany I debated between including "Empire Star", "The Fall of the Towers", or "Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand". For Sharon Shinn, I debated between "Angelica", "Wrapt in Crystal", or "Heart of Gold". For Lois McMaster Bujold I debated between "Memory" and "The Vor Game". For Connie Willis, I wanted to put in "The Last of the Winnebagos", but that's only a short story. For Robert Silverberg, I had difficulty singling out one book. I haven't tracked down what I think is my favorite by him (see elsewhere on this page), so I put in "Valentine's Castle". AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I know my edit will mess up the Cyrillic of item number 36 on your list (I have to use a non-fully-Unicode compliant tool when editing from home); I'll fix it in a few days if you haven't... AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Gerry Purnell died, so his presence in this list is impossible, so you should choose another novel by Niven, also you did not use my prepared form for nothing, then you would see that you counted far fewer novels than necessary, so you should also search for works by living authors and supplement list. I would like more new novels by living authors from those years that we haven't done yet
I was pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel with 40, so I strongly doubt whether I could reach 50 (though I'll almost certainly add a Niven novel). By the way, in a true on-line accessible database, such as Wikidata, you could set up a custom automated search for the most-reviewed books by living authors. ISFDB is a little behind the times if it doesn't allow this... AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I added "Ringworld" by Larry Niven to the list above, since "The Mote in God's Eye" was disqualified. (It has a strong "sense of wonder" component, and I choose to overlook the fact that its sequels are much worse.) You can look into custom searches on Wikidata yourself. I doubt that Wikidata has information on which SF novels are highly regarded, though. That information is in ISFDB, but if we can't intersect it with such things as being written by living authors, then it's of limited use in some contexts (including this talk page subsection). I don't think I've heard of Richard Rohmer, but I've heard of Sax Rohmer, who was famous in the English-speaking countries during the first half of the 20th century. AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos You misunderstood me, I was asking for a way to look at the leaked works of living people, not ratings of works.
Of your first 39 novels by living authors, I have read only 5 - Brin, Bujold, Anthony, Weber and Swanwick, almost half of them have not been translated into Russian, and only one has been translated into Ukrainian. I have somewhere around 16-19 at home, I plan to read another 8 of them from time to time, in particular Haldeman's book, although I once read the novella "The Hero" https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?77504, which became the first part of the novel, and it did not really impress me, unlike his essay about his visits to the USSR. The other seven - books by Willis in Ukrainian, Niven, Stevenson, Stith, Barnes, Sterling & Spinrad in Russian.
--Yasnodark (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I meant to rank "Ringworld" as no. 23, not no. 22, but never mind. I don't think I'd be too good at ranking authors abstractly, without reference to specific works -- maybe a little too philosophical for me. But one thing is very clear -- Piers Anthony and Neal Stephenson would instantly disappear from the list, since my general opinion of them as authors is very low (even if I somewhat like a few specific books only)... In several cases, I've only read one book by an author (Jane Palmer, Robert Charles Wilson, Sam J. Lundwall, probably others), so I don't know how to evaluate that author generally (beyond that one book). I might add Steven Brust to the list, but I was hesitant to do so before, because I've only read one book by him, which I understand isn't very typical of his work, and I may have been unable to properly appreciate it, since it's a small part of his overall tapestry... AnonMoos (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I guess I could list my favorite authors, but it would have to be an unordered top 10, and no specific books could be included on the list (they would just confuse the issue): J.R.R. Tolkien, Andre Norton, Cordwainer Smith, Lois McMaster Bujold, Lord Dunsany, Isaac Asimov, Anne McCaffrey, Roger Zelazny, Sharon Shinn, David Weber. Of course, only three of those are living. Sorry for the dramatic come-down from the ordered list of 50 you wanted to the unordered list of three which I provided! AnonMoos (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos The most difficult choice for me was among the books of Brin, Bujold, Rowling, Martin, Kevin J. Anderson, Card, McDevitt to a lesser extent - Silverberg, F. Paul Wilson, Delany, Simmons & King.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Perhaps in these lists you will find books forgotten in the lists for certain years, at the top there are also links to other interesting lists of books by subgenres and periods
Compiling your version of the 1968 best novels is simple: I gave you a link to my article, where there are more than a hundred novels this year and there is a name in the original language in part "Вперше опубліковані романи", there is also a wide list of books of this year, that is, you don’t have to look for a long time - you just need to select the read you novels published this year. And then put it in its place: if there are not enough novels, the lower positions will be invaluable, and if more than 10, then the extra ones must be weeded out or presented with minus points -1, -2, -3. Therefore, I hope that you still change your mind. It's really easy...--Yasnodark (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I didn't see the Uk:1968 рік у науковій фантастиці link before. "Anvil of Time" is both there and at the bottom of SF1960s. I'm a little curious why Harlan Ellison is Гарлан Еллісон on Ukrainian Wikipedia, since I thought that Latin "H" = Cyrillic "Г" is pretty much a Russian thing... Anyway, I've read "The Pool of Fire" by John Christopher, "A Gift From Earth" by Larry Niven, "The Masks of Time" by Robert Silverberg, "Picnic on Paradise" by Joanna Russ, "Assignment in Nowhere" by Keith Laumer (which I didn't think was novel-length), "Dragonflight" by Anne McCaffrey, "The Zero Stone" by Andre Norton, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", by P.K. Dick, "The Last Unicorn" by Peter S. Beagle, "Hawksbill Station" a.k.a "The Anvil of Time" by Robert Silverberg, "Priest-Kings of Gor" by John Norman, "Norstrilia" by Cordwainer Smith (the second half of which was published as "The Underpeople" in 1968), and of course "Sorceress of the Witch World" by Andre Norton. I've read at least part of "The Key to Venudine" by Kenneth Bulmer, "Rite of Passage" by Alexei Panshin, "Past Master" by R.A. Lafferty, "Shellbreak" by J. W. Groves, and "Sos the Rope" by Piers Anthony.
just Latin “H” = Cyrillic “G” is the Ukrainian approach https://argo-unf-in.at.ua/load/anglo_amerikanska_fantastika/ellison_garlan/47 , and in Russian it is “X”, although many I do not fully agree with this, because with regard to English surnames it is more often more correct than “X” in contrast to American ones. 1968 is my favorite year in speculative fiction and the hardest thing was to choose the best and put them in their places, and I have a full set of 10 high-quality novels there, so I decided to start with it, but even if you have memories of this year’s books are more vague, nevertheless, I would ask you to arrange in approximate order the novels you have read in their places. Laumer meets the criteria http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?199517 .--Yasnodark (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've actually read "A Wizard of Earthsea" (it wasn't in the Ukrainian Wikipedia list, and I missed it in the ISFDB list). I've read one or two of Per Wahlöö's mystery novels about the Swedish policeman, but nothing science-fictional. I'm pretty sure that my father had "The Goblin Reservation" on his shelves, but I was deterred from reading it by the strange mishmash described in the back cover blurb (I probably never got beyond the first few pages). I'm not sure that I have any strong year nostalgia, but if I do, it's more probably for a year in the 1970s (though I would have to do a lot of research to figure out which one). I vaguely thought that the letter Ґ meant that there was a whole different history of "g" in Ukrainian than in Russian, and I know that the older practice in Russian was to transcribe Latin "H" with Cyrillic "Г" but I guess it doesn't apply in the way I assumed (sorry)...
P.S. It's embarrassing, but I thought I included "Doorways in the Sand" by Roger Zelazny in my supplemental list, but now I see that I didn't. I don't like to change the lists once I've made them, but I may have to cross one of the other titles out to put Zelazny in... AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos That article on Ukrainian Wikipedia is devoted only to science fiction, not speculative fiction, so Le Guin’s novel and other pure fantasy novels are not there. If you wish, changes to your list are possible, so you can include Zelazny’s novel. But still I would like you to create ranked lists by year, for the beginning of 1968-1970. Thus embrace both your and my favorite years. --Yasnodark (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
P.S.By the way, you said that you recently read Weber: which novels? I myself began to read a series about Honor, though now I have reached a novel that I don’t have either in libraries. And on the computer I read for a long time and reluctantly. So I don’t know how soon I will get to the next. And I have it on paper.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've read all of the books in David Weber's first "Safehold" series (apparently he's recently started a second series) and probably about half the novels in the "Honorverse" written or co-authored by Weber (much more than half if you just count the main series, and not the spin-offs). I also really like some of his Bolo novellas. As I implied in my supplemental list above, my favorite Honorverse novel is the second one in the main series Honor of the Queen, so if you don't like the series by that point, don't feel obliged to go on...
Any "favorite novels of 1968" list on my part would basically be the ten books I most clearly remember, out of the 15 that I've read. I'm not really sure what this would be validly useful for... Or 16, if "Swords of Lankhmar" is one of the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser books that I've read -- most of them except Swords Against Wizardry kind of blur together in my mind. Wait, "Swords Against Wizardry" is my favorite Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser book, and was published in 1968, so that's definitely 16...
Also, I don't know that my peak nostalgia year is 1970 or 1971 (and I suspect not). It would help in determining which year it was if I annotated my favorite 50 list with the original year of publication for each book, but I'm too lazy to do all that work for such a minimal result. AnonMoos (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos By Weber I read Ms. Midshipwoman Harrington (2001), On Basilisk Station (1993), The Honor of the Queen (1994), The Short Victorious War (1994), Field of Dishonor (1994), Flag in Exile (1995), I don’t have, so I plan to read it on the Internet, although I don’t like it. On Basilisk Station (1993), The Honor of the Queen (1994), as well as Ms. Midshipwoman Harrington (2001) - I liked more than The Short Victorious War (1994), Field of Dishonor (1994), but even though I did not include any of the novels in the list of the best, I like the law.
AnonMoos It’s just interesting how the choice of Wikipedia users will differ from the results of surveys of Hugo Nebula Locus and other awards this year, so when you have free time I will be glad to choose your best of the years, especially since you already named books of 1968, you just need to give them points . And 1969, 1967 and other years, you could do later as time or desire arose, for example, 1 year once a week or two weeks. You can help this page. --Yasnodark (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
After the first three books in the main Honor series (On Basilisk Station, The Honor of the Queen, The Short Victorious War), I kind of skipped around depending on what was in conveniently in libraries, or what books I happened to find remaindered/used, so I didn't always read them in strict series order. You may be more bothered by reading out-of-order than I am...
By the way, with respect to 1968 SF novels, I almost certainly must have read "2001" by Arthur C. Clarke (since I was impressed, though a little confused, by the movie, and I know I read at least one of the sequel novels) -- but I have no real memory of reading it... AnonMoos (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! Yes, indeed I read only in chronological order and Weber is no exception. By the way, more than a thousand books have already been named.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
In the case of a very tightly-integrated sequence of books, such as the three Lord of the Rings novels, I really would not advise reading them out of order. However, the "Honorverse" is a little more episodic. In the case of some series, such as C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia and Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series, the internal chronological order of the books is not the same as the order in which they were published, and people endlessly debate about whether to read them in chronological order or publication order... AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Many Bujold novels have a little explanation of the internal chronology in table form at the back ("Miles Vorkosigan/Naismith: His Universe and Times") in order to show which works precede and follow which other works (which otherwise might not be obvious, since the books aren't numbered). This allows readers to make sure they are reading in internal chronological order, if they wish -- but also, it seems, can facilitate out-of-order reading. AnonMoos (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK, I've compromised and produced a list of my top 8 favorite books first published in 1968. If I made my list any longer, it would be because I remembered a book better than I remembered some others, not because I liked the book better than I did the others... Note that the second half of "Norstrilia" was published in 1968 (the first half was published in 1964), but I can only judge the book as a whole (the form in which I've always encountered it, and in which it's been reprinted ever since 1975). "Swords Against Wizardry" is also a collection of some material first published in 1968 and other material previously published in magazines before 1968. If "The Tombs of Atuan" had been published in 1968, it would have probably made the list, but "A Wizard of Earthsea" didn't... AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
12 points "Norstrilia" by Cordwainer Smith
10 "Sorceress of the Witch World" by Andre Norton
8 "Swords Against Wizardry" by Fritz Leiber
7 "The Masks of Time" by Robert Silverberg
6 "Picnic on Paradise" by Joanna Russ
5 "Dragonflight" by Anne McCaffrey
4 "The Zero Stone" by Andre Norton
3 "Priest-Kings of Gor" by John Norman
P.S. Sorry that there's no overlap at all with your list of top 1968 novels, and that I'm not likely to read "The Goblin Reservation" in the near future... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! Even if you remember some books better and therefore they will be on the list of the 12 best, I ask you to select the remaining four for the complete set, the main thing is that they are not exactly remembered by you from the bad side. By the way nothing has been read from your list yet, although 5.5 books are at home.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
By ".5", I assume you mean Cordwainer Smith's "The Underpeople". For someone in Ukraine, you seem to have a lot of old U.S. paperbacks. I wonder how they even get to Ukraine (ordering them one by one from online booksellers would be quite expensive)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! Many speculative fiction books in Ukraine have hit and even now come from Russia in Russian, there is a huge number of classic books and many new ones regularly published. More than 98% of the population speak Russian at a high enough level. Although some of these people do not read it in principle. At the same time, many classical works that were not published in Russian on the territory of the former USSR during the book boom in 1989-2009 have not yet been translated, and every year their ability to translate is diminished. However, many of the classics have been published almost entirely in traditional multi-volume collections of works for our regions: Robert Heinlein, Clifford Simak, Isaac Asimov, Andre Norton, and dozens of other authors, plus hundreds of authors have been selectively translated. In the 1990s, they were published in tens and hundreds of thousands of copies. In addition, after the outbreak of the war in 2014, the Ukrainian-language book publishing in Ukraine became more active. Unfortunately, what has already appeared in Russian is mostly published. Cliffford Simak, Roger Zelazny, Terry Pratchett, Philip Dick, Howard Lovecraft, Isaac Asimov and others are now actively translated. This is how we have access to paper books of old years. --Yasnodark (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! I recently noticed your first lists over the years and especially the 1968 list. And I saw that you then made too strict and very strict selection from what you read. You have left blank positions in 1 and 2 points. I think that among the novels you do not include, there are those that deserve at least such a low score as 1-2 points. After all, you do not need to put 8 or 10 points, because they are not the best in your opinion. However, to say that the novels of P.K. Dick, Peter S. Beagle, John Christopher, Alexei Panshin, R.A. Lafferty, Robert Silverberg or Larry Niven, according to critics ormy opinion, are so bad that they are not included in completely empty positions - is too much. After all, you can't say for sure that these novels are not the best of the unincorporated. Even if you read all the other unincorporated novels from this year that you haven't read yet. And if it is different and you then read something better, you can always replace them, that's my logic.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Your non-included:
"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", by P.K. Dick, "The Last Unicorn" by Peter S. Beagle, "Hawksbill Station" a.k.a "The Anvil of Time" by Robert Silverberg, "The Pool of Fire" by John Christopher, "A Gift From Earth" by Larry Niven, "Assignment in Nowhere" by Keith Laumer, and part of "The Key to Venudine" by Kenneth Bulmer, "Rite of Passage" by Alexei Panshin, "Past Master" by R.A. Lafferty, "Shellbreak" by J. W. Groves, and "Sos the Rope" by Piers Anthony.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't really remember "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" well enough to rate it (I read it once in the first half of the 1980s). My memory of "The Pool of Fire" has also faded (though I probably read that one in the 1990s). "Hawksbill Station" a.k.a "The Anvil of Time" and "A Gift From Earth" are rather minor novels from well-known authors. "Assignment in Nowhere" has too much fairy-tale influence -- I only like fairy-tale elements when done in certain ways, and even when I do like a book with fairy-tale influences, I sometimes might not consider it to fall under what would I consider to be "speculative fiction". For "The Last Unicorn", see comment of "05:58, 19 July 2020" above (plus also fairy-tale elements). I can enjoy fairy tales for what they are, but in my opinion there's a limited useful overlap between fairy tales and speculative fiction -- this may be part of why I included "The Charwoman's Shadow" by Lord Dunsany on my top-50 list, though most people seem to like "The King of Elfland's Daughter" more... AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, even if the content of the book is almost forgotten, there are still memories of the impression: at least whether the novel was bad or very good. Novels that are remembered worse, I put on the lower positions with equal impressions of them. As a rule, good novels are better stained. The worst as well. Although Dick's novel is really worthy. Fairy tales are part of speculative fiction, so the presence of fairy-tale elements should not lower the score. I also don't remember Niven's novel very well, but I remember that he seemed better to me than the World of Ptavvs, and he seemed quite dynamic to me and I remember him better, although his plot is not too complicated. Although today I have to delete this novel because I remembered the best of it.
Among the novels of 1968 and 1969, I consider all the novels included deservedly, but some of the novels of 1969 (1-3 balls) I will not be sorry to exclude. It was also with Niven's novel "A Gift From Earth", but now it will be more difficult with 1968 year. And I think it is illogical to leave empty positions, but the choice is yours. Doesn't Le Guin's “A Wizard of Earthsea” or "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" deserve 2 points?--Yasnodark (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I occasionally include on my year lists a novel that I have limited memories of, if it made a strong impression on me when I last read it: "Agent of Chaos" by Norman Spinrad, "Circumpolar!" by Richard A. Lupoff, "Cat's Cradle" by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr (of course "Cat's Cradle" barely made it onto the 1963 list, because I had very few books for that year -- it would not have been on the list at all, if not for Ice-9). However, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" did not "hit the sweet spot" in this way, as they say (I wonder if it would be P.K. Dick's most famous novel if the "Blade Runner" movie hadn't been made?). "The Tombs of Atuan" is my favorite Earthsea novel, as I mentioned above; I haven't read the others in some time... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I read Dick's novel 10 years before I watched the movie. I liked the book more. However, he isn`t my favorite author, although Dick himself is one of my favorite science fiction writers.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
The 1969 list was easier; that may be because I did a certain amount of research for the 1968 list, trying to figure out if perhaps I had read a book, but didn't remember its title. For the 1969 list, I didn't really do such research -- If I didn't recognize the combination of a title and author, I basically didn't bother with it. I was amused that Ukrainian Wikipedia lists Bambi Meets Godzilla as a science-fiction movie -- it's a very brief joke... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
6 "Creatures of Light and Darkness" by Roger Zelazny
5 "Nomads of Gor" by John Norman
4 "Bored of the Rings" by Henry N. Beard and Douglas C. Kenney
3 "Kar Kaballa" by George H. Smith
2 Avengers of Carrig" by John Brunner
1 "Tower of the Medusa" by Lin Carter
(11) 0 "Decision at Doona" by Anne McCaffrey
AnonMoos Hello! I see that we have two coincidences in high places - the "Left hand of darkness" and the "Macroscope", I want to ask, but have you read anything else from my list? The first six of the best are unlikely to be excluded from the list, so that I will not read in the future. 7-8 books - in doubt, I can replace them in the future. The last 2 novels can be replaced without much regret and I mean that someday this will happen. For the first time I hear about the novel "Bored of the Rings" by Henry N. Beard and Douglas C. Kenney and its authors, I have one book by George H. Smith, but I have not read it, and I also learned about novel "Kar Kaballa" from you, "Bored of the Rings" and "Kar Kaballa" were not translated into Eastern Slavic languages, books by Roger Zelazny, CL Moore and Anne McCaffrey - exist in my home, but I have not read them yet and do not plan to soon. The Moore book is better to replace, because the works of the cycle were first published before the Second World War, and I would not include this book by definition by this year. I would like to read "Fourth Mansions" by R. A. Lafferty, but this book hasn`t been published in bulk in translation. I do not plan to read Norman. As for Tower of the Medusa by Lin Carter and Times Without Number by John Brunner, I don’t remember if I have them. I do not plan to read Carter yet. --Yasnodark (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I already mentioned "Macroscope" and "The Left Hand of Darkness" above on this page (also "Times Without Number" and "Jirel of Joiry"). I might have included "Macroscope" on my main list of 50, except that I basically hate every book Piers Anthony wrote after 1976 (and some that he wrote before then also!), which taints by association the few books by him that I do like (or in other words, I didn't want to give the impression of being a Piers Anthony fan). I've probably read Robert Silverberg's "Up the Line", but it kind of blurs together a little in my mind with other broadly-similar works by Harry Turtledove and/or Poul Anderson etc. I might have read "Across a Billion Years", but I would have to see a more detailed plot summary to know for certain. "Bored of the Rings" maybe isn't that all that great overall, and it names many of its places and people after brand names common in the United States in 1969 (which could be confusing to those who weren't around then), but it does have some real funny moments, and is kind of the original mainstream fantasy parody (and even includes a parody map!). Don't worry -- if I make lists for 1970 and 1971, John Norman won't be on them (the books he published in those years are not my favorites). "Kar Kaballa" and "Tower of the Medusa" were published together in an Ace Double (two front covers, each upside down with respect to the other) that has nostalgia for me. I don't know that much about George H. Smith (I just found out from his Wikipedia page that "Kar Kaballa" actually has two sequels). Lin Carter is something of an acquired niche taste as an author (especially his attempts at heroic fantasy, which "Tower of the Medusa" is not), but he was very prominent as a fantasy editor (most famously the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series of the 1970s).
Also, I was confused between mention of a top-10 list and you giving 12 points to the top title on each list, which is why my list had 11 items... AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! At that moment, I made a mistake by putting 11 points, the first place is rated at 12 points, the second - 10 points, the third - 8, and further 7-1 points, so you got that one book is superfluous, considering that containing in Moore's book was first published in the 1930s, which is why it is superfluous in the 1969 year
My 1967 list
12 Mikhail Bulgakov The Master and Margarita (Russian: Мастер и Маргарита)
10 John Brunner «Quicksand»
8 Edmund Cooper «A Far Sunset»
7 Samuel R. Delany «The Einstein Intersection»
6 Brian W. Aldiss «Cryptozoic!»
5 Piers Anthony «Chthon»
4 Francis Carsac «La vermine du lion»
3 Ursula K. Le Guin «City of Illusions»
2 Brian Aldiss «Report on Probability A»
Interesting to see your choice. From here you can choose novels
I don't think that 1967 was one of my favorite SF novel years. I read a translation of "The Master and Margarita" in the 1980s, but the supernatural elements seemed semi-random, and of course many of the allusions to Slavic legends and life in the Soviet Union escaped me. I'm afraid that "Chthon" is one of the books that started to turn me against Piers Anthony. I didn't stop reading Piers Anthony books after I finished reading "Chthon", but later I kind of wished that I had chosen to stop there! AnonMoos (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
12 "Restoree" by Anne McCaffrey
10 "Operation Time Search" by Andre Norton
8 "The Einstein Intersection" by Samuel R. Delany
7 "City of Illusions" by Ursula K. Le Guin
6 "The Gate of Worlds" by Robert Silverberg
5 "Berserker" by Fred Saberhagen
4 "Agent of Chaos" by Norman Spinrad
AnonMoos Hello! Do you also have only 7 of the best 10 out of 10 novels, or did you decide to choose 7 because of my list and did Bulgakov’s novel not even deserve 8th place? I also liked Chton less than the Macroscope but still earned points, although I remembered that I wanted to make permutations and you reminded me. I think that you should give Chton at least two points.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I didn't include "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", by P.K. Dick and "The Last Unicorn" by Peter S. Beagle in my 1968 list, so it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a book is considered a classic. I read "The Master and Margarita" once in translation more than 30 years ago, and it doesn't really fall within the parameters of what I would usually consider science-fiction or fantasy, as I explained in my remarks of "15:03, 26 June 2019" above. My 1967 list has only 7 entries, because I don't feel like doing extensive research to figure out what I may have read long ago, but don't now remember the author or title of, or don't remember too clearly at all. I did such research for my 1968 list, and it still only had eight entries... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I understand your approach, but it seems to me that you are too scrupulous and cautious in your choice. But - this is your business and your choic.
My next - 1966 - list
12 Daniel Keyes «Flowers for Algernon»
10 Robert Sheckley «Mindswap»
8 Harry Harrison «Make Room! Make Room!»
7 Samuel R. Delany «Babel-17»
6 Ursula K. Le Guin «Planet of Exile»
5 Frederic Pohl «The Age of the Pussyfoot»
4 Larry Niven «World of Ptavvs»
3 Ursula K. Le Guin «Rocannon's World»
Interesting to see your choice. From here you can choose novels
I liked the original 1959 short story of "Flowers for Algernon" more than when it was expanded into a novel. I actually haven't read "Rocannon's World" (only "Semley's Necklace"). Not sure whether I may have read "Planet of Exile" long ago (or possibly just part of it). I've included "The Fall of the Towers" by Samuel R. Delany, since the heavily-revised text of its three component novels was substantially established in 1966 (the British copyright date), even though the 3 weren't actually published together in a single physical volume (with slight further revisions) until 1970. "The Eyes of the Overworld" is Jack Vance's second book in his "Dying Earth" series, and a definite decline in quality from the first book, but not as bad as the third book...
12 "Empire Star" by Samuel R. Delany
10 "The Witches of Karres" by James H. Schmitz
8 "Babel-17" by Samuel R. Delany
7 "The Fall of the Towers" by Samuel R. Delany
6 "October the First is Too Late" by Fred Hoyle
5 "Quest of the Three Worlds" by Cordwainer Smith
4 "The People: No Different Flesh" by Zenna Henderson
3 "The Eyes of the Overworld" by Jack Vance
2 "The Solarians" by Norman Spinrad
By the way, the 1966 "Batman" movie is kind of a cartoony camp classic, but has only a somewhat marginal connection to science fiction. AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I have not read the original shortened version of 1959 of "Flowers for Algernon", but I believe that this is no reason not to include this wonderful novel. Moreover, there is free position in the list. What You Didn't Read The World of Rokannon "is not a great loss, the novel is not bad, but I liked the least of the eight novels that I read, but until I read the top three books of the year, I left it in the top. although he is inferior to others. Three Delayne novels - not too much, unfortunately Goyle's novel and Henderson's book - have not been translated into the Eastern Slavic languages. you don't want to read them in the first place. The only exception is the Cordwainer Smith novel, however only one part of Norstrilia is translated into Russian and I have one, but I will not mention which one.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't have clear memories of the "Flowers for Algernon" novel (as distinct from the short story) -- I read the novel once, probably in the 1980s, and then concluded that I liked the short story better. (While I've read the short story probably 4 or 5 times, beginning in the 1970s.) And I don't really understand how only half of Cordwainer Smith's "Norstrilia" can have been translated into Ukrainian or Russian, unless it was translated and published before 1975 (when the two halves of the book were reunited), which seems a little strange... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have a novel "The Planet Buyer" at home, I don’t know why you are surprised the novel was translated in Kyiv in Russian in 1995, we determine the best novels by year of first publication in the original language, but are not in an accessible language to you or to me, I thought you understood this before.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was a little surprised that only half of the book would be translated after 1975, considering that in English-language publishing, the original two halves have been treated as a single inseparable unit after 1975... AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos As the coordinator of the project “Speculative Fiction”, I spend thematic months and quarters of speculative fiction in ukrwiki and try to recommend for writing articles about most important science fiction & fantasy novels, especially those that were not translated into Russian and Ukrainian, in order to possibly facilitate their translation into Ukrainian before the Russian language. I don’t know why there is no article in English - maybe you fill in the gap as a person familiar with the book.--Yasnodark (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
One tiny nitpicking detail: If the book was first published in 1946 in the U.S., then you should use the 48-star 1912-1959 flag of the United States in the article, not the 50-star 1960 flag... I'm not sure that I feel too much confidence in my abilities to do justice to a novel of many ideas which is 627 pages long (in English translation) while briefly summarizing it. Look how long the Wikipedia article on the somewhat comparable A Voyage to Arcturus is -- and that book is much shorter than "Star of the Unborn". AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
P.S. When it comes to 1960s and early 1970's overpopulation novels, I prefer Brian Aldiss's "Earthworks" and Robert Silverberg's "The World Inside" (also, J.G. Ballard wrote a short story "Billennium"). I don't think I ever read Harry Harrison's "Make Room! Make Room!", but I saw the movie ("Soylent Green"). AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I analyzed the dates of the 67 books on my main and supplemental lists (ignoring the two crossed-out items); I followed my method explained above of listing books which were substantially revised from their original publication under their date of revised publication, and listing those which were originally published in parts according to the year of the last-published component volume. (However, I listed "Kajira of Gor" under 1983, since in this case I read the original edition years before I ever saw the revised edition.) The earliest year was 1920 and the latest year was 2011 (a range of 92 years), but 41 out of the 67 items were published during the years 1949-1980 (a range of 32 years), so 61% were published in this slightly extended 1950s-1970s period (35% of the overall year range). There are no books at all from the 1930s. There wasn't a year where more books on my lists were published than any other single year, but if I added up all the years and divided by 67, the average publication date was "1972.21" (September 1972), while the median year (in which 33 items were published beforehand and 33 items were published afterwards) was also 1972. So I guess you could kind of say that 1972 was my peak science-fiction year, though only two of the books on my lists were published in that year ("An Alien Heat" by Michael Moorcock and "The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Not sure why you skipped over 1965; I haven't looked at ISFDB or assembled a list as such, but I already have "Earthworks" by Brian Aldiss, "Dune" by Frank Herbert, "Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen" by H. Beam Piper, and "Year of the Unicorn" by Andre Norton ready to go... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I didn't want to unravel 1965 until I read Herbert's novel, because I wanted to start with the prequels of Anderson and his son, and I don't have 2 books and I don't know the chronology of the others, but apparently I'll have to, I read 3 more books this year, including number Aldiss on your recommendation, so I'll make my list.
This was the first year when I conveniently had a list of exactly 10 books. I didn't realize before now that 1965 was a good year for Andre Norton... I really would NOT have advised reading the Dune prequels before reading "Dune" itself -- "Dune" is the famous much-praised first-written and first-published book, around which all the sequels and prequels revolve (most of them of much lower quality than the original 1965 book). In that general type of situation, it's really best to start with the original, instead of trying to read them in a strict internal chronological order. Would you recommend that people first read Tolkien's "Silmarillion", rather than "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings"? I didn't include "City of a Thousand Suns" on the list, since it was heavily revised for its 1966 British publication (see "The Fall of the Towers" under that year), and I never read it in its original unrevised form. "The Galaxy Primes" by E.E. "Doc" Smith is a strange sad book, showing the decline of an author who (even though he was never a great writer) in his earlier days was able to impress many readers with the epic scope of his imagination, and his ability to convey "a sense of wonder"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen" by H. Beam Piper
10 "Dune" by Frank Herbert
8 "Year of the Unicorn" by Andre Norton
7 "The X Factor" by Andre Norton
6 "The Ballad of Beta-2" by Samuel R. Delany
5 "Earthworks" by Brian Aldiss
4 "Three Against the Witch World" by Andre Norton
3 "Quest Crosstime" by Andre Norton
2 "Bill, the Galactic Hero" by Harry Harrison
1 "The Other Side of Time" by Keith Laumer
AnonMoos Thank you. And if you still focus on the chronology, can you arrange the books for me correctly in chronological order, because next year I will rather read them this way, or at least make an exception only for "Dune" http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?11825? Because some of the books I have seemed to me to be sequels rather than prequels. I do not want to be mistaken.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not the best person to ask about Dune prequels and sequels, since I read probably 2 of the sequels (though I only really remember one), and one-and-a-half of the prequels. As far as I understand it, the Dune sequels were written by Frank Herbert (and ended up introducing a whole new set of villains, the "Honored Matres", because the original villains were kind of played out), while the prequels were written by his son, and include the Butlerian Jihad trilogy (distant prequels to Dune) and the Harkonnen-vs-Atreides trilogy (closer prequels to Dune), and possibly a few other books.
Note that "The Time Tunnel" on this list is not to be confused with a different 1967 book which has the same title and author(!). I can't find any meaningful plot summaries of the Bertram Chandler books that came out in 1964, so it's difficult to tell whether I've read them. "Tower of Toron" was first published in 1964, but was substantially revised for the British edition in 1966 (and further slightly revised for the single-volume "The Fall of the Towers"), so I don't list it under 1964. Similarly for "The Planet Buyer"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks, I've probably read "Into the Alternate Universe" (though I don't remember it very well and don't want to add it to my list), but not the others. AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I don’t know the language of "Tower of Toron", since the book is really worthy of inclusion, like "The Planet Buyer", then it is definitely worth it if your doubts are exhausted by the year of publication, because even for the Hugo Prize, this novel was nominated as a novel in 1964 a year later , and in 1968 to include a second novel.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
But I've never actually read "Tower of Toron" and "The Planet Buyer" in their original forms as published in 1964 -- instead I've read "Tower of Toron" only as incorporated into the "The Fall of the Towers", and "The Planet Buyer" only as incorporated into "Norstrilia", and I already listed "The Fall of the Towers" under 1966 and "Norstrilia" under 1968... AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I couldn't find a lot of books to include on my 1963 list. In some other years, "Judgment on Janus" would have been the only book among those below which I like enough to include on a year-list, but I didn't want to have a top-10 list with only one entry! I didn't include "Captives of the Flame", since this was substantially revised as part of the "Fall of the Towers" (see 1966 -- and I haven't read "Captives of the Flame" in its original unrevised form). "Podkayne of Mars" kind of turned me against Heinlein novels (as mentioned above)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "Judgment on Janus" by Andre Norton
10 "Cat's Cradle" by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
8 "Witch World" by Andre Norton
7 "The Cosmic Computer" a.k.a. "Junkyard Planet" by H. Beam Piper
I include James Blish's "Cities in Flight" under 1962, since this was the publication date of the last of its four component novels (though they were not all published together in a single volume until later): AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "A Tale of Two Clocks" a.k.a. "Legacy" by James H. Schmitz
AnonMoos Hello! Regarding James Blish's "Cities in Flight" tetralogy, I think that individual novels should be named in separate years, so the book should be excluded, but the last novel "A Life for the Stars" can be included.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to rate the individual sub-novels of "Cities in Flight" -- and the same applies to the component volumes of the "Illuminatus!" trilogy, "The Fall of the Towers", and "Norstrilia". I might make an exception for "The Lord of the Rings"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Kobo Abe's "The Woman in the Dunes" is a very compelling book (I'm not sure I would say "good", but definitely compelling). However, it doesn't really contain any science-fiction or fantasy elements as such (if it did, I might have included it in my main list of 50, as I said above). It's kind of like Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" -- it contains a kind of alternative social premise within a realistic contemporary setting that could just be a remote rural village... AnonMoos (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "Galaxies Like Grains of Sand" by Brian W. Aldiss
10 "Guardians of Time" by Poul Anderson
8 "Storm Over Warlock" by Andre Norton
7 "Facial Justice" by L. P. Hartley
6 *"Venus Plus X" by Theodore Sturgeon
5 *"High Crusade" by Poul Anderson
"Galaxies Like Grains of Sand" is a collection of short stories written in the late 1950s, but arranged into an overall framework (future history) in 1960. Some of the stories would seem hokey now, but I have positive memories of it. I was not as impressed with "Venus Plus X" as some others were later on in the 1970s. I read "High Crusade" long ago, and some of my memories are vague. "Guardians of Time" is a collection of stories/novellas from 1955, 1959, and 1960. AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! Norton's novel made a pleasant but generally mediocre impression, I finished reading it a while ago, how are you doing with Doors in the summer? because while you keep it with you, it has already been translated into Ukrainian. Books by Aldis and Anderson, something I wanted to read a long time ago, but I probably put it too far away, it's not nearby. I saw Sturgeon's book in Russian and didn't buy it then, later I didn't see it and it wasn't passed on. I know about Hartley's dystopia only from the encyclopedia, it has not been translated. None of the books you mentioned, except for "Watchmen of Time", which seems to have been published a long time ago, has not been published in Ukrainian.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Storm over Warlock" is only a middling Andre Norton novel, and it's very much a "juvenile" (or "Young Adult" as they say now) -- many of Andre Norton's best books are technically "juveniles", but just as interesting for adults to read, but "Warlock" isn't one of them. However, I'm still somewhat fond of it, since it's the first part of a 3-book series, where the sequel "Ordeal in Otherwhere" is better than the first book, and the third book "Forerunner Foray" is very good. The three books were published together in one physical paperback in 2003.
I have "Door into Summer" in a pile of books where I won't lose track of it, and can lay my hands on it at any time, but I probably won't feel motivated to start reading again, since I found the first 50 pages of it (with some spot checks of reading a paragraph or two in several places later on in the book) to be semi-boring, and I'm not too sympathetic overall to 1940s/1950s American gadgeteering science fiction (which I read a large amount of during my teens and early 20s, and kind of burned out on then, as I said). Though I'm not all that impressed with Heinlein overall, Heinlein and Andre Norton do share one positive characteristic -- the best of their "juveniles" are just as enjoyable for adults to read... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos "Forerunner Foray" was the first Norton novel that I read, and I wanted to read it before, too
when you named your favorite writer, I decided to do it anyway and chose this novel. It's really good, that's why I decided to read Warlork, because I found out that it's a prequel and he was disappointed, so I put off getting to know the middle novel until later.
Don't reread those 50 pages of Heinlein's book, read another twenty diagonally, and then try to read, the main thing is to get to the last page. It's worth it.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I only found a few on the ISFDB list. Is there no Ukrainian Wikipedia 1970 list? (I found the Ukrainian lists for other years useful.) Larry Niven's "Ringworld" is another series (like Jack Vance's "Dying Earth") that starts declining rather steeply after the first book. ISFDB assigns Delany's "Fall of the Towers" to 1970, but I think 1966 is more accurate, as I explained under that year. By the way, 1970 seemed to be a great year for collections of short works written in other years ("Zothique" by Clark Ashton Smith, "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath" by H. P. Lovecraft, "Nine Hundred Grandmothers" by R. A. Lafferty, "At the Edge of the World" by Lord Dunsany, "The King in Yellow and Other Horror Stories" by Robert W. Chambers, "Golden Cities, Far" edited by Lin Carter).
12 "Ice Crown" by Andre Norton
10 "Ringworld" by Larry Niven
8 "The Tombs of Atuan" by Ursula K. Le Guin
7 "Nine Princes in Amber" by Roger Zelazny
6 "The Stone God Awakens" by Philip José Farmer
5 "The Stainless Steel Rat's Revenge" by Harry Harrison
AnonMoos I just started writing a 1970 article for Ukrainian Wikipedia, so as soon as I publish it, I'll give you a link.
Maybe the category and its subcategories in different languages can help you for now, although some novels in it may be published earlier than the 1970 year we need. For a long time, I wanted to read The World Ring, but I had put the Protector novel somewhere, and I wanted to read it earlier than this novel. Have you never read any other novels on my 1970 list?--Yasnodark (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but I already found Category:1970 science fiction novels for myself, and the 1970 fantasy novels category didn't contain anything I'd overlooked. I read "Deryni Rising" by Katherine Kurtz (though I can't remember much of it now), and probably any Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser books published that year. I read part of "Time and Again" by Finney and "Assassin of Gor" by Norman. I probably read at least part of "Dune Messiah" and "Whipping Star" by Herbert, as well as "The Crystal Cave" by Mary Stewart, though my memories of these are quite vague. Otherwise, there's nothing among the novels of the ISFDB list that seems familiar. AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that you need to read any other particular novel before reading "Ringworld". You mainly just have to have a little general background knowledge about species etc in Niven's "Known Space", some of which is provided in "Ringworld" itself. Reading the short story "Neutron Star", and especially its sequel short story "At the Core", might be useful, though... AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
P.S. To clarify, Niven's short story "Neutron Star" doesn't provide much useful background to "Ringworld". However, "Neutron Star" helps with understanding "At the Core", and "At the Core" does provide useful background to "Ringworld". (Hope that's clear enough ...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
On that page, "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" is a blast of tween/early-teen semi-nostalgia for me, though I doubt that it should be called science-fiction... I've read "Tactics of Mistake" by Gordon Dickson, but English Wikipedia says that it's a 1971 book (also that James Gunn's "The Listeners" is a 1972 book). "Nine prince of Amber" should be "Nine Princes in Amber", and I don't think that «Zabil jsem Einsteina, pánové!» is in the English language... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos The book of Bach is accurately attributed to speculative fiction, whether it can be attributed to science fiction - the question is open, but you can include it in the list of the year. English Wikipedia focuses primarily on the publication of the hardcover novel. I, like the encyclopedia of science fiction on the magazine version. But in controversial cases, I put the novel in both years with a reservation. All the same, it will be more accurate to vote for Dikson’s novel in 1971 http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1056, as for Gunn - I was mistaken and when I create an article about 1972 I will postpone it. This is the same problem as Katherine Moore, but I would define it as a 1970 novel.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
For the purposes of this page, I would consider books originally published in parts to be dated according to the year of the last-published component volume (so "The Return of the King" being published in 1955 would assign "The Lord of the Rings" that date), and I would ignore an earlier magazine serialization with a somewhat different text than the eventual first book publication (so that "King David's Spaceship" on my list would be dated 1980). I'm not sure how I would count an earlier magazine serialization with the same text as the eventual first book publication... AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Usually prizes in particular were awarded in the year and beyond an earlier magazine serialization with the same text as the eventual first book, and in the year when the first book edition was published. So I'm taking the last year of the show. It was in that year that readers first became acquainted with the text of the book and incorrectly evaluate the older texts in the same pool as newer ones. Although it is especially difficult if the works appeared not as a novel with a continuation in a magazine version, but as separate stories and stories, which were only later merged under one cover in the form of a novel. As with the works of Katherine Moore or The Foundation of Azimov.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't include "Watership Down" in my 1972 list (and definitely not in the No. 1 position). You could say that it's well done for what it is, but I wasn't really able to buy in to epic, dramatic, tragic villain and hero characters who were also twitchy-nosed long-eared fluffy rabits. I later tried to read his "Shardik", but only got about halfway through that... AnonMoos (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! It seems to me that you are wrong that you did not include "Watership Down" in your list, is itn`t worthy of at least 2 points in your opinion. In my opinion, Narnian novels are weaker than it.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
The original Swedish version of "King Kong Blues" was apparently published in 1974, but the English translation I read was published in 1975. AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! I'm asking you to include the Sam Lundwall's novel "King Kong Blues" you read - to 1974, instead Haldeman's "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman should be - to 1975 https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1911 . Also, it would be nice if you noted in the low positions the novels of John Varley, Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, and David Weber that aren't mentioned in the lists, but you have read.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The first novella of "Perilous Dreams" was published in 1969, but the novel as a whole (plus the two short stories) in 1976. I don't usually like to change my lists (unless perhaps to add a forgotten item to the end -- or replace the item at the end, if I already have ten), but an issue I discovered going back through the mid-1970s is that I left "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman off my 1974 list, because it was shown as a short-story collection, not a novel. However, it's almost certainly eligible... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos This is the rare case when you and I don't have any correspondence and I haven't read any of your novels, moreover, I don't have 4 novels from your list at home at all. --Yasnodark (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
We do share an author, Roger Zelazny. I've actually read "The Hand of Oberon", but in most cases I would have great difficulty in ranking the 4th book of a 5-book series separately (individually). I also read at least parts of "Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker" (its original title), but though I like the movie a lot, the book was nothing too special among SF books, as far as I can remember it. If "The Forever War" counts under 1975, then don't worry about it, since we haven't done 1975 yet (a non-ISFDB listing, as well as the copyright date in my paperback, showed 1974)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Illuminatus!" trilogy (The Eye in the Pyramid, The Golden Apple, Leviathan) by Richard Shea and Robert Anton Wilson
"From the Legend of Biel" by Mary Staton
"Missing Man" by Katherine MacLean
"When the Waker Sleeps" by Ron Goulart
"Venus on the Half-Shell" by Philip Jose Farmer (a.k.a. Kilgore Trout)
"The Romance of Atlantis" by Taylor Caldwell and Jess Stearn
There are some things I don't understand about the ISFDB listings. The standalone ISFDB page for "The Forever War" lists its date as "1974-12-19", but I didn't come across it in the most-reviewed lists for either 1974 or 1975!? (I'm including it under 1975, because that's what you said before -- and the The Defining Science Fiction Books of the 1970s also lists it under 1975.) "Knave of Dreams" by Andre Norton was published in hardcover in 1975, but didn't become more widely known until it appeared in paperback in 1977. I guess if the hardcover was not one of the top 500 reviewed books of 1975, then the book won't be included in any year's most-reviewed listing, no matter how many reviews the paperback received in 1977? And "Norstrilia" by Cordwainer Smith is listed by ISFDB under 1975 (the year when what was originally two standalone novels were adjusted to be one consolidated work, and were printed in one physical book), but I already included it in my 1968 list (the year when its second half was first published)... Many people would include "Dhalgren" on their 1975 list, but though I like most of what Samuel R. Delany wrote before about 1987, I've never been able to get more than a few pages into Dhalgren (and it's apparently not even really science fiction). "Ecotopia" was a book that some non-science-fiction fans liked a lot more than most science fiction fans did. As far as I can remember it, "Phthor" was the actual last book I ever read by Piers Anthony (probably sometime in the late 1980s). After I had read some other Anthony books earlier, I told myself that I probably should stop reading stuff by him, but after Phthor, I actually did stop reading!
"Marune: Alastor 933" may be my favorite Jack Vance book (other than his original "Dying Earth" short-story collection). Vance does interesting ethnography, without the annoying quirks which can detract from some of his other strongly ethnographic fiction... My 11th-ranked book for 1975 could be "The Exile Waiting" by Vonda N. McIntyre or "Sign of the Unicorn" by Roger Zelazny (not my favorite book by either author). Also, I discovered that "Mercenary from Tomorrow" by Mack Reynolds was first published in 1968. Not sure how I overlooked it when compiling my 1968 list (it should be included there)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I may have read some version of Next of Kin (novel), though there are discrepancies between what I remember reading and the description in the Wikipedia article (maybe it was another book or magazine story about somebody talking his way out of an alien POW camp). Also, "The Space Child's Mother Goose" by Frederick Winsor has been a long-time favorite in my family (a collection of satirical science-themed poems)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "Starship" a.k.a. "Non-Stop" by Brian Aldiss
10 "Star Gate" by Andre Norton
8 "The Languages of Pao" by Jack Vance
7 "The Big Time" by Fritz Leiber
6 "The Time Traders" (original unrevised version) by Andre Norton
Here's my 1957 list, but I reserve the right to revise it if I see items on your list which I should have included. I was going to include "This Fortress World" by James E. Gunn (one of my teen favorites), but apparently this was first published in 1955, and only reprinted as an Ace Double in 1957.... AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "The Mutant Weapon" by Murray Leinster
10 "Across Time" by David Grinnell a.k.a. Donald A. Wollheim
8 "Citizen of the Galaxy" by Robert A. Heinlein
7 "Star Born" by Andre Norton
6 "The Shrouded Planet" by Randall Garrett and Robert Silverberg
AnonMoos It turned out that the 3 novels that I thought were published in 1957 were published in other years, so my list is shorter and much worse than I expected.
"The Naked Sun" was serialized in magazines in 1956, but first published in book form in 1957. I would tend to give greater weight to the date of first book publication (especially when changes have been made between the magazine version and the book version). AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos When changes are made, there are occasional mentions, awards have been awarded multiple times for ongoing novels in magazines, so we focus on the end of the first publication. Another thing is that it is not entirely clear what to do when the book was published as separate stories and short stories, later combined under one cover. In this case, I don't know what decision to make ..
But here everything is clear: a novel divided into three parts, and not three novellas collected in one novel later.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello!I wanted to ask you, did you find time to finish reading Heinlein's novel and understand the author's intention as a whole?
Also curious, what new things have you read in recent years besides the Weber series?
And the last thing: from certain American films, one gets the impression that libraries in the USA work almost 24 hours a day: is this true or false, what are the working hours of libraries in Austin and other cities in the USA and other countries you have visited? At least for Texas, I think it will be easy for you to answer.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would have thought that if any library had extended hours, it would be the Mid-Manhattan library at 5th Ave & 40th St. NYC, which I went to a few times in the 1980s (aparently now known as the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Library), but according to this page, it closes after 9PM. Since they re-opened after COVID, libraries in Austin only stay open as late 8PM, and only a few locations (not really including any which are very convenient to me) are open on Sundays at all. You can look at all the details here. AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I still have "Door Into Summer" in my tote bag, where I could theoretically look at it while waiting for the bus, or riding the bus etc, but I haven't really felt motivated to do so since about September. Part of the problem is that I read a large quantity of science fiction from the 1940s and the first half of the 1950s during my teen years (it was mainly what was on my father's shelves), and as a result I've tired a bit of the typical middle-quality techno-oriented American SF of those years -- for something from that period to appeal to me, it often has to have some degree of distinctive (untypical) characteristics, or be of rather high quality, so that it transcends the ordinary average ray-blasters and gadgets stuff. (See also the discussion of "pulpy" language somewhere on this page.) If you look at the 67 books on my main list of 50 and my supplemental list of 17, the ones before 1956 are almost all fantasy novels, except "What Mad Universe" by Fredric Brown (a satirical parody of typical ca. 1950 American science fiction), "Star of the Unborn" by Franz Werfel (very un-American: the only book on my two lists not originally written in English), and "Re-Birth" a.k.a. "The Chrysalids" by John Wyndham (not American and not at all gadgeteering). The only American technological science-fiction novel from that time included on the two lists is "The End of Eternity" by Isaac Asimov (and Asimov's original "Foundation" books and two of his three "Empire" books are also good...) AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oops, I overlooked George Orwell's "1984" in this analysis, but it's again non-American and only slightly gadgeteering (in fact, some "mainstream" literary types would consider 1984 not to be science-fiction at all, since in their view being a high-quality literary "classic" is incompatible by the basic nature of things with also being science-fiction!) AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Thanks for the first answer. As for the second one, lately I've been reading half of my books this way, but I've noticed with regret that I don't have many small books for reading at stops, the plus is that they are mostly good old classics of hard science fiction, which I love no less than social or philosophical soft fiction. I definitely wouldn't classify Heinlein's novel Door to Summer in the first category of "techno-oriented American SF", and the novel is quite original for its time and in general, but you should read it to the end to understand its purpose. 3 pages at a stop per day is not so difficult. Yes, and in general, about half of Heinlein's novels definitely cannot be classified as "techno-oriented American SF", at the same time, when reading at bus stops, I mostly read just such books, although "The Threshold" by Ursula Le Guin was completely different. And the Flynn novel I mentioned above is definitely not like that, although its size is not for reading on the go.
Now I'm just finishing reading Clement's novel "Mission of Gravity" translated by Strugatsky, a wonderful novel, however, the author is not very friendly with the measures and dimensions he uses in the novel, often forgetting what he wrote before, it's strange how drunk the editor was when he proofread novel But otherwise a great novel.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I remember that I liked "Mission of Gravity" when I read it in the 1970s and/or 1980s, but my memories are faded now. Due to the planet's rather ellipsoidal shape and high rotation, gravity is supposed to vary quite a bit. The only Hal Clement work that I've read at all recently is "Iceworld" which is rather simplistic (it's hard to believe that a culture with interstellar travel would be as technologically limited as the Sarrians in the novel), but kind of fun. As for "Door Into Summer", the protagonist and narrator is a master gadgeteer, and the first 50 pages of the book are largely taken up by his gadgeteering and its consequences. AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
On the negative side of 1956, Bridey Murphy (appearing in the title of two entries on the ISFDB year list) was worthless gibberish which for some reason became a fad in the United States of the 1950s. On the positive side, I didn't know that "Through Time and Space with Ferdinand Feghoot" (a semi-famous series of very bad puns) went as far back as 1956... AnonMoos (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Here's my list for 1955. (Not sure why you accept the rule of dating a multi-volume series to the year when its last volume was published in the case of "The Lord of the Rings", when you've disallowed it in other cases...) AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)"by the editor's decision",Reply
12 "The Lord of the Rings" by J.R.R. Tolkien
10 "The End of Eternity" by Isaac Asimov
8 "Re-Birth" a.k.a. "The Chrysalids" by John Wyndham
7 "This Fortress World" by James E. Gunn
6 "The Magician's Nephew" by C. S. Lewis
5 "Star Bridge" by James E. Gunn and Jack Williamson
4 "Gladiator-at-Law" by C. M. Kornbluth and Frederik Pohl
3 "The Mouse That Roared" by Leonard Wibberley
2 "Martians, Go Home" by Fredric Brown
AnonMoos Thank you for your list, just in this case the "Lord of the Rings" is a divided novel (by the editor's decision), and Blish's "Cities in flight" - several novels later combined under one cover and International Fantasy Award http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ay.cgi?24+1957 was awarded for the novel "Lord of the Rings", but this does not prohibit 1954 to consider the first 2 parts as separate novels, I just do not see the point in 1955 to consider "The Return of the King" separately . In addition, it is difficult with those books that were combined under one cover much later. In general, everything is complicated--Yasnodark (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
For 1953, I read "Mission of Gravity by Hal Clement, "The Syndic" by C. M. Kornbluth, and "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury a long time ago (in the 1970s or early 1980s), and don't really remember them well enough to rate them now (in the case of "Fahrenheit 451", my memories of the book are mixed together with memories of a movie version that I saw on TV). The Wikipedia article on "Star Rangers" says there was a revised version, but I only read the original unrevised version of it (I'm not really a fan of later revised versions of Andre Norton's early works, as I said above). AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Of course I'm familiar with the basic plot premise of "Fahrenheit 451", but books aren't usually judged by their plot premises alone. Since I can't separate my memories of the book from my memories of the movie that I once saw, that means that I don't really know any more about the book than someone who only saw the movie (on a black-and-white television, in the 1970s)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
The publication of the first Asimov "Foundation" novel in book form first happened in 1951, as also "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A. E. van Vogt -- though the original short stories of which they were composed were published earlier. I would be curious what year you would classify these under (and also "The Tritonian Ring" by L. Sprague de Camp and "Gray Lensman" by E.E. Doc Smith)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I added whichever ones I wanted. "The Stars, Like Dust" is my least favorite early Asimov novel (its final plot twist is like that of a bad Star Trek original series episode...). AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov
10 "Prince Caspian" by C. S. Lewis
8 "Wine of the Dreamers" by John D. MacDonald
7 "The Tritonian Ring" by L. Sprague de Camp
6 "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A. E. van Vogt
5 "The Demon's Mirror" by James S. Wallerstein
AnonMoos Why didn't you include "The Stars, Like Dust" in the 1951 list then? You are too selective in your lists. Don't just include the worst and bad novels.
"Foundation" had to be included here because it was in 1951 that the book was first published as a novel. And without the permission of the author. Although because of this logic, the previous 1940s suffer a lot. The first 3 books fit the others I will check--Yasnodark (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what you're saying -- I always include what I think are the best books on my lists, never the worst. "The Stars Like Dust" is the worst of Asimov's early novels (in my opinion), so I didn't include it on the 1951 list. (Not to be confused with "Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand", which I included on the 1984 list...) AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I misinterpreted your phrase. Translation difficulties. Although I do not consider the novel ("The Stars, Like Dust") bad, although I remember it badly. So I put it at the bottom of the list--Yasnodark (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Gray Lensman" by E.E. Doc Smith - go to 1940
"City at World's End" by Edmond Hamilton - go to 1950
By the way, though I haven't read Clifford D. Simak's "The Goblin Reservation" (and may never do so), I have read his 1953 book "Ring Around the Sun" (probably twice)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello, you need to get better acquainted with Simak's work because he is truly one of the best science fiction writers and it is not for nothing that he was one of the first to receive the most honorable title of SF Grandmaster.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" by C. S. Lewis
10 "The Currents of Space" by Isaac Asimov
8 "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
6 "Foundation and Empire" by Isaac Asimov
5 "The Borrowers" by Mary Norton
I've read some Bester and Kornbluth & Pohl, but not those. I'm happy to include "Foundation and Empire", but ISFDB lists it as a "collection" (not a "novel") and its component stories were published in 1945... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I thought for a long time about how to determine the year of creation of a novel, and I decided that at the moment, a novel that was published in the form of a serial is exactly how a novel is put in the year of creation, because such novels are included in the lists of award nominations in the "novel" category, and cycles of works will later be united under one cover as a novel later, we count in the year of unification into one book. At the same time, this book by Asimov was a combination not of short stories, but of the early 1945 novel "The Mule" https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?41123 and one short story of 1944 and 1 novel from 1945. That is why we will include the novel "The Mule" in 1945 year list.Yasnodark (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
On the account of the final arrangement I still have doubts, but you will probably be surprised by my last position of Simmons's novel «Hyperion», the novel is good, but the worst of the 4 books of seria and in my opinion worse than the 9 books I put above.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that I've read all that many books published in 1989. I have ambiguous feelings about the character of Mark (in one sense he's the worst kind of soap-opera cliché as an "evil twin" character abruptly inserted into the ongoing plot out of left field, though with a writer as good as Lois McMaster Bujold it's not going to be as simplistic as an evil twin, of course), and "Brothers in Arms" is the first of the Mark-heavy books which are not my favorites in the Vorkosigan series. I only ever read Part I of "Hyperion", then chose not to go on with the rest. I might be interested if someone pointed out the best parts by Dan Simmons, but I'm not sure that I'll ever read his long novels all the way through. "Rama II" by Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee is the book which I only read about a third of, then emphatically decided that I wasn't going to read anything else written or co-written by Gentry Lee ever again (see my comment of "01:56, 18 October 2020"). I didn't actually throw the book across the room, but I kind of felt like doing so. AnonMoos (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
12 "The Last Legends of Earth" by A.A. Attanasio
10 "Borders of Infinity" by Lois McMaster Bujold
8 "The Renegades of Pern" by Anne McCaffrey
7 "Brothers in Arms" by Lois McMaster Bujold
6 "Shield's Lady" by Jayne Ann Krentz
AnonMoos Simmons' sequel novels came out better than Hyperion, I liked Bujold's novel, but I could have put it higher if it was the only Bujold novel I read, but in other years I put more significant novels in high positions, so that's enough.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I added a freshly read novel by Asimov «Nemesis», excluded various books several times, but still settled on the 2nd book of Bujold, in principle, all 11 books are good and it was very difficult to sort them out.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! It very often happens that I have been reading good books for years, and only recently I removed a good second book by Bujold from the top 10 because of reading Asimov's novel "Nemesis", and now I will have to remove the award-winning "Hyperion" from the top ten, because I liked Wilson's book more. Although I still have doubts about the arrangement of all 12 books, because none of them are bad. Even the thirteenth cannot be called bad, although it belongs to the series.
There was an offer. Both you and I have had a number of overbooked years, so I suggest we stick to the 12-point system and remove the gaps, then we'll have a maximum of 12 novels for the year, and that will allow for two more non-included novels to be rated in some overbooked years. Do you agree with the addition? Then I will change the points and you will complete the lists where possible...--Yasnodark (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
While researching 1987, I discovered that "Fiasco" by Stanislaw Lem is another novel for my 1986 supplemental list (see comment of "02:07, 16 July 2020" below). AnonMoos (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "The Uplift War" by David Brin
10 "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" by Douglas Adams
This was the first time that I had much more than 10 entries to choose from (there were 18 books published in 1986 that I could have included). I left out "Ethan of Athos" so that Lois McMaster Bujold wouldn't crowd other authors off of the list. I've never read anything in Vernor Vinge's "Peace War" or bobble series except "The Ungoverned", and I've concluded that it was a mistake for Isaac Asimov to tie together his originally separate Foundation series and Robot series... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "Shards of Honor" by Lois McMaster Bujold
10 "Tuf Voyaging" by George R. R. Martin
8 "Crystal Flame" by Jayne Ann Krentz
7 "A Door Into Ocean" by Joan Slonczewski
6 "The Warrior's Apprentice" by Lois McMaster Bujold
5 "Antares Dawn" by Michael McCollum
4 "Starhammer" by Christopher Rowley
3 "The Coming of the Quantum Cats" by Fred Pohl
2 Lois McMaster Bujold «Ethan of Athos»
1 "Nerilka's Story" by Anne McCaffrey
Here are my other 1986 books:
(11) 0 "Arc of the Dream" by A. A. Attanasio
(12) -1 "The Songs of Distant Earth" by Arthur C. Clarke
(13) -2 "Ethan of Athos" by Lois McMaster Bujold
(14) -3 "Saturnalia" by Grant Callin
(15) -4 "The Mirror of Her Dreams" by Stephen R. Donaldson
For years, I've basically only re-read the last third of "The Practice Effect", and "Circumpolar" is a very silly book which I haven't read for a long time, but I still decided to include both of them. (I almost included "The Years of the City" by Fred Pohl, but then realized that I was confusing it with "A Little Knowledge" / "Catacomb Years" by Michael Bishop, and that I've never read "The Years of the City"...) AnonMoos (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I don't usually like to change my lists once I've compiled them, but when I was making my 1969 list, I didn't realize that a substantially revised text of "Avengers of Carrig" (the version I'm familiar with) was first published in 1969. So substitute it for "Decision at Doona" as follows: AnonMoos (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
2 "Avengers of Carrig" by John Brunner was "Decision at Doona" by Anne McCaffrey
I finally finished reading Varley's book "The Demon" and despite the fact that I tormented her for a long time in parallel with 10 other books, I decided to move it up, I also decided to raise Pohl's original book up, although I was dissatisfied with many. I read Luopoff's novel relatively recently, I don't think it is bad, but it didn't have enough zest. Therefore, after you, he pushed her down.
You included Lupoff's novel, but in 1968 and 1969 you decided not to include the much brighter novels Macroscope and The Last Unicorn, can you change your mind and put them at the bottom of their years for objectivity?
I actually did include "Macroscope" in my 1969 list; I might have included it in my top 50 list, except that I hate so many Piers Anthony books (all those published after 1976, to start with) that I don't want to be considered an Anthony fan. I didn't include "The Last Unicorn" because it's kind of bogged down in nostalgia and whimsy in a way that overall is not too attractive to me. I might include a silly book in one of my year-favorite lists if it's honestly silly (i.e. not trying to be something else and failing), and a lot of fun. A book could be better-quality than the silly book, yet not be included on my year-favorite list, if it's ponderously pretentious, and was written with high ambitions which the author failed to achieve. I didn't include any silly books on my main top 50 list, or my supplemental list of 17 more (though "What Mad Universe", the "Illuminatus!" trilogy and "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" contain elements of silliness), but I have a little bit more relaxed standards for my year favorite lists. AnonMoos (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
6 "The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four, and Five" by Doris Lessing
5 "The Wounded Land" by Stephen R. Donaldson
4 "Sundiver" by David Brin
3 "The Shadow of the Torturer" by Gene Wolfe
2 "The Patchwork Girl" by Larry Niven
1 "The Infinitive of Go" by John Brunner
"Sundiver" is not one of my favorite David Brin books (it was his very first in the Uplift series, maybe before he fully developed that universe), and I liked the John Varley "Titan" books at the time, but have soured on them a little over the years (haven't re-read them in a long time). I'm not sure I want to rank the Douglas Adams "Hitchhiker's" books separately (as opposed to the series as a whole). "The Probability Broach" is an ultra-libertarian alternative history of the U.S., notorious among some fans (never read it). I didn't include Eco's "The Name of the Rose", though it's listed at ISFDB. AnonMoos (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
12 "Light on the Sound" by Somtow Sucharitkul (retconned to S. P. Somtow in the ISFDB listing)
10 "Water Witch" by Cynthia Felice and Connie Willis
8 "A Greater Infinity" by Michael McCollum
7 "The Eye of the Queen" by Phillip Mann
I read a number of other books published in 1982, but my memories of them are very vague and/or I don't want to rank them. I don't think that Asimov should have tried to link his Foundation series and his Robots stories together, and I still don't really want to rank the books of the Hitchhiker's original trilogy separately... AnonMoos (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
4 "Between the Strokes of Night" by Charles Sheffield
3 "In Other Worlds" by A. A. Attanasio
2"The Planet Dweller" by Jane Palmer
1 "Dayworld" by Philip Jose Farmer
Non-included novels:
11 "Trumps of Doom" by Roger Zelazny
12 "A Stainless Steel Rat Is Born" by Harry Harrison
13 "Forerunner: The Second Venture" by Andre Norton
14 "The Forest of Peldain" by Barrington J. Bayley
15 "Jinx on a Terran Inheritance" by Brian Daley
16 "Spinneret" by Timothy Zahn
"Trumps of Doom" didn't quite make my top 10. Dayworld is another series which quickly goes downhill, but the first book is kind of fun. I read the original short story of "Ender's Game", but never read the full novel. I always wanted to read several books published in this year, such as "Starquake" and "Handmaid's Tale" and maybe "Contact", but I never did so... AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I didn't remember Pohl's novel well, that's why it's so low, because the impression wasn't too bright. I don't have this Le Guin novel. I have 3 novels - "Eon" & "Schismatrix"- they are lying on nearby shelves, but I haven't gotten to them yet, although I have plans, "Dayworld" is more difficult to get, although the desire to read it is slightly greater.
I saw the film, but I haven't read the novel "Contact", I bought it shortly before I was in Kyiv in early 2000-th, where it was, the edition is old and no longer published in Russian & not translated into Ukrainian. A few days ago I asked about him in the library, but apparently he was not in this one or he was already written off because he is not there. I wanted to read it, because finally the wonderful impression of the film has subsided and you can start the novel without remembering the details of the plot.
The other novels you mentioned weren`t published in the post-Soviet space. The only exception is "Handmaid's Tale", but I'm not sure that I want to take it to the library, although there are similar thoughts.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't even know about "The Planet Dweller" at all, except that a U.K. paperback happened to show up at a cheap price in one of my local U.S. bookstores in the 1990s, so not surprised if it's not available in Ukraine. I've also wanted to read "The Great King's War" since I learned of its existence (maybe about 10 years ago), but I haven't done so. I could rank below 10th place about 6 additional 1985 books which I have read... AnonMoos (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Then I would ask you to create this list of books that didn't make the top 10.
I have really never heard anything about this book or even about its author before, although I know the titles of most of the English-language books translated not only into Ukrainian, but also into Russian and Belarusian, and I have previously seen a list of books of speculative fiction published in Estonian and By the way, your 1974 favorite book "Star Rider" by Piserchia was translated only into this language unknown to me, but not into East Slavic languages that I can understand for fiction reading. I also saw separate lists of books translated into Bulgarian and Polish. And a number of encyclopedias and databases of authors, and nowhere and never have I come across the name of Jane Palmer. Yasnodark (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I haven't seen the publication of The Great King's War, but I think you need to adjust your wish list a bit. For example, I am grateful to you for suggesting the Weber series and some other books that I enjoyed reading, although I did not plan to do so in the coming years. Therefore, please think whether you should also follow my path.
As for your wishes to read, I would still ask you to try to read something from my list of favorite Heinlein books, because I see that our tastes are very similar in many ways.
Because you, speaking objectively, have chosen, to put it mildly, not the best books by Henlein, one of the best science fiction writers in the world. If you read his books in this order, you will not waste time, on the contrary, you will gain impressions. I've linked to the list of publications in the electronic "he Internet Speculative Fiction Database" and to the original texts in the electronic library, so you can at least try to start one of his first seven best novels.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
We've discussed Julian May before. I've read her "Dune Roller" short story, but I very commonly saw her novels in used bookstores in the 1980s and/or 1990s, but didn't get beyond the first few pages in any of them. Now, I rarely come across her books... AnonMoos (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I myself like to read paper books more and very rarely read e-books. Although it was in electronic form that I read the largest books, in particular Martin's Dragon Dance and Victory Ashes and 2 more books by Weber, that is, in principle, it is possible even for a non-lover of reading books on a computer, and I believe that we both belong to this type of reader. At least pages 30-50 can be read and oriented. This novel, by the way, is the debut novel of the female writer, awarded for the best debut by several awards, and it has bright female characters.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
As I said before, I sometimes read e-books of books I've already read before in paper form, or books I haven't read before by authors I'm familiar with, but I don't usually like to read e-books by authors I'm not familiar with. I didn't pay much attention to the "Litlife" links, because I assumed they were info about the authors, but if they're actual e-texts, I might look at them. I've already read "Ring Around the Sun" by Clifford Simak (in fact, twice, as far as I can remember), but I can't promise I'll read anything else... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos As for Simak's novels, I recently finished one of his later books, "Mastodonia", and perhaps it was she who gave the idea to the Julian May cycle. I will not say that this is his best novel, but it is difficult to find shortcomings in him. I liked the novel you read, but some others I liked better:
Time is the Simplest Thing , but I remember these books less than the ones mentioned above. But they are worth reading.
I consider the worst book I have read Our Children's Children but Simak's worst does not mean bad. Unfortunately, I don’t see other good books by Simak that I read on litlife, and I haven’t read other novels that are there, although I have many.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've also read "The Big Front Yard" by Simak (though of course that's not a full-length novel). I found the "Litlife" menu options to be hard to understand -- I know the basic Cyrillic alphabet, but not any Slavic language. AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos On the literary site that I gave you, the search system is complex even for me, that is why I gave you links with the texts of specific books, so that you do not have to search for a long time. The Simak novella ("The Big Front Yard" ) you mentioned is on the shelf next to me, and in the same book there is also a desirable novel in short stories, The City, but I haven't gotten my hands on them yet. --Yasnodark (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'll tell you what I'll do on Heinlein -- I bought a paperback of "Door Into Summer" for 50 cents a few months ago, partly because it was highly recommended by Jo Walton in "What Makes This Book So Great", and I understand that it lacks many of the things I disliked about some other Heinlein novels (as I mentioned somewhere on this page, there was a year in the 1980s when I read "Podkayne", while my sister read "Number of the Beast" and regaled me with selected plot points, and that was when I decided not to read any more Heinlein novels, though I still wanted TO HAVE READ "Stranger in a Strange Land"). Sometime in the next few weeks, I'll start reading "Door Into Summer", and unless I find the first 50 pages to be just horribly awful, I'll finish it, and we'll see what I think of it then... AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Regarding Heinlein, I started reading him with the novel "Orphans of the Sky" and it was this novel that made my transition from adventure and detective prose to speculative fiction, before that I read a lot of fiction, but I rarely realized that I was already reading another genre, but then I read a whole series important things of speculative fiction. I also watched a lot of SF movies, but it was Heinlein, starting with these novels, that made my transition to this genre clear and distinct, simply because the shelves ran out of adventure books, except for a few that I did not want to read at that time. And then I read another 20 of his novels in a row, then I began to read the outstanding fiction writers mentioned in the preface, then I was lucky again and I bought a thick Russian-language Encyclopedia of Speculative Fiction, the chief editor of which was a co-author of the English-language Encyclopedia by Clute and Nichols, and I read the works of the best, because then I was accidentally advised the best magazine of speculative fiction of the post-Soviet space, the name of which is translated as "If", which published the best untranslated works of modern speculative fiction and excellent critical articles, including some living authors of that encyclopedia. Unfortunately, libraries stopped subscribing to it after 2014, because magazine was published in the Russian Federation. So I read almost no frankly bad speculative fiction at all, and very little that was even slightly bad, because I knew hundreds of authors worth reading. Therefore, I rarely bought others. Unfortunately, due to such a wide palette of exceptionally high-quality speculative fiction and my reluctance to risk reading something secondary or low-quality, I have read very little Ukrainian or even Russian speculative fiction, although subconsciously I understand that there are many good things and a circle of authors where I could meet them I already know, because of subjective things, I miss good works of Ukrainian speculative fiction. In addition, before, it was always scarce in libraries until recently, and now, due to the great war, our city almost does not finance libraries, and it was almost never found in second-hand bookstores in our city. That's why I know English-language fiction much better than domestic fiction, but I navigate English very well thanks to the path of coincidences that have become an obstacle to a more thorough knowledge of Ukrainian fiction.
However, I didn`t recommend "Orphans of the Sky" to you first, only because you have partly read this work, although it is the one you should start reading Heinlein from, I am glad that you will try The Door to Summer, but it is a less original novel, although it is one of the best. Still, it is better to start with the first published novels "Orphans of the Sky", "Children of Methuselah" or "Waldo", perhaps you should also start a new reading of Heinlein with his late novel "Friday" with a strong female character, although not so fantastic, but rather realized on practice, or Heinlein's most relevant novels for Ukraine now are "Double Star" and "Star Troopers", although at the time of reading the first 20 novels, I liked the last one together with "The Road of Glory" the least, at the same time, I have suspicions that if I were to reread it now , then I am waiting for my opinion to change, but I very rarely do this, and "Orphans of the Sky" is one of the few novels that I reread again. But "Double Star" is a really vivid novel, although its idea was later used repeatedly in films. I would recommend reading "The Door to Summer" as Heinlein's 5-7th novel to read. Although there are also "Star Beast", "Have Space Suit — Will Travel" and "Farmer in the Sky" - probably the best of the space novels for young people, which could have supplanted him if you did not start your acquaintance with Heinlein at this age. However, they are still worth reading.Yasnodark (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
By the way, all the novels of Heinlein that you read earlier, in the mentioned Encyclopedia of Speculative Fiction, are either called unsuccessful or not awarded a single word, and the article about Heinlein is one of the largest in it.Yasnodark (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Good luck reading Heinlein and I hope your choice does not overshadow the impression of this author again. I would suggest it to you as number seven, knowing how many books of speculative fiction you have read and how unsuccessful your previous acquaintance with the author was. But this is just excessive caution and you cannot call the book obsolete, and this is its advantage over a number of other novels by Heinlein, which I didn`t name in this paragraph. But all the same, you were not lucky in choosing the books of the Grand Grand Master... If they were worth reading, then they were the last or interspersed with the best novels... But I hope you will see that your prejudice is caused solely by an unfortunate case and coincidence.
I would also recommend reading "Stranger in Strange Land" later, the novel is original strong but difficult to understand, so I would recommend it to the 9-10th, it to the 9-10th, even despite your reading experience. But the novel is very good, although I read it in the 1961 format, that is, one third smaller than the 1991 format.Yasnodark (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid his female characters are part of the problem I have with Heinlein, so "Friday" is pretty much right out, as Monty Python would say. AnonMoos (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Then "Friday" should wait a little, although I have not seen bad reviews of this novel, which is considered the author's best late novel & I like the style of both Heinlein and James Tiptree Jr. in this aspect as well. You haven't yet read the description of female characters in the book by the most famous Polish fiction writer Janusz Zajdel, you probably wouldn't have endured that shock... So that I can understand you better, could you tell me which are a Texan, male or female, black, white, Native American, Asian, or Latino? And is it true that nearly every Texan owns a firearm, or is it just male Republicans and libertarians?--Yasnodark (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've read a number of Tiptree shorter works, no novels. I'm male. I live in a largeish city, but many people in rural areas certainly own guns. AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I also read only a few novellas, novelletes and short stories by Tiptree, because her 3 novels weren`t widely published in Russian, and I didn`t see her translations in Ukrainian at all. I meant that there is a certain similarity of images. Although I forgot something when I mentioned Zajdel, and now that you've read a lot of Weber and even included a few of Norman's books on your best-of-the-year lists, which I've been wary of reading, I doubt I understood your problem with Heinlein's female imagery correctly. Maybe she is in something else, because it is strange to distinguish Norman with his feminine images and to be afraid to read Heinlein's novels with such images... Will you tell me when you will make progress in reading the novel "The Door to Summer"?.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Litlife is a little bit peculiar -- at one point https://litlife.club/books/24806/read delivered up a text in Cyrillic, then a few minutes later, the same URL had text in English. If you read "Orphans of the Sky" in translation, that would have avoided one of the problems I had with it -- the prose of the original is in a kind of "hard-boiled" "pulpy" 1940s style of language which hasn't aged too well in English. It's kind of the same problem as with Shakespeare -- in every other language, people read translations which are not in the 1600 A.D. version of that language, while in English we read the original old language text (except for the French-language passages included in the play "Henry V" -- they're a big problem for translators into French). AnonMoos (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I would be a little surprised if a long Encyclopedia entry on Heinlein had nothing whatever on "Citizen of the Galaxy"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos And look at some of the links from those that I have already given you before
Way Station, is there English text everywhere? I mean exactly the text of the works, and not other parameters of page armor. The comparison of the tests of the electronic and paper version of the novel "The Door to Summer" is especially interesting, is it the same or are there differences? If you see the English text of the first page, then you can start, and at the top there are the numbers of the following pages to go to the next 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7....
As for the encyclopedia of speculative fiction I mentioned, it only has a general description of Heinlein's teenage novels, so really the novel you mentioned is only listed. It should be said that the encyclopedia is really large - more than 700 pages of A4 format in small print with two columns for each, i.e. a total of 1400 columns for 1300 authors, almost 7 columns of the test are allocated to Heinlein (that is, 6.5 times more than the average per author), in the illustrated electronic version and there are even more of them. By the way, the impression about this article described above was formed not only from it, but also from a broader article by the same author, which was the preface to the book "Stranger in a Strange Land". Therefore, some things are not true. However, analyzing the article itself, even 7 stacks on the photo, biography and 50 books of the most influential American fiction author will agree - not so much to pay attention to every novel from the 40s. Although in the multi-volume encyclopedia of Nichols and Clute electronic version an attempt is made to do this, but there too "Citizen Galaxy" is given only the 1st short sentence. I read it second after Orphans of the Sky more than 20 years ago in a somewhat abridged version, and after it I immediately read another dozen or so novels by Heinlein, so my impressions of this novel were somewhat muted and partly confused with another novel, although I definitely liked it, but I now have the full version and may reread it later.
The Mote in God's Eye (1974) by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. So this is another argument in favor of Heinlein being worth reading.
You correctly noted the nuance regarding the difference between the original and the translation, for example, many Russian and Ukrainian translators significantly embellished the text or "improved" it to their taste, especially in the Soviet and first post-Soviet decades. For example, Norton's novel "Sargases in Space" was translated in the same style by the Strugatsky brothers, and the later translator was very surprised by what he thought was a much lower level of style and text in general in the original, I have not yet read any Norton novel, but this information also made a certain shift. However, considering your and not only your attitude towards this woman writer, I suspect that the negativity of that translator towards the original text is greatly distorted by personal vision. Although it was his review in particular that inhibited my acquaintance with your favorite author. I have some of the joint works of May, Norton and Bradley, but have not read them yet.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
In addition, I recently found an audiobook of one of the founders of SF in Ukraine, Volodymyr Vladko, novel "Argonauts of the Universe", the first version of which dates back to 1935, but despite the quality of the style, there are many elements of Soviet conjuncture, which significantly reduce the desire for further listening. Especially since I perceive texts by ear much worse than on paper. So I can understand your take on the original works, I hadn't thought of that. Because I read mostly fiction in translation. And from classical Ukrainian literature, he read mostly realistic works.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Norman doesn't pretend to be "mainstream" and constructs a utopia/dystopia with little relation to the real world, while Heinlein wrote for the Saturday Evening Post and other "glossy" literary magazines. And my issues with Heinlein are not really directly to do with feminism as such. I remember in the 1970s (before I knew much about feminism) coming across a Heinlein short story which I found singularly unattractive, but what I remember about it doesn't seem to correspond to the information I can now turn up about the stories he wrote (of course, that was 40+ years ago), unless maybe it was an excerpt from a novel published in a magazine. I hope I haven't been blaming Heinlein all this time for something somebody else wrote! However, the stories "By His Bootstraps" and "All You Zombies" which he definitely did write are somewhat repulsive in their own different ways... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I only promised to start reading "Door Into Summer" within the next few weeks (by the end of the first week of August, say). And I looked at the entry for Heinlein in the Clute and Nicholls "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" (1995 corrected reprint of 1993 2nd. edition), which I have on paper, and while "Citizen of the Galaxy" wasn't discussed separately, it and "Time for the Stars" and 3 other books (Starman Jones, Star Beast, Have Spacesuit Will Travel) are said to "rank among the very best juvenile SF ever written; their compulsive narrative drive, their shapeliness, and their relative freedom from the didactic rancour RAH was beginning to show when addressing adults in the later 1950s all make these books arguably his finest works". I never knew that "Citizen of the Galaxy" was supposed to be a juvenile until that moment! It was serialized in Analog/Astounding, which did not generally run juvenile stories (or "young adult" as they would be called now). I might have suspected that "Time for the Stars" was a juvenile, if I had ever thought about it... The entry for Heinlein there also says that "Stranger in a Strange Land" was an influence on Charles Manson! AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I would have no interest whatsoever in Norman if he were merely a sour misogynist -- a significant part of my interest in his works comes from the fact that he's a highly skillful untrained anthropologist (imagining whole cohesive cultural systems). Very few others would compare John Norman with Ursula K Le Guin (probably), but my interest in both is actually somewhat similar in that respect (Ursula K Le Guin was of course the daughter of Alfred Kroeber). And it's not a coincidence that my favorite Heinlein novel, "Citizen of the Galaxy" also shows some anthropological skills... Being able to do such imaginative ethnography well is actually not all that common a talent -- some SF authors can be very good at general "worldbuilding" without being very good at constructing a whole coherent society whose customs and attitudes and role differentiations and beliefs are very different from the society in which the author lives. Jack Vance sometimes approached this, but he had little stylistic quirks and rhetorical distancing maneuvers which made it hard for me to have much enthusiasm for his alternative societies. Many other SF authors don't even really attempt to construct a whole coherent society very different from modern Western culture, or from certain well-known historical societies, but instead try to distract the reader's attention by tossing in a few colorful details (similar to Nanki-Poo's "corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative")... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
P.P.S. I don't want to run off on a soapbox here, especially on a subject you may have little interest in, but Ursula K Le Guin and John Norman somewhat intersect in her 1979 short story "Pathways of Desire", which is an anthropological deconstruction of a vaguely somewhat Norman-like society (though I don't know if she knew of Norman's books or had them in mind, and the society in her story is much less sophisticated than those in Norman's books)... The most well-known SF author who was an actual professional anthropologist was Chad Oliver, but I never found those writings of his which I happened to see to be very interesting. AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos As I said, I haven't read any of Norman's books yet, although I have a few of his novels, but I can't remember their names right away and I put them away a few years ago, because I rarely risk reading something questionable. Although he is one of the oldest living fiction writers, and I like to read authors during their lifetime. I've read 9 Le Guin novels and I'm reading 10 now, 2 I consider passable, 7 good or great, the last one makes a very strange impression. I, was surprised too to learn about the "young adult status" of 14 of Heinlein's novels, although when I read them, I would not have immediately noticed this about most of them. I read 12 of the 14 novels among the first 20+ Heinlein books I read early on. The other two - "Time for the Stars" "Astronaut Jones" I read much later and they made a much less impression on me than most of the first 12, although I do not rule out that it is precisely the time of their reading and my reading experience, and not the quality of the works. :::At the same time, your chosen novel "Doors Into Summer" should not be affected by the age of reading, although reading experience is possible. The novel "Stranger in a Strange Land" can be read at any age, as long as you are an adult, and with any reading experience, I am able to understand it or you are just attached to the ideas expressed in it.
I have 2 books by Chad Oliver, but I haven't read any of them yet, although I have such a desire from time to time, unfortunately, every time they are not around and now they are not on the nearest shelves, the author has long since died and is not being filmed now. So while Oliver is not lucky, I have an even greater desire to read one more of his novels, but it is not translated into Ukrainian or Russian and we can hardly expect it. Did you get my list of Piper links elsewhere?--Yasnodark (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Norman is very much a minority taste, and I really would not recommend reading him unless you have a specific interest; I was just explaining part of the nature of my interest in him... AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I didn't see you get involved in the Paratime/Kalvan article discussions, if that's what you mean; I'll check that out... AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos No, I wrote to you elsewhere, but you probably don't have a global account, otherwise you would have seen that notification. So I repeat here.
I think you might find this list of Piper series links:
I only visit Wikidata at most once every several months now (I sometimes used to visit it more often). I do have a global account, and would probably have received a notification if you had left a message on my Wikidata user talk page, but I'm really not sure about a ping on Wikidata on a page other than my user talk page... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
P.S. My reading of "The Door Into Summer" may be slightly delayed because I found a 50-cent paperback of Vernor Vinge's "A Fire Upon the Deep", which I haven't read in a long time (though I'll probably skip over much of the Tines storyline). However, I'll probably still start reading it by the end of the first week of August. AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've gotten through the first 50 pages of "Door Into Summer", and while I'm not really identifying with the inventor protagonist, and not looking forward to his immediately pre-sleep confrontation with Belle and Miles, there aren't some of the problems that I've had with some other Heinlein writings. Also, I was looking at my original list of 50 again recently, and while I don't really want to revise it, I'm wondering now why I ranked Brin's "The Uplift War" so low... AnonMoos (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! I planned to write to you just yesterday that there are Heinlein novels in which, in principle, 50 pages can be enough to understand the level of the work, the same "Stranger" or "I Will Fear No Evil" or "Orphans of the sky". However, there are some of his novels that should be read in their entirety in order to understand what it was all about and get pleasure from the author's plan as a whole and the shocking ending, such as "Doors Into Summer", as well as "The Star Beast" and "Double Star". So I advise you to read to the end without looking at the last pages and evaluate the novel as a whole. Such percussive endings are characteristic of my second favorite author, John Boyd https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?439 .--Yasnodark (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've been lightly flipping forward (reading two or three sentences 10 or 20 pages ahead of where I am), but I have not prematurely read the ending (something I only do in exceptional circumstances)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I very much doubt that I have seen this very old American film, although Heinlein's adaptations have been unlucky. Did you read the novel to the end? If so, what are your general impressions? Did this read take a step away from the "bad bad Heinlein" of your previous experience.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I haven't been repulsed by "Door Into Summer", but neither have I been drawn in by it. I can probably finish it off in a concentrated 2 or 3 hour reading session, and I'll try to get to it by the end of the month. In recent days, you asked me about my favorite books of 1998, and "Nimisha's Ship" by Anne McCaffrey was on the list, so I've been re-reading it... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! I wanted to ask you, have you made any progress in reading Heinlein's book?
Sorry -- I didn't find "Door Into Summer" to be bad, but I didn't find it to be very interesting, so I haven't gotten around to reading it beyond the first 50 pages. I can probably finish it off in a concentrated 2 or 3 hour reading session, as I said before, but I can't promise when that will happen... AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I ranked "Falling Free" relatively low, since I'm not sure I ever fully read it all the way through (in fact, I suspect I didn't). I read almost half of "The Hormone Jungle" by Robert Reed, then made a very intentional decision not to finish it. For whatever reason, I didn't read "Cyteen" by C. J. Cherryh (though I was aware of it), and this kept me from reading most further novels in her Downbelow universe... I wanted to read "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul" (or at least to have read it), but reading "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" was a convoluted and not entirely pleasurable experience for me, so that kind of put me off... AnonMoos (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
10 "The Death of Sleep" by Anne McCaffrey and Elizabeth Moon
8 "Redshift Rendezvous" by John E. Stith
7 "The Rowan" by Anne McCaffrey
"The Vor Game" is one of my all-time favorites. "The Difference Engine" is one of those books that I want to have read, more than I want to read it... I think I read Farmer's "Dayworld Breakup", but it wasn't that great. I only really like "The Tombs of Atuan" as a whole book among the Earthsea books (though I also like parts of the first book). AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos This book by Bujold was my number one this year until I read Michael Flynn's still alive book in September this year, it may be the best book I've read, although there is one point he didn't explore enough and didn't finish one plot line, but it's still definitely the best book of the 1990s in my opinion. I advise you to look for the 1990 version because the later version has the abbreviations, though plus his cliology manual with graphs and charts. As always, you have too strict criteria for inclusion in the lists for the year.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I usually don't feel like ranking books which I found mediocre or irritating just because I happened to read all the way to the end of them, when there were equally mediocre or irritating books which I can't rank because I abandoned them halfway through. I thought I was being quite generous in putting "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson on a year list, though I found major aspects of its future society quite disgusting (while Stephenson seemed to have a very different opinion), and it turned me off reading any further Stephenson novels... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I haven't read Flynn's other works yet. When Professor Jerry Pournelle was still alive I often read his blog and it was quite informative.
The fact is that I would be interested to know the places of mediocre works in the year relative to each other, and you can describe their quality in the comments. Especially since "Nebula" got "Tehanu" as an example, of course - this is an exaggeration of the level, but it is definitely not the level of the work that should be included. Ditto with serialized novels, which you often don't include due to hazy memories of the content of specific books.Yasnodark (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Honorverse novella "By the Book" by Charles E. Gannon has an interesting version of what a "Neo-Luddite" / extreme Green oppressive regime would look like. By all accounts, "Fallen Angels" has a stupid version of a Green dystopia, used for cheap political point-scoring... AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I read about a third of the first Gentry Lee "Rendezvous with Rama" sequel and didn't like it much. Maybe it's better to "Let the mystery be"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "Barrayar" by Lois McMaster Bujold
10 "The Unwound Way" by Bill Adams and Cecil Brooks
8 "Iceman" by Cynthia Felice
7 "All the Weyrs of Pern" by Anne McCaffrey
6 "Generation Warriors" by Anne McCaffrey and Elizabeth Moon
5 "Stations of the Tide" by Michael Swanwick
AnonMoos And I really liked all 4 first books of the series with Clarke, Lee's solo books about Rama are unfortunately not in translation. For me, a difficult dilemma was which of the first 3 books to choose and "Barrayar" was the second, and «The Garden of Rama» the third rather intuitively and largely by accident.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to the first book with Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee (the immediate sequel to "Rendezvous with Rama"). I had no idea that there were further books written by Gentry Lee alone... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that I've read too many SF novels published in 1994. (I did read almost half of "Mysterium" by Robert Charles Wilson, up to the point where the main characters prepare to risk their lives to try to steal a scanner, even though a scanner would be a poor tool to achieve their goal. This meant that the author didn't know what he was talking about or the characters didn't know what they were talking about -- and either way, it abruptly ended any desire to read the rest of the book...) The Harlan Ellison screenplay to "I, Robot" was better than the Will Smith movie that was eventually made... AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is often difficult to put books in place, but this time it was especially difficult, I changed the places of the first 7 novels many times and maybe I will change them many times, because these 7 books are all equally good, but none of them can be called superb or brilliant. The first 7 positions are extremely conditional and this conditionality significantly exceeds the usual level of this indicator in my lists of other years.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Godspeed" is kind of a Young Adult book, but I don't think that makes it a better book. Only a few authors have the special skills to write Young Adult novels which are just as good as almost any "mature" novel. By the way, Andre Norton and Julian May co-authored books together (some published in 1993), though I haven't read any of them. AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "The Honor of the Queen" by David Weber
10 "Glory Season" by David Brin
8 "On Basilisk Station" by David Weber
7 "Brother to Shadows" by Andre Norton
6 "The Gripping Hand" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
5 "Godspeed" by Charles Sheffield
4 "Moving Mars" by Greg Bear
3 "The Chronicles of Pern: First Fall" by Anne McCaffrey
AnonMoos as I said: "Godspeed" & "The Honor of the Queen" I rate about the same, like all the books in between, but they all fall short of the first place. For example, on my list of 1958, 5 novels are better than these first 7 in 1993 list novels, in 1969 - 7, and in 1968 - 5.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
The society depicted in "Cetaganda" is interesting, but the novel has some overall plotting flaws, so it's not my favorite Lois McMaster Bujold book -- but Bujold is still one of my favorite authors... AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
12 "Memory" by Lois McMaster Bujold
10 "Honor Among Enemies" by David Weber
8 "Infinity's Shore" by David Brin
7 "Cetaganda" by Lois McMaster Bujold
6 "Dragonseye" a.k.a. "Red Star Rising" by Anne McCaffrey
I probably didn't read all that many books published in 1999. I tried to read "Flashforward" (which was the basis for a short-lived TV series), "Prisoner of Azkaban", and Weber's "The Apocalypse Troll", but I didn't get too far in any of them... I did read "Finity" by Barnes, but my memory of it is quite vague now. I like parts of "A Civil Campaign" by Bujold very much, but it has a dinner-party scene that I just can't re-read (I always skip over it). AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I will note that the sequel to one of the best books by Robert Sheckley is one of my least liked books, and probably this is the first novel that I include with serious reservations until I read the 5 best books from this year.Yasnodark (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
6 "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" by J. K. Rowling
5 "The Alleluia Files" by Sharon Shinn
4 "The Golden Globe" by John Varley
3 "The Masterharper of Pern" by Anne McCaffrey
"Echoes of Honor" and "Dimension of Miracles Revisited" are not included on the ISFDB most-reviewed of the year page, which gives rise to questions. (I never read the original "Dimension of Miracles".) I read almost half-way into "The Cassini Division", but didn't finish it. "Earth Made of Glass" by John Barnes is impressive in some ways, but had many repulsive aspects, and I have no desire to ever reread it, so I didn't rank it. (This could be considered yet another series which goes downhill after its first book, "A Million Open Doors"...) AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Then I advise you to read the mentioned Sheckley novel https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?9687 . By the way, the 1998 novel is not a remake, but a sequel, albeit a much less successful one. I read the other of Barnes novel www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?13573 and I liked it, I think that given what you found and the positives in the 1998 novel that you read, then you should not be so harsh and include it on the empty 9th step until a better work is found for this place. I have not seen any of Sharon Shinn's books in translation. the first two books of Harry Potter are the least difficult and, accordingly, the worst, because they were written exclusively for children, and the following books should be read even in adulthood.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
As for John Barnes, "A Million Open Doors" is one of my favorite SF books (see my list of 50), but I disliked many things about its immediate sequel (Earth Made of Glass), and the remaining books in the series (Merchants of Souls, Armies of Memory) were semi-mediocre. I read "Finity" not too long after it was first published, and didn't like it all that much, and my memories of it are rather vague now. "Patton's Spaceship" had some interesting aspects, but overall it was like a 1950s teenage boy's immature fantasy of fighting science-fictional Nazis, with some serious plotting flaws. "Sin of Origin" was somewhat interesting (but also somewhat silly), and my memories of it are a little vague now, since I read it once during the 1990s. I couldn't get all the way through the two "One True" books I looked at (skipped forward while reading them). I never read "Orbital Resonance", but some people compare it to Podkayne, the novel that kind of turned me off Heinlein... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
When it comes to JK Rowling, I must be somewhat childish, since I read the first two Harry Potter books, but never got more than a third of the way through "Prisoner of Azkaban"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
"The Diamond Age" was the novel which persuaded me not to read any more Neal Stephenson books, but it was actually a fairly good book -- it's Neal Stephenson's habit of implicitly presenting disgusting libertarian dystopias as some kind of good thing which alienated me, not the quality of the book. My memories of "Flag in Exile" are somewhat vague... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
For 2000, I have what I tried to avoid in other years, a list of one item. By the way, item 3 on your list is presumably "A Storm of Swords", not "Flashforward". I read Ashes of Victory", but don't really want to rank it (I also read parts of "House Harkonnen" and "Rats, Bats & Vats"). By the way, I added "The Eye of the Queen" by Phillip Mann to my 1982 list. (I originally read it because it was said to be linguistics-related Science Fiction; it wasn't really, but still deserving of a mention.) AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I found it very difficult to decide which of the first 4 novels was the best, while the Weber novel and the Australian novel I read recently were much less to my liking, but not so much that I had doubts about their inclusion, although even in those cases I plan to include relevant novels, putting them in lower positions, if there are no better ones at the moment.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
This may be the first year that I haven't really read anything I want to rank. I did read "The Merchants of Souls" by John Barnes, and I believe "The Skies of Pern" by Anne McCaffrey also, but found them to be rather mediocre. I read half of the "The Eyre Affair" by Jasper Fforde, but didn't finish it. I've wanted to read "The Curse of Chalion" by Lois McMaster Bujold, and looked through "Ella Minnow Pea" by Mark Dunn several times, but never read either. I've certainly read "Ms. Midshipwoman Harrington" by David Weber, but it's not novel-length, and I'm not sure how much it can stand by itself, as opposed to being part of the whole Honorverse narrative. AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I did notice a book I overlooked for my year 2000 list: "Heart of Gold" by Sharon Shinn. Not sure how I missed it before. Now my 2000 list can be expanded from one entry to a grand total of two entries! (I would probably have a longer list for the year 2003.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Here, we consider all works of more than 100 pages to be novels, as was the case during the Golden Age of Fiction. This work by Weber is more than 130 pages long and definitely deserves a mention. Although now a work of up to 150 pages is counted as a novel, it doesn't apply to our survey. I would like two or three other works read to be ranked by rank in order to understand their place in relation to others. I also have problematic years...--Yasnodark (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's probably true that "Ms. Midshipwoman Harrington" by David Weber is longer than "The Mutant Weapon" by Murray Leinster, which I have on my list of 50 (though "The Mutant Weapon" has been published as a standalone paperback, and I doubt that "Ms. Midshipwoman Harrington" has been). However, I only read "Ms. Midshipwoman Harrington" after I had previously read three or four Honor Harrington novels, so I would have a difficult time evaluating it as a separate entity (as opposed to part of the Honorverse tapestry). AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've discovered something from 2001 I want to rank after all, if we're including not-full novel-length stuff: "From the Highlands" by Eric Flint. So at least I have one entry for a 2001 list... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Contacting Aliens: An Illustrated Guide to David Brin's Uplift Universe" by David Brin and Kevin Lenagh (ISFDB lists this as "non-fiction", but it isn't really -- it's an in-universe book published in 2490 A.D., with updates for some events of the crisis of the following few years, and containing some short-short stories)
I read the original "Coraline" book many years after I saw the movie, and probably like the movie better (though the book has the gruesome reference to the antagonist's mother's grave). I read "The Butlerian Jihad" by Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert, and found it to be only middling (I wasn't encouraged to go on to read further books by those two authors). The explanation of the name "House of Atreides" was very clever, though... I had to skip forward past parts of "The Sky So Big and Black", so I didn't fully read it, and it confirmed my opinion of John Barnes as a very inconsistent author. I own a copy of "The Battle of the Sexes in Science Fiction" by Justine Larbalestier which is on the ISFDB 2002 list, but have only read about 15-20 pages. By the way, "War of Honor" isn't on the ISFDB list (but it doesn't matter for me, since I haven't read it). AnonMoos (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I also read this book by Bujold, but it seemed to me that it was published in a different year, but for now I will discuss it here. This trilogy by Anderson and son Herbert made a great impression on me, and the first book especially, I do not agree that it is average. It is somewhat better than Frank's books, but it is too harsh. Perhaps you confused it with the books of another trilogy of authors in the Dunes world? Anderson's solo book is also great and multi-dimensional. I read Weber's book of 1100 pages quickly enough and just as quickly it faded from my thoughts, so it is really average.--Yasnodark (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think so. It's a book which has a zillion parallel plotlines, but the main one is the female captive on earth of the eccentric robot with no boundaries, who first sterlizes her, then kills her son, which incidentally triggers off a huge revolt against the machine intelligence which rules over earth... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I wanted to ask you abot other: really Democrats don`t understand that Sanders and Buttigieg have no chance of defeating Trump? The first is barely breathing, and he is a socialist, the second is not of a traditional sexual orientation, and many Democrat voters, in my opinion, simply will not go to the polls, choosing between them and Trump, the chances of two women are unfortunately also doubtful: even Hillary did not succeed, and they can defeat Sanders only by teaming up, although they are all better than Trump, but the first two are without a chance, the other two Klobuchar and Warren simply will not pass the primaries. All that remains is Bloomberg - Out of the frying pan into the fire (A rich and unprincipled candidate of dubious principles and views), and Biden is the only normal candidate who can really confront Trump in the disputed states and among the undecided electorate. He is the only one who can repulse Russia and will not conspire with the owner of the Kremlin. And accordingly, it certainly will not allow a global war. Question: so why are all Democrats blind and ambitious and do not want to play in favor of Biden or another candidate who has a real chance of winning Trump?
And I understand that there are no other Republicans chances against Trump?
It is interesting to know your opinion and whether you agree with my view from the outside. I'm asking because I'm afraid that neither the USA, nor Ukraine, nor the world and Casey's forecast regarding the 44th president (although his number is the 45th, but in fact he is the 44th) will be able to stand Trump's second term. Although you may say that my opinion is unfounded and everything is completely different from what it seems to me from across the ocean. Sorry for my broken english.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm a supporter of Elizabeth Warren, and I plan to vote for her on March 3rd, but I don't know that a Bernie Sanders nomination would mean automatic Democratic defeat. You would really have to ask a Republican as to why that party is so subservient to Trump that no serious challenge to him for the GOP nomination this year is feasible. AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is possible that I would also be inclined to your option if I lived in the USA. I am much less concerned about Biden's chances of winning his confrontation with Trump and his future foreign policy than the opportunity to defeat the foreign policy of other democrats.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I myself am not close to the internal politics of the Republicans, but their foreign policies have always been more decisive in the struggle for world democracy, which can not be said about the policies of the current president, he seems to have taken the worst from both parties and also denies the obvious: climate change, for example. As for Sanders: each time representatives of his political views lost to rivals, in addition, the leftists in the USA financed for a very long time from Moscow and I don't know what Sanders will do in Europe and the Middle East, when he will have to act quickly and decisively or he he will think for a long time until Putin reaches the coast of the English Channel with his troops. In Biden, I am sure, although Trump greatly discredited his desire to help Ukraine in the future.--Yasnodark
It's OK -- if I don't want to reply to something, I won't.
John McCain would have been better than George W. Bush in 2000, and better than Donald Trump in any year of the calendar, but whether he would have been better than Barack Obama in 2008 is quite a different matter. As for why Ukraine is not part of NATO, that could be seen as unnecessarily provocative to Russia, and having a high risk/reward ratio for existing NATO members. You'll notice that among NATO states ONLY two of the Baltic states -- whose annexation by the Soviet Union was never recognized by the U.S. from 1939-1990 (see Kersten Committee), and which are small and vulnerable -- have direct shared borders with the main area of Russia below the arctic circle (while Poland and the third Baltic state have borders with the Kaliningrad enclave, and Norway has a short border with Russia in a remote arctic region, as does the U.S. if you count the ice between Little Diomede island and Big Diomede island). Adding Ukraine to NATO would very dramatically increase the length of the non-Kaliningrad non-arctic borders between NATO countries and Russia... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I'm sure that McCain would be better than Obama in 2008, because it was precisely the "reset" of Hillary-Obama relations after the treacherous attack of the Russian Federation on Georgia in 2008 that unleashed Putin's hands. Likewise, the attack on Georgia was a consequence for Ukraine and Georgia rejection of NATO in 2008: Putin felt the weaknesses of NATO institutions both times and attacked. No matter how bad Bush was, but it was he who saved Georgia from destruction, and Obama did not do this, just as he was not remarkable in domestic politics. If Ukraine were admitted to NATO in 2008 there would be no war in 2014 and it would become the reliable eastern frontier of the Alliance, and much better than Turkey and much more useful and predictable. At the same time, the annexation of Crimea significantly worsened NATO's position in the Black Sea, and the Russian Federation received a nuclear bridgehead, an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" with the ability to lay half of Europe out of Crimea. Now Russia is systematically preparing for a big war with Ukraine (part of this preparation was the construction of bypass gas pipelines) and to attack on the Baltic countries and Poland in the event of the same passive reaction to new aggression, now Russia is bringing Norway to Svalbard. Thanks to the informational hybrid war of the Russian Federation in the United States, Trump defeated, and Britain left the EU, in many countries ultra-right and ultra-left forces come to power in Russia. All this became possible due to the stupid Obama-Clinton policy. The funny thing is that her scandalous husband ended the war in the Balkans precisely with his decisive actions. Although in the late 1990s I was against such a policy.
I also virtually supported Al Gore in 2000, I never supported Bush, and if I were a US citizen I would not have voted for him in 2000 or 2004, although I now understand that he turned out to be a good president of the second term. In 2008, I didn't have a clear position, and I don't know who would vote for in the USA, if I were a citizen of your country - for McCain or Obama. But now in hindsight I would definitely choose the first one. In 2012, I definitely supported Obama, but now I would be very doubtful and if I were an American I would know that it is worth trying Romney. But I say this as a Ukrainian who does not receive pluses from Obamacare, but receives minuses from his indecision in foreign policy. In 2016, I supported Hillary after electing Trump as a Republican candidate and Biden's refusal to run for the death of my son, despite her past, she seemed more predictable and now I'm back on the side of your Democrats. It turns out strange: at the time of the election, I almost always supported the Democrats, but then I consider the republican choice to be the best. But it's hard to say about Trump that this choice is republican, so there are exceptions to each rule, although I won't say for sure that Trump is as bad as expected in the first term in both domestic and foreign policy. But he already drove out all worthy people and in the second term he may be too dangerous and too unpredictable in my opinion a stern but interested observer. And he will not be restrained by the desire to be elected again.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
In 2008, John McCain ran as a conventional orthodox party-line Republican (as opposed to his "maverick" independence of previous years), making him much less politically attractive to someone like me. I really can't vote for someone as president based on one aspect of foreign policy only, and in 2008 McCain's belligerence against Russia over the Georgia war was fairly widely seen as disproportionate (it started to look better in retrospect 8 years later, when Trump started deferentially sucking up to Putin). AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! If there is a chance that Biden will agree with Warrren and will again apply for the post of vice president, abandoning the first post?--Yasnodark (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2020 ~=(UTC)~=
AnonMoos Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bloomberg withdrew in favor of Biden. Your candidate Warren has also retired. Such an impression everyone obeyed me. For whom you are now: for Biden or Sanders. And whose chances do you value higher in the confrontation with Trump?--Yasnodark (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really supporting either Biden or Sanders against the other now, though I'm reasonably content that it looks like Biden is now on the path to the Democratic nomination. As long as Biden can clearly get across that he has an ordinary (or slightly more than ordinary) amount of honesty, competence, and personal integrity and decency, then his chances against Trump will probably be good... AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I understand your opinion. But tell me, it's amazing that when I started the debate on the chances of uniting in favor of Biden and his nomination from the Democrats, they were close to zero, and now his chances are very high? Unfortunately, everything in our country is not very good: they have removed the pro-Western government, an independent prosecutor and hand over interests in Minsk; Zelensky and Trump are two boots of the pair: both TV presenters, actors, and businessmen with highly questionable political beliefs and knowledge in various fields. And then there is the coronavirus: we have conducted 67 tests for the entire 44 million country and boast that we have only 3 infected. I suspect that there are actually thousands of them: all restrictions are weak and belated. People from Europe go massively without quarantine. They say that you do not need to wear masks, the real reason: because they simply do not exist: everyone is pre-emptively sold to China, and may not be sick with respiratory illnesses. The problem is that patients do not particularly want to wear them. By the way, how are you: after all, all three candidates in the high risk zone?--Yasnodark (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Bambi Meets Godzilla as a science-fiction movie thanks to the presence of a purely sci-fi animal Godzilla
Hello Yasnodark, Yasnodark has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I don`t know what kind of music you are listening to, but I suggest you listen to the Ukrainian rock band The Hardkisshere ets. I would like to hear the opinion of an English-speaking person about the songs of the Ukrainian group in English. Because it is surprising to me that they don't know about Yulia Sanina in the USA, and practically everyone knows about Zelensky. Although more Ukrainian is being collected in Ukrainian, it started with English-language songs. In addition, you like to highlight women in speculative fiction (by the way, are you a woman or a man?), and here a woman in music. After all, unfortunately, the books of Ukrainian speculative fiction women in English can not be found...--Yasnodark (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really a metal kind of guy (Led Zeppelin is about as metal as I get), and I'm not much into streaming. The Carol of the Bells is probably the only Ukrainian music that I know. Bulgarian music seems to have greater world prominence than Ukrainian music... AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Carol of the Bells... Well, you dug deep - a lot of water has since escaped, in the performance of the author remembers this song except that only our chairman of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Borys Paton (Ukrainian: Boris Paton) (born 1918).
"Carol of the Bells" may be old, but just about everybody in the United States who hasn't been living in an isolated religious community, or isn't a fanatical music-hater, knows it (which I doubt is true for any other Ukrainian music)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Here are the modern versions of this song with the original original Ukrainian text: 1, 2 & 3 ---- second song in video. Do you recognize a familiar tune with a different text? Or not?
Greatest ukrainian song - Red ruta . And since then, many beautiful songs have been written in Ukrainian. Here at least these or
P.S. The official way to see if anyone has specified gender in their Wikipedia account user profile is by including the following in a "Show preview" edit: {{GENDER:AnonMoos|Male|Female|Unknown}}. Currently I'm male and you're "unknown"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't know that much about Belarus (mainly that Lukashenko is the "last dictator standing" in Europe west of Moscow). But it's very noticeable that the protesters are using a flag of Belarus which is completely different from the flag of Belarus used by the government. The government flag is based on the flag of the Belorussian SSR, one of the stupid Soviet flags of the 15 Union republics which all kind of looked like each other (though Estonia and Latvia were allowed wavy stripes, while the other 13 all had straight stripes). For a long time (maybe even as far back as the 1980s), I've thought that it was idiotic of the Soviet authorities to ban nationalist symbols (such as the blue and yellow of Ukraine, etc), since that meant that such symbols would always inherently be anti-Soviet. If they had been smarter, the authorities would have appropriated such symbols to serve the Soviet system... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
As for Joe Biden's VP pick ("selection", not "election"), I was kind of hoping for Stacey Abrams or Elizabeth Warren, but I knew they were unlikely. I'm basically for whatever woman will do the most to help Joe Biden defeat Trump in November... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Don't you think that during the debate, Biden became like Trump in his rhetoric? It seems to me that by doing so he can lose the votes of the liberal democrats of the moderate, and the intelligentsia, they simply will not come to the elections, and the votes of those who doubt are not a fact that he will gain. 1955 has long been waiting--Yasnodark (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I only saw a minute or so of the debate, but everybody is saying that Joe Biden was trying to debate, while whatever Trump was doing, it was not debating. If you say 1 or 2 rude things in reply to a continually rude opponent, I don't think this usually creates any real equivalence -- certainly not in this case. AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
We had Local elections (2020 Ukrainian local elections) on Sunday. Have you already voted? And who did your state's voters vote for in the last four presidential elections?--Yasnodark (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure I have any special insight as to which way Texas as a whole will go. Biden will certainly carry my city and county... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos After all, Texas has already been lost, but Biden will still win in your country as a whole, but are the Americans ready to defend the victory against the nutty president who wants to take votes from those who voted by mail and are the past presidents Carter, Clinton, Obama and especially the two Bush ready? to go out and follow a statement that will help defend democracy and prevent a second civil war in the United States? The same applies to adequate Republicans: are only McCain's wife and Arnold ready to support Biden, or are many of them ready to peacefully transfer power? When I wrote a message for 15:54, 24 February 2020, Biden practically lost his chances of becoming a candidate and had a rating of several percent, but then everyone supported him and now the victory is almost in his hands, he will only be stopped by the lawlessness of the Trump hordes, I hope that the Bush people are in The Supreme Court will be prudent and will not indulge the strong and stupid.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Trump's legal efforts are semi-pathetic, and his lawsuits filed so far will certainly not disrupt the vote-counting process (see this article) which is likely to lead to a Biden victory. There will be no civil war, but there could be some unpleasant incidents, and an undignified exit for Trump if he persists in denying reality up until Jan 20, 2021. AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has issued a dangerous and controversial decision on the division of votes in Pennsylvania. Or is this decision still not at?...--Yasnodark (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I congratulate you on the final election of Biden as President and it was scary on the day of the assault, although I do not like some of his first decisions, such as the extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons for 5 years or a ban on arms supplies to Arab countries. recognized Israel under Trump. If he reconciles with Iran, it will be even worse. One can only hope that he will not surrender Ukraine and will not start another reboot, because it will be too much. And the controversial decision to return transgender people to the army, although I don't care, is just from the same series as Nalo Hopkinson's undeserved award of the SF Grandmaster. --Yasnodark (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
By the way, Biden has not yet talked to Zelensky, although he was one of the first to congratulate him. At the same time, even Trump talked to Poroshenko almost immediately after the election, despite the fact that our ambassador and half-government openly campaigned for Hillary and he was terribly angry.
The release of an English cover version of one of the most famous Ukrainian songs caused a scandal for us, just wondering how you like such a clip "Two Colors" as a native speaker?
AnonMoos And I wanted to know about the situation in Texas: we were told that you had terrible abnormal frosts and some kind of explosion recently, but how really? And how are you getting vaccinated, is it your turn?Yasnodark (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)\Reply
Yes, we normally get temperatures below 20 degrees Fahrenheit in Austin only once every dozen years or so, and in February we had temperatures even below 10 degrees Fahrenheit on two consecutive days. I had a burst water pipe, but I didn't suffer nearly as much as many other people... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hello AnonMoos, If you want to know more honest information about Ukraine, read this site the most famous Ukrainian magazine NV and the most comprehensive *https://english.nv.ua/
I'm waiting until more becomes clear before trying to learn about the counteroffensive. Last year's counteroffensive was impressive -- Izium had been a stronghold of the Russian army, but a few days after the Ukrainians attacked, all the Russian units were gone (2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive). AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! Unfortunately, yesterday I copied the same text twice, so the beginning disappeared and now it cannot be restored, but without the binding of the remaining text, I apologize for the incoherence.
In the missing part, I wrote that Orban has long been closely associated with the Russian mafia, and this is the reason for the strange constancy of the pro-Russian position of the Hungarian government. And it is very strange that there is still no desire to find a mechanism to exclude authoritarian Hungary from the EU and NATO.
And many times they said that pro-Russian and in many ways chauvinistic Serbia and the de facto fail state of Bosnia and Herzegovina with an even more odious Republika Srpska should join the EU and NATO before Ukraine, which had 4 revolutions for democracy over the past 33 years, 10 years war and the current large-scale invasion the largest war in the world in the last 77 years, a huge and bloody war for democracy, a war of democracy against against the new fascism and the new genocide of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars and other European nations and peoples, and not some kind of special operation there, not a small victorious war in 3 days, as seen in the Kremlin and Minsk, however, as well as in Berlin, Paris and Washington.
And vice versa, include democratic Ukraine, which for centuries stands as a border of Europe, defending it and its values from the invasion of the Asian Horde.
In 1995-96, Ukrainian peacekeepers were together with the troops of NATO countries in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and, unlike the Dutch, they did not run away, thereby creating the conditions for genocide. Then, also firmly, the Ukrainian military contributed to the establishment of peace in Kosovo & Maсedonia.
Then there was Iraq, where we did not leave, even after the death of a Ukrainian journalist from an American sniper's bullet, and Afghanistan, where we were the last to leave, we did not flee, but evacuated thousands of supporters of democracy abandoned by American allies. Where were Finland, Sweden or Hungary then, which are so welcome in NATO? Ukrainian special forces evacuated military translators who worked for the United States and film directors, and your government repeated Vietnam and Kurdistan, once again abandoning those who were domesticated. The little prince wouldn't do that, and it's not good. Especially in the context that throwing away a lot of equipment, including Apache helicopters and modernized Abrams with depleted uranium, giving them to the Taliban is normal, but giving these types of weapons to Ukraine at the 10th hour is an escalation. Ugh, cowards, sorry for the harshness.
Mass piercings of the American intelligence in Afghanistan and Ukraine are connected with the unprofessional head of the CIA, appointing a person from the Russian Federation to this post is complete nonsense.
You know how I supported Biden and said that the unification of Democrats around him is the only chance to defeat Trump. And so it happened. Trump's second term is still the greatest risk for peace in the whole world and for the peace of us and you. But Biden's second term with such a weak vice president is also a risk, so either he will throw the weak politically correct Kamala and the long-time companions of the Kremlin's views Carrie and Sullivan into the dustbin of history, choose Blinken or, as a last resort, Warren as vice president. And the head of the State Department should be John Herbst or William Taylor or Ben Hodges, the latter can also replace Milly, who is long overdue for retirement.
As you know, my ideal for the post of President of the USA is the late John McCain. But Bush Jr. also turned out to be not a bad president for the world and maintaining peace. Therefore, any Republican except Trump is for the world will be better than Biden with the current weak team. Even Ron DeSantis, although I would not like Mike Pence also for superstitious reasons. Unfortunately, Nikki Haley's chances of winning tend to zero. There is no chance that Jeb Bush or Consoliza Rice will win - there are also good candidates that we will not see. Therefore, if Trump is not allowed to run for office and if De does not win, then I am for Pompeo. This will not be a social president for you at all, but what are social benefits in a country that, with its indecision, is slowly leading us to the Third World War, and only the courage of Ukrainians, and let this indecisive help stand as an obstacle to this event for now. Therefore, let it be Mike Pompeo and he will pulverize all these eastern hyenas and other scavengers and help Ukraine to become a full member of NATO and the EU after the victory. And in order for this victory to happen, he will give Ukraine everything that is needed for victory and will not say that we cannot fight on the territory of the enemy, who every day destroys everything and everything on our sovereign territory. If we had been given tanks six months ago, the war would have ended a long time ago, but now we have to overcome thousands of obstacles and hundreds of thousands of mobilized Russians, now our army could easily reach Moscow and end the war, but because of the position of the West and the United States, we must first of all lose their best people while passing deeply echeloned defense on our occupied lands.
So, one should not expect a swift counter-offensive, if it were not for the position of the West, the Ukrainian army could seize all Ukrainian lands in Russia in a month and then change them to our constitutional territories or leave everything as it is with new borders and without our destroyed lands, or go to Moscow - everything would depend on changes in the leadership of the Kremlin and its new position after the conquest of Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, Voronezh regions, it was also possible to bypass the borders from Voronezh region to Krasnodar with access to the Black Sea before the end of the year, and each of these options would be less bloody and easier for Ukrainian troops and more real for Western stockpiles of weapons than assaults on multi-echeloned lines in the south and east of Ukraine, but this is something to be afraid of and, as a result, undermining the Dam and a potential threat to the "Crimean Titan" and the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power station.
It's not about Putin, it's about tens of millions of Russians who support him, although the death of the main Putin, not his doppelgängers, can have an effect similar to the death of Stalin. And Patrushev, Prigozhin and Medvedev will repeat the fate of Beria, Malenkov and Khrushchev. But this country will never become a democracy in its current form for more than 10 years.
Unfortunately, yesterday I copied the same text twice, so the beginning disappeared and now it cannot be restored, but without the binding of the remaining text, I apologize for the incoherence.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Bill Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIp-r4KAWxQ seems to have realized his mistake in forcing Ukraine to give nuclear weapons under pseudo-guarantees of security, as is the attitude of the Democratic Party close to you to the return of such a candidate to the Presidential elections. After all, all his dirty laundry has long been washed, instead, it was his decisive actions in the Balkans that put an end to the bloody war of the 1990s, or are there no chances for such a back at all? And is it true that Jake Sullivan is his man, because I always liked Bill, Hilary much less, and Sullivan was always deeply unpleasant
By the way, the son of candidate Kennedy fought in Ukraine, and unlike Robert and his grandson, his views are very strange to me... And what do you say about these two people?--Yasnodark (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
When you referred to a Kennedy fighting in Ukraine, I had no idea who you were talking about, but I guess it was Conor Kennedy. I'm not sure that I've ever heard of him before, and there's no Wikipedia article on him, but apparently he's one of Taylor Swift's ex-boyfriends... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos It has been repeatedly noted that Ukraine can be accepted into the EU and NATO only after the countries of the Western Balkans, allegedly because they have been waiting for it for a long time and were promised it. And the fact that those countries do nothing for this progress, unlike Ukraine, they do not care. As well as the fact that they have a population, a very large part of which does not support Euro-Atlantic integration and has chauvinistic or pro-Russian views. Neither in Bosnia nor in Serbia was there any powerful revolution for European values, there are also big questions in Montenegro, North Macedonia and Albania. It was Ukraine's mistake that we submitted an application to the EU so late, and NATO's mistake was refusing to grant us a MAP in 2008. But then Bush promoted the idea of granting membership, and now Biden is blocking it and is the main blocker for Ukraine's membership right now. And if Serbia, Bosnia together with Serbian Krajina and Montenegro are included in the EU before Ukraine, they will never let Ukraine into the EU, at least the first two countries. And we have enough of Hungary. That is why I am now skeptical about the re-election of Biden with his current entourage. Because conversations about corruption and other trivial nonsense are already starting again. However, the level of corruption in Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece and Cyprus did not bother anyone at the time of entry...--Yasnodark (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Did you see Prigozhin's raid on Moscow? He had 8-20 thousand people with a minimal amount of equipment and he almost reached Moscow in two days, until Patrushev ordered him to stop. That's what I said. Can you imagine what 10 well-trained Ukrainian brigades with hundreds of armored vehicles could have done if Biden had not so stubbornly forbidden us to do it? After all, all combat-ready troops of the Russian Federation are now in Ukraine. Why should the best Ukrainians die in the south and east of Ukraine storming several kilometers of fortifications instead of reaching Moscow almost unscathed? Why is the USA so afraid of the collapse of Russia, because all their previous fears of escalation in Ukraine or the collapse of the USSR were groundless? Instead, it is this indecision that opens the hands of the Kremlin for the worst actions...--Yasnodark (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Why do you think Biden is so stubbornly blocking Ukraine's membership in NATO and the supply to Ukraine of old-style American F-16 aircraft, Apache helicopters and short and medium-range missiles? While George W. Bush lobbied for Ukraine's membership in the Alliance and did everything to end the Russian aggression in Georgia in 6 days by bringing the US Sixth Fleet into the Black Sea to the shores of Georgia. And why does Biden allow a citizen of Ukraine and the ex-president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili to be killed, without doing anything to free him. Isn't this the fate that the United States is preparing for Zelensky in its desire to keep Russia in the current format?
They are told that they can take Ukraine after war, but they do nothing to make our offensive successful. The troops of the NATO countries have never attacked without the 5th advantage in the air, while we have at least 5 times fewer planes and helicopters on our offensive line, that is, at least 25 times less than by NATO standards. We are not given missiles that fire at 300-500 km but Russia fires at us missiles with a range of 500-3000 km, which Bill Clinton forced us to give to Russia from aircraft that he forced to give to Russia. Has the US forgotten the Budapest Guarantees? Also, we are forbidden to shoot at Russia, and it is shelling peaceful cities throughout the country. And our country is the largest of those that are completely in Europe.
Texas is a red state in many ways, do you know any Republicans who are not Trumpists? Who are they planning to vote for? And who do you plan to vote for, because as I say, Biden is again the best option among the Democrats. How much better would Anthony Blinken of the Democrats and Nikki Haley or Condoleezza Rice of the Republicans be, though, than a Biden-Trump repeat or even a Biden-DeSanctis variant. By the way, our region is similar to Texas in electoral terms, it is one of those doubtful regions where the fate of the country was determined. Although our electoral system is simpler and the president with the most votes in the country wins.
By the way, before his death last year, shortly after the start of a new aggression of the first president Kravchuk, who at that time had just begun to recover from heart surgery, all 6 presidents and one acting president were alive. By this indicator, we were probably the first in the world. Now the United States is probably in first place - 6 living presidents, and we have 5 + 1.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm much more for Ukraine NATO membership than I was before Feb. 2022, but Ukraine can't actually be admitted now, with undetermined borders in the middle of a war. The non-extreme Texas GOP politician is Will Hurd, but I don't think he has too much support. Biden doesn't have any real Democratic challengers at this point (Marianne Williamson and RFK Jr. are stunt candidates who are not even really Democrats). If any challengers do arise, I'll consider them then. AnonMoos (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Border problems did not prevent post-Nazi Germany and thoroughly corrupt Cyprus from joining NATO. Although it threatened much bigger problems. The powerful USSR did not stand in the way of supplying West Berlin, and a weak Russia causes all Western politicians to be cowardly? Ukraine stands at the gate of the democratic world, losing its best sons, and US or NATO troops can only protect Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Syria or Taiwan, which have nothing in common with them? Despite the fact that the USA and other NATO nuclear powers, together with Russia, did not take away the entire most powerful arsenal of weapons from them. How much can you be afraid of the Russian Federation? After all, they never carried out their threats, especially in response to the decisive actions of the enemy. Acceptance into NATO would be a strong step, and after a weak summit, Russia is sending troops to Belarus with the aim of potentially capturing the Suwalki Corridor. This is the result of the weak position of the Biden administration. And this would never happen if Ukraine joined the Alliance.
This is all reminiscent of the Munich conspiracy and NATO leaders have forgotten the similar slogan "one for all and all for one". D'Artagnan was less aristocratic than Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, and they didn't know him at all and had reason to kill him, and all four turned against the cardinal's guards. Unfortunately, only Macron and Sunak at the summit resembled Aramis a little, and Biden and Scholz are not at all similar to Athos and Porthos in their behavior. They don't even look like De Treville, more like Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarini. Money and intrigue are more important to them than the lives of younger partners. After all, the behavior of the West is like those Athos and Porthos who say to D'Artagnan, we will not fight alongside you for victory, nor can we give you a sword, but we will give you a knife, but in no case do not use it in Britain, only on the territory your France Something similar. And we'll never take you into the Musketeers until you get the pendants out of Britain with this fine knife of ours. So thank us for this great and powerful help!
Biden is like that old Akella, who tamed Mowgli-Ukraine, who is about to fail, and this is exactly what Putin-Sherkhan is waiting for. However, he forgot that he must be responsible for those whom he tamed. But even more he will remind King Théoden struck by the charms of Saruman and the lies of Gríma Wormtongue. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the president of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, looks like. Powerful and old and bewitched by the magic and lies of Wormtongue Jake Sullivan and other agents of influence of the Kremlin in the District of Columbia William Burns and John Kerry, who are telling him that a slow China with a small handful of nuclear weapons and total dependence on the US in the form of trillions in debt and turnover is greater a threat to fast and fascist Russia, whose goal is the destruction of the West. Unlike China, which is slow to form its goals and only applies economic instruments. But all the same, they seem to tremble with fear because of the possible collapse of Russia, because it seems to strengthen the People's Republic of China - the biggest threat. And if they continue to act like this, it will lead to a world war right now and it will not be necessary to wait 100 years for a war with China. And every reasonable person understands this, and for some reason Biden believes them or pretends to.
Kennedy and Williamson, in my opinion, are even worse than Trump for Ukraine, so I hope that they have no chance of being in the final elections. I'm not talking about Biden, with all his minuses and the caution of the old wolf. But better old wolf than those three inhabitants of the Shutter Island flying over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
AnonMoos Hello! I will not be fools and I will be honest, rude and without exception.
The fact is that Biden promised F-16 aircraft last 2022 summer and even funds were allocated for pilot training, but then Sullivan, Burns, Kerry and all this horde of Kremlin wormers around him forced him not to go for it, because it will "escalation" because of this, thousands of Ukrainians died and the Kakhovska HPP was blown up, 10 unique steppe reserves with all the flora and fauna were destroyed and the Kakhovka reservoir was drained, which made a real disaster at the largest nuclear power plant in Europe - Zaporizhzhia, which is under the control of the occupiers, we have been fed for a year and a half about providing planes and ATACMC and every time the date was postponed and the Ukrainians saved democracy in Europe with their blood and worked miracles, however, over the past 8 months Russia has created a multi-echelon defense and again they did not give us planes and even gave us training, they even forbade other countries to train our pilots, many of them have already died due to the running of Biden, who does not notice the horde of Kremlin agents around him, recently I learned that Senator Obama personally came to Donetsk to destroy our unique radar systems "Kolchuga" after the "NT" fake about their pseudo-sale to Iraq, which was also exposed no hints, I'm not talking about facts. He listens to rotten mouths and does not listen to Hodges and other combat generals, the most experienced American pilots of the USA, who wanted to join the Foreign Legion of Ukraine, also did not get the go-ahead, during this time, the Russian Federation built a EW system and factories for the production of combat drones. And even the M1 Abrams tanks never reached us. Only now are groups of pilots being formed again for training, but it will take months. And without aviation and short- and medium-range missiles, the offensive is practically unreal, a lot of time and lives of the best Ukrainians have been lost, among them outstanding athletes and artists, but Ukraine has already understood that at this stage of the war, planes cannot be expected from Biden-Chamberlain, but tanks and missiles can come too late and for months we cut into the enemy's multi-layered defense using all possible military tricks, so despite the betrayal of our partners, the Ukrainian army is still capable of a breakthrough.
Although if Ukraine had not been forbidden to go to the enemy's territory, all these sacrifices would have been unnecessary, because there is no echeloned defense or troops from Chernihiv to Moscow, not 9 equipped but 5 brigades could reach Moscow, and 9 could take it and the end of the war would come. However, we were stubbornly forbidden to do so, and boys and girls at the front and peaceful people all over Ukraine are dying from missile attacks, the head of the President's Office Yermak asked for the "Patriot" system six months before the invasion, the president asked to impose sanctions a week before the possible invasion to prevent the invasion and the West said that there would be an invasion and did nothing to help. Recruited by the Kremlin when he lived in Moscow, the head of the CIA Burns, as the US ambassador, presciently predicted that Afghanistan would last at least 6 months after the withdrawal of troops, and he did not resist for three days, millions of people accustomed to democracy were betrayed and thrown at the mercy of even military interpreters and prominent the artists were taken away not by the American, but by the Ukrainian special forces. This same brilliant "Nostradamus" with the Kremlin spirit predicted that Ukraine would hold out for three days and once again fell down and kept his post, is this not Biden's foresight or something else? Sullivan is even worse, he is one of those "golden boys" that Russia drives in droves, talking about the great Russian people and recruiting the golden youth of the West and young intellectuals, some for money and some for ballet and books. Every time you meet congressmen or senators or their representatives, if you go to such meetings, demand the resignation of Sullivan and Burns, because if they stay there will be the Third World. Their place is in the most rotten ditch, not in high offices. Kamala Devil Harris should also be got rid of immediately, because if Biden doesn't do it, he will never win at his age with such a weak vice president, when to play liberalism, it should be Blinken, Hodges, or if a woman is more powerful, for example Linda Thomas-Greenfield may be better. Otherwise, he may lose even to Trump, and if this continues, the Ukrainians will be ready to take risks, even rooting for Trump, he is unpredictable and the Kremlin has classified information on him, he is indifferent to values and the world order will be at risk, his second term is very dangerous for everyone, because of the limitations will not. However, he has already spat on that compromising material once, it was under Trump that we were first given the "Javelins," which we requested for 5 years under Obama, and it was under Trump that Western bombers with nuclear weapons flew over the border with Crimea to fulfill the Budapest memorandum and no one put them under questioning the freedom of navigation in the Black Sea, now the US administration has completely ignored this basic principle of its international policy. It was precisely against such double standards that Heinlein and McCain, who were called hawks and militarists, and they were simply far-sighted people who did not want greater sacrifices in a greater war, because they went through such wars personally and did not consider soldiers as pawns on a large chessboard, and Russia as a democratic and cultural the country it never was. Therefore, either Biden will change his rotten environment or the Wagnerites will go to Kaliningrad so that the Suwalki corridor between Poland and Lithuania will disappear and then American soldiers will die in a new big war. That is why, in the current conditions, any Republican other than Trump is better for Ukraine, America and the world than Biden in a second term with the current advisers and vice president and heads of special services, because no Republican will talk about escalation without providing weapons. Unfortunately, Trump is not a true Republican, and that's the problem. And God forbid we see a new Biden-Trump duel...
I told you right away that the offensive would not be quick, because planes, missiles, and tanks were not given to us in time, and unfortunately, even the next promises turned out to be only promises, and the destruction of the Kakhovska HPP made it impossible to make a backup offensive after leaks from the United States about the main direction of the attack, but now I still say that a breakthrough is possible at the border of August and September, because the Ukrainian soldiers are already fighting in a different way due to the lack of essentials, and at least the cluster shells recently gave us, and now the advantage of the Russian artillery is "only" twofold, and not 20-fold, as it was last year and 5 times as much as it was in the spring. Ukrainians have also developed models of air and sea drones that reach military bases in the occupied territories and in Russia, so the Russians will not be so comfortable. But the main thing is that the Americans should know that Ukrainians are killed every day in the occupied territories and in peaceful cities, in addition, Ukrainians from the occupied territories are forcibly mobilized and sent to their deaths without the possibility of surrendering or retreating because the cordoning units and the situation at the front do not give such an opportunity. Even people with pro-Ukrainian views are often forced to fight against other Ukrainians, because torture chambers in basements are even worse and few choose this option of torture and slow death. All this should be remembered when the Americans in high places conduct their "escalation" calculations, once again not providing us with the necessary weapons and saying that the Ukrainians do not need them. Because this is an outright lie. Read the interview of Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhnyi https://mind.ua/en/news/20259412-we-need-more-weapons-airplanes-and-patience-key-points-from-general-zaluzhnys-interview-with-th .
P.S. Forgive me if I am again too harsh in my judgments, but I can see better, because in 1939-41 Roosevelt was just as inflexible in helping Britain and even more so the USSR and only Pearl Harbor rallied the allies. I don't think that it will be good to fall into the same rake again for the new American president of the lean years, because in this way you may not live to victory, and the desire to avert escalation will only lead to it, and this has already happened more than 10 times in this war alone and that old war as well and no less. We always thank our Western partners, but they don't tell us enough. And we always say you give too little for victory and too late. Ukraine may not be able to withstand it if this continues in the future, and the West does not take this into account. Just as there will be no peace in Europe as long as Russia exists in the present imperial prison of nations, Carthage must be destroyed. What do you think would happen if Allen Dulles managed to sign a separate agreement with the Nazis and there was no entry of the Allies into the territory of Germany? There would be another even bigger war and new millions of victims, and it is not clear to us how Biden does not understand this, giving a negotiating mandate to the new Dulles - Sullivan and Burns, who are playing into the hands of the Kremlin, giving the Russians a chance to make new, more powerful weapons. That is why we thank you, but we are waiting for the necessary weapons and thanks for the fact that Ukraine holds the front of democracy, because this is not a Ukrainian war, but a war of the West with Russia, to which the West has not yet appeared and is fighting with the hands of Ukrainians, shedding our blood.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
There are rumors about Wagner group soldiers converging on Kaliningrad, but I can't really see it being used as a military beachhead, since Poland and Lithuania are NATO members, and Russia is fully aware that the U.S. has been interested in them for many decades (the U.S. never recognized the Soviet annexation of the Baltics -- see Kersten Committee etc), things which are not true of Ukraine. Russia would have difficulty resupplying Kaliningrad in any conflict. AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos You are wrong, Russia repeatedly tested NATO for weakness during the time of Obama and Biden, and each time NATO countries demonstrated their weakness:
Russia killed Lytvynenko and Berezovsky in Britain
NATO countries have massively destroyed their military stockpiles and still have not gone to a significant increase in production, the USA this year plans to reach the production level of 24 thousand shells per month, the Russian Federation fired 80-110 thousand shells per day in Ukraine last year, now 10-40 thousands of shells per day, in the spring of this year, Ukraine fired 3,000 per day, now 8,000 per day, i.e. 240,000 per month, and Mr. Sullivan(ov) still wants to make peace with Russia and is waiting for NATO to have no shells at all
NATO troops left Iraq, which created the prerequisites for the formation of the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" by Russia - millions of refugees, which led to the rise of populists in Western democracies and the destruction of thousands of cultural monuments and hundreds of thousands of people
NATO did not give the MAP for the accession of Ukraine and Georgia and as a result of the invasion of Georgia and later Ukraine
NATO went into a reset after Russia seized 20 percent of Georgia without returns or reparations
Russia blew up military depots in the Czech Republic and Bulgaria with impunity
NATO did not react to the occupation of Crimea and the invasion of Donbas, assessing the situation in Ukraine as internal problems of Ukraine and not an international conflict
NATO did not militarily support the democratic leader of Venezuela and kept Maduro in power
Russia attacked Skrypal in Britain and a Bulgarian military magnate in Bulgaria
NATO enabled the forces of Assad and Russia to restore power in Syria
NATO enabled Russia to stage a mutiny in Libya
Russia carried out contract killings in Germany
Russia carried out contract killings in the CAR and other atrocities of the Wagner groups went unnoticed
NATO does not respond militarily to provocations and surveillance in the Baltics and EU countries
There was no NATO reaction to Lukashenko's usurpation of power and brutal suppression of protests
NATO did not curb the pro-Russian juntas in Mali and Burkina Faso
The troops fled from Afghanistan
There was no NATO military response to the hordes of refugees in the Mediterranean and later from Belarus, caused by Russia's actions in Africa and the Middle East
There was no NATO reaction to the suppression of porotests in Kazakhstan
NATO announced that it will not send troops to Ukraine
NATO did not react to the PRC's military exercises in Taiwan waters and international waters
Russia was allowed to occupy the Sea of Azov
Russia blew up the Nord Streams in the Baltic
Russia blew up military warehouses in Bulgaria
Russian missiles bombed Ukraine near the border with Poland and were not shot down
Russian missiles bombed Ukraine near the border with Hungary and did not shoot them down
NATO did not react in any way to the attack on NATO surveillance aircraft and civilian ships in the Black Sea, including the sinking of Estonian and Romanian ships
NATO allowed pro-Russian forces to enter the Philippines and Chile, as well as Brazil
Russian missiles fell into the territory of Poland and were not shot down, even when they denied that they were Russian missiles
Russian missiles repeatedly flew over the territory of Romania to Ukraine and were never shot down
NATO did not react to the imprisonment and torture of Sakaashvili in Georgia by Russian proxy forces
NATO did not react in any way to the shelling of Ukrainian ports and grain elevators and Danube ports
NATO constantly sabotages the supply of aircraft and missiles and other critical weapons to Ukraine, which is not in short supply and because of which lives and armored vehicles are lost and enterprises, infrastructure, cultural, educational, medical, scientific and sports facilities in Ukraine and nature are destroyed
Russia was given the opportunity to take control of the entire Black Sea with the exception of Turkish waters and NATO declared that there would be no escorting of civilian vessels
Russian helicopters were not shot down over Poland, assessing the situation as a border error
Pro-Russian junta came to power in Niger - NATO does not react, Wagner groups are involved
Hungary with Orban's pro-Russian regime has not yet been included in NATO and Turkey has not yet been admitted to the EU
NATO still allows the broadcasting of pro-Russian and Russian parties and propaganda media on its territory, moreover, the once authoritative media of the USA are completely permeated by Russian agents
NATO announced a defense plan for the Baltic states, which envisages a six-month occupation of the 3 Baltic states
Non-recognition of the occupation of the Baltic states for 52 years did not make their residents free and did not free them from the killing of repressions and deportations of hundreds of thousands of residents of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. At any moment, Russia can try to invade the Wagner groups and Belarusians on the border of Lithuania and Poland and can say that it has nothing to do with this in the case of an operational response from NATO, and if there is no response, Putin will boast of successful land expansion or praise Lukashenko
NATO's only hope is the decisive actions of the armed forces of Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, Sweden or Finland in the first weeks of a possible military provocation in one direction or another, because NATO as a whole is not ready to repel even a proxy attack Russia, not to mention a full-scale invasion of the Baltics, although the first option is even more difficult because it will give another reason not to react.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sure that NATO has many failings, but a direct attack on a member state for the purpose of seizing territory would invoke its core central purpose, and it's difficult to imagine this situation being met with complaisance or apathy by other member states, or that Putin imagines that it would be met with any such complaisance and apathy. Trump could mess things up if he's elected in 2024 (he's always hated NATO for some reason), but he wouldn't be president until January 2025, and who knows what the military situation in the Russia-Ukraine war will be by that time... AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Above, I listed a whole bunch of fairly direct attacks on NATO forces: the destruction of military depots and people on NATO territory, the destruction of aircraft and ships of NATO countries, missile strikes and flights of missiles and helicopters into the space of NATO countries, and not only the fifth was not included, but also 4th article. And even the 5th provides only for consultations, and there are not such stupid people sitting in the Kremlin that the attack would be their direct style, and their military doctrine always provides for indirect hybrid methods of military operations. Indeed, during Stoltenberg's time, NATO, which was pushed to be disbanded, found a new life and the former supporter of Russia lost to the supporter of democracy in his soul, Stoltenberg did a lot against the opposition of vegetarian pacifists and Russian agents within the alliance. That is why progress is so difficult, besides, the targets do not understand the risks and do not understand the essence of Russia and the impossibility of its democratic development in its current form. By the way, Trump was the first to pay attention to the schedule - moral and physical NATO, he is not an enemy of NATO, he made it clear that NATO and the USA are now the same thing and if European countries do not rearm and spend money instead of destroying their stocks and equipment, then in the absence of the desire in the USA to fight NATO will fall in weeks... The only exceptions are Turkey, Britain and partly Poland during Trump's time and so far not much has changed, although combat-capable Finland has been added and France and Germany are also increasing their combat capability, albeit at a very slow pace. I'm telling you, the defense plan of the 3 Baltic countries provided for their complete rapid occupation, which should last six months and only after six months of preparation with the destruction of the best people and the deportation of many others to Siberia, which of course NATO did not think about, because there is in the 21st, are there countries that will violate conventions and rules? Idiots. NATO planned to respond and start a battle for the Baltic states, this was the plan for the time of the invasion of Ukraine...
So, Putin is not stupid enough to go straight, but he is defiantly stupid enough to go hybrid, and the decision depends exclusively on those advisers who will be next to him at this time - hawks or pragmatists, and if hawks are smart or stupid and if pragmatists - then pragmatics of agreements or pragmatics of hybrid power and agreements after an attack on the rights of the strong. And if one of the two aggressive Waratans out of 4 wins, a hybrid attack will be made. In the Kremlin, it's not us who will say this, it's Prigozhin's crazy prisoners and fascists, we ourselves barely suffocated them, you yourself saw how they almost didn't reach Moscow, thank you for helping the intelligence officers then and that didn't happen. However, Lukashenko helped us with them then and now he conspired with them, and as you can see his troops also attacked the corridor, we are against it, of course, I am afraid that now they will attack our bases and fleet in Kaliningrad, etc. Oh, it was already seized while you and I were talking, Mr. Sullivan, what a shame, you probably still need to impose sanctions on Lukashenka and Prigozhin. Moreover, the attacks will most certainly not be on Poland, but on Lithuania or directly along the border of the two states. Do you really think that a couple of thousand NATO troops in Lithuania and even 10-20 thousand hastily assembled Lithuanian troops will be able to stop 10 thousand Wagner specialists who have gone through 5 wars with a reserve of several tens of thousands of Belarusian troops who have been training continuously for 20 months. Do you know how long it takes to transfer troops? And will the reaction be instantaneous, so that troops of at least the size that Prigozhin and Lukashenko can field will be deployed within a week? And if the attack is successful, the Kremlin will say that the territory of the Union State of Russia and Belarus and an attack on it will be an attack on the territory of Russia and the beginning of a nuclear war, what will Biden say. By the way, Trump reacted in Syria instantly, and after Russia said that hundreds of Wagnerites attacking the US-controlled factory were not Russians, they were immediately bombed. Erdogan immediately shot down a Russian plane in controlled airspace. However, the Democrats have shown that they will, to put it bluntly, chew snot and not respond quickly, and if the Kremlin thinks so, then there will be attacks. Of course, there will be a reaction, but even if it is lightning-fast in decision-making, it will take weeks or at least days for the transfer of troops, and in this period of time I only hope for the Armed Forces of Poland, Ukraine and other Baltic countries, in particular, the important position of Finland and Sweden. But even if everything happens like this and the response is lightning-fast, it is better for Poland and Lithuania and can save Latvia and Estonia, but even in this case, Russia will receive another bonus: all the weapons that were planned for Ukraine will be transferred to the Baltic States and Russian personnel forces will move to a new offensive, more precisely, they will intensify it, because it is already underway in a number of areas, and now the question is being resolved where the breakthrough will be faster: Ukrainian in the South or Russian in the east or north of my country.
P.S. The area of Taiwan is less than 36 thousand square km, the area of Ukraine is less than 604 thousand square km, the controlled territory is more than more than 490 thousand square km, the United States provided Taiwan with 50 batteries of Patriot systems, and Ukraine with 2 Patriot systems, is this really fair and are the risks so great for in East Asia to allow Russian missiles to destroy everything and everyone in Ukraine with impunity? And is it possible to give Ukraine 10 batteries to cover another 10 million people and the largest enterprises and cultural centers in 7 cities and their suburbs, as well as 3 nuclear plants, and Taiwan to promise to provide 10 from America in case of an attack on the Chinese island?Yasnodark (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! I waited and procrastinated for a long time before writing this ill-advised post, but my patience ran out, it's been half a year, but the visa is still there., but my patience gave way. One gets the impression that you have only selfish and short-sighted idiots sitting in the Congress, and not politicians-statesmen. and from both sides (of course, your parliament is no exception, but I expected better from the most influential legislative body in the world). While Ukrainians are dying en masse due to lack of weapons and ammunition, these incompetent narcissistic profane
have been blocking a vital aid package for Ukraine for months because of their own political ambitions, stubbornly dragging the whole world into the maelstrom of the third world war. I think that in order for Ukraine to receive help and not be able to seize the whole of Europe, the PRC should strike the US military base in Okinawa, maybe then the imbeciles will wake up, that they are playing with fire. After all, populists from both parties behaved in the same way after the beginning of the Second World War until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, not giving the necessary help to either Great Britain or the USSR, and only then did Roosevelt and the parliamentarians wake up. Then the situation changed and it was already too late for many millions of dead in Europe and hundreds of thousands of Americans, and these victims could have been avoided if real help had been given after the attack on China, Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia or Poland, but even an attack on France, Britain or The USSR did not significantly change the situation.
Experience says: a miser pays twice and whoever does not want to pay in money will pay in blood. It seems that America is choosing the second path, stepping on the same rake again. And you still don't hear how the appetite of the Russians is whetting and how they are going to conquer all of Europe and write on the car instead of last year's "To Berlin" now "To Washington", how they switched to military rails and how the aid to the DPRK, Iran and the PRC is increasing Russia, while the USA and the EU fall into lethargy, because the EU package of 50 billion is blocked by Putin's friend Orban due to his common ties with the Russian mafia, moreover, the only safe trade route to the west is blocked in Poland, Slovakia and Hungary by agents of the Kremlin from the right-wing parties, and the Russian Federation in all countries supports the far-right and the far-left, and blind voters do not notice this, by the way, you have socialists among the Democrats and Trumpists among the Republicans, who influence the parties as a whole, and both of them are paid by the Kremlin. I'm not talking about how the Russian Federation organized an attack on Israel from Gaza and the now planned attack by Venezuela on Guyana...
However, most sleazy politicians and journalists cannot put 2 and 2 together...
Time after time, the New York Times and the Washington Post spread unprecedented fakes about Ukraine and release secret information about military supplies and plans of Ukraine, disrupting our operations or revealing our secret special operations, and they do it as disgustingly as Tucker Carlson or Fox News.
However, most sleazy politicians and journalists cannot put 2 and 2 together
Don't congressmen and journalists on the payroll of the Kremlin understand that hundreds of thousands of Americans will die because of them? And why is the socialist minority controlling the Democrats by pushing aid to Gaza and blocking the migrant barrier, while the Trumpist minority is manipulating all Republicans by making unacceptably tough demands on migrants, blocking the package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan? By the way, the United States has given Taiwan, with its area of 36,500 square kilometers 50 Patriot systems, and Ukraine, with an area of 603 square kilometers or more than 490, 000 square kilometers, currently has only 1 system, and all allies - only 4 should be installed by the end of winter, despite the fact that no one is firing missiles at Taiwan, and Ballistic missiles are flying in Ukraine, which can be shot down only by "Patriot" and the European analogue, now there are only 3 of them, which can protect only the capital and one more city, although ballistic missiles have not been shot down in any of the other cities... The planes have not been provided yet, because training it just started, and pro-Russian forces came to power in the Netherlands, which may not provide the promised planes when someone learns, although 60 of the best pilots have already died, including the 2 most famous ghosts of Kyiv and their teacher, who had to fly out himself due to a lack of pilots.
There are no rules for the Russians: ours run out of ammunition - they surrender in captivity and are shot, and if they are not shot - they are tortured in the basements for years without the right to exchange, because the Russians in our captivity live in better conditions than they have at home at large, and many of I did not see them that way, because they are prisoners.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
And I am not the only "free radical" in my views, here is an example of what Tetyana Danylenko, the wife of the brigade commander of the most combat-capable Third Assault Brigade Andriy Biletskyi, writes, a well-known independent journalist who was the TV face of Maidans in 2004-5 and 2013-14:
"If Ukraine loses, Russia will form an army of one million Ukrainians and advance on Europe. The Ukrainian authorities do not really want to announce a mass mobilization in order not to frighten the electorate. The Kremlin will die. This whole horde with foreign troops will march to the West. In the Baltic States, we will check whether Article 5 of NATO is working. It is obvious that it will work, but as long as NATO countries hold consultations, it will no longer be relevant. And then the most interesting will begin. No exit from Afghanistan for the US will be comparable in effect to those events that are quite possible in the event of Ukraine's failure. In a matter of days, the United States will turn from a world hegemon into just a big country, one of many. This will be an opportunity to find out whether the final foreign policy collapse will help them improve the quality of health insurance and solve the problem of the border with Mexico..."--Yasnodark (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure I have much to say, except that the main problem in the United States is the Republican Party, and it has continuously deteriorated and degenerated over the last 15 years. God help Ukraine if Trump gets re-relected... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoosMy thoughts on this matter are somewhat different, but I will speak about this another time. Not about Trump, but about the Republicans for the last 15 years. And now I will ask:
AnonMoos Did you see my previous questioning post here?-
By the way, for comparison, the last two aid packages from Denmark for Ukraine amount to 500 million and 1 billion euros, respectively, i.e. 1,500 billion euros together, i.e. 300 euros for each resident of Denmark, the last 2 packages from the USA amounted to 175 and 200 million, i.e. 375 million dollars together, which is 1 euro per US resident. These are the pies, as Jim Carrey said.-Yasnodark (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello AnonMoos! I wanted to ask you whether the missile and drone strikes on Ukraine before and after the New Year, in particular the largest attack on Ukraine of the entire war on December 29, were covered in the US?
Because US support has completely stopped and the last billion from the reserve fund, which was planned for Ukraine, Biden transferred in December to replenish US military reserves, and Johnson is spreading an outright lie that we do not need support in December and January, although our troops stopped the offensive from -for this reason, problems with containing the Russian influx are already being felt...--Yasnodark (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ukraine is yet another victim of the dysfunction and disorder of the modern U.S. Republican party. Not sure what to say other than "welcome to the club", and I'm voting for Biden and Democrats in November. By the way, I happened to see the "Babelboxes" on your user page, and you have English skills above the "en-1" level. I list myself as "fr-1", and I'm definitely less fluent in French than you are in English... AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! Regarding the language, this is a false opinion, although at one time my level may have been higher than the first one, now it is rather lower than it. On the one hand you are telling the truth, but it is only on one hand and of course Biden is the more predictable candidate and most Republicans have turned into puppets of the king of surprises Trump and everything will depend on his personal whims in case of his victory. However, it was Trump who provided Ukraine with the first "Javelins" and imposed sanctions on the Nord Stream, while the Obama and Biden government provided us with only blankets, and the Biden and Harris government lifted sanctions on the Nord Stream. Before the invasion, Biden did very little to stop the Russian Federation, and the US-initiated evacuation of the embassies of almost all NATO countries freed the Kremlin's hands for aggression.
Then, when Ukraine fought on its own, aid came, and every time we could defeat Russia, then the aid was artificially reduced, all types of weapons were provided to us late and in small quantities, and the planes still have not been provided, Biden blocked for 2 years even the training of our pilots by other countries, even the transfer Soviet airplanes in Poland - they arbitrarily disassembled their airplanes and told us where they were placed on the border in the forest disassembled Soviet airplanes. Such is the good old cautious Biden. Mr. "there is no need for escalation". Dozens of experienced American pilots wanted to fight in Ukraine and were not given planes. And almost 70 of the best Ukrainian pilots have already died because of the positions of the Biden cabinet because they risked their lives on leaky troughs made 40-60 years ago
However, the worst thing was that Biden blocked the implementation of the Lend-Lease law initiated by the Republicans specifically to avoid pauses in the supply of weapons and the possibility of providing really powerful aid, even when a crisis arose in Congress, he did not automatically extend it and the possibility of extension no longer depended on him and her was lost
And it was the Democrats who changed the rules so that only 1 congressman could make the resignation of the speaker possible.
When McCarthy was dismissed from the post of speaker who agreed to put to a vote the draft law on aid to Ukraine for 2024, all the Democrats voted for his resignation, knowing that the next speaker could be a Trumpist.
Moreove, the Democrats could elect an excellent republican adequate pro-Ukrainian speaker Steve Scalise and they did not vote.
Later, they could elect a more or less adequate and independent balanced slightly Trumpist Jim Jordan by giving at least 20 votes, but they did not vote and were elected with the help of Trumpist votes and Trump's puppet schizo Johnson was elected and what is strange is now they are trying to convince him of support in case of resignation instead initiate it and vote for Scales.
In addition, the position of the Democrats on the border is also not clear, so I asked about your attitude to the current migration policy of the United States...
Therefore, in the opinion of a thoughtful part of Ukrainians, the Democrats are not much better than the Republicans
Our ideal Republican candidate is Nikki Haley, but is there any chance of her being nominated. From the Democrats, of course, there is no alternative to Biden, although Gavin Newsom, Tony Blinken or Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio could easily defeat Trump, it would be easier if Biden did not even refuse to go to the elections, but maybe he removed Kamala Harris and went with someone from this trio. What am I afraid of? the biggest thing is Biden's refusal to run in favor of Michelle Obama - this is the beginning of the end for Ukraine and the beginning of the end for the entire civilized world. You don't understand this - but we can see it. And who to choose, Biden or Trump, in the interests of Ukraine is difficult to determine. As they say in our country: a terrible end is better than endless horror, and he who does not take risks does not drink champagne, so if Biden does not come to his senses and provide quick help without looking back at Congress, then Trump is better - Trump is surrounded by idiots however, Biden is surrounded by Russian agents who have a real influence on him, and Trump is influenced only by Trump. Ukrainians did not make a mistake when they elected Zelensky - a cat - in a bag - instead of the more predictable Poroshenko, so if the Americans elect Trump - we will try to take a second risk. If there were still elections now, instead, you still have to wait until your inauguration...
What is completely incomprehensible to me is why you have such objectionable laws: for example, in our country, if the budget is not adopted on time, the country lives on 1/12 of last year's budget, and why there is no such simple solution in the USA, I do not understand at all.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos What was your impression after the debate? Biden and his supporters talk a lot about Trump's lies. There were many manipulations in his words on various topics, but regarding Ukraine he told the pure truth, instead, Biden lied and manipulated facts everywhere, I think partly due to health problems, because he lost cause-and-effect and temporal relationships due to memory problems yatta and milestone functions. So in this pair, the winner is known, unfortunately, it is still unknown what kind of winner it is, because it is not clear what Trump and his will be like. And the replacement candidates are even worse, for Biden, not for Trump.
In my opinion, you would have chosen better actors like us: Sean Penn, Orlando Bloom, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Aniston, Ben Affleck, Barbra Streisand or Julia Roberts - it would have been much better. Actors have a big plus - endurance to loads and, unlike athletes, intelligence is often present, and the cynicism of politicians is absent. By the way, in what sequence would you place these celebrities?
I didn't watch the debate -- I usually don't watch them in the 21st century, and in this case there's almost nothing whatever that could happen in a debate which would increase my chances of voting for Trump. "Hollywood liberals" are a whole separate topic to write about. Sean Penn and Barbra Streisand have eccentricities or sharp edges which might not translate well into the political sphere. AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
film director Sean Penn was the only American journalist who did not flee Ukraine before the invasion and was the only American journalist at the press conference on the day of the invasion, he consistently defends human rights and if elected, he could be your Churchill. Because he thinks in terms of continents and not his own personal interests
Barbra Streisand was the first infamous celebrity to volunteer to support the United 24 fundraising platform. I didn't call them dangerous liberals of foreign views.
Although the other three from the list are somewhat uncertain in today's world, but the same Bloom came to Ukraine in 2014 and 2022, and DiCaprio also supported the truth, Aniston was the first to pay attention to the "Come Back Alive" platform.
Any of them will definitely be better than both candidates. You have to watch the debate. Unfortunately, I overslept these debates of yours and have only watched many fragments so far.
Biden looked pitiful, a pale shadow of himself, and even on the friendly SNN channel scored only 33 percent out of 100. Trump looked unconventionally decent, as manipulative as always, but surprisingly less than Biden. It was especially depressing to watch Biden when he, when he came across a convenient topic of banning abortion, connected it to the mass arrival of migrants in an attempt to saddle a topic convenient for the Republicans--Yasnodark (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I wanted to ask you how widely you covered the recent attacks on civilian infrastructure and hospitals in Ukraine? Because it seems to me that most of the Western media deliberately downplay the lowliness of these attacks, so that again and again they do not provide us with air defense systems, aircraft, places for training and so that they do not lift the ban on strikes with American weapons on missile systems, military airfields and bases on the territory Russian Federation, where are these inhumane attacks coming from, in particular on the largest children's hospital of Ukraine and the maternity hospital and other hospitals?
The attack on the Kyiv children's hospital definitely received a day of prominent news coverage here in the U.S. (the others, not so much). AnonMoos (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
How much longer will the Democrats follow Chamberlain's cowardly path? At first they forced us to give up all our long-range and nuclear weapons to Russia, and now they prohibit the use of theirs and block the transfer of aircraft even by other allies...
Once again the USA and Germany are blocking NATO membership of a country that once again chooses freedom for the downtrodden bourgeois from the west with the blood of its citizens, we fought for the west as part of the NATO contingent in the 1990s, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukrainians are doing it again on their territory. And the West, instead of putting its shoulder to the shoulder, sending a contingent of airplanes and helicopters and giving the opportunity to fight with Western weapons, behaves like the last cowards, and this will lead to very bad things for the West itself, because it will have to fight on its land and your peoples. If you act in such an indecisive manner. The forces of Ukraine are imminent, and the crimes of the Kremlin are terrible, and if Ukraine falls, the infantile West will not stand a chance against the coalition of evil. Every year, Iran transfers more than 1,000 combat drones to Russia, North Korea 5 million missiles at the same time, and the West to Ukraine 100,000 per month, two years ago Russia fired such a number in 2 days, and Ukraine this winter in 1-2 months, every day Russia advances destroying the next city - now it is the turn of the last two cities on the old border of the beginning of 2022 - Toretsk and New York.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
--Yasnodark (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not sure why you're blaming Democrats, when the recent arms package was delayed entirely by Republican-internal problems in the House (with Trump sneering and jeering from the sidelines). And I remember the Ukrainian government in the 1990s was somewhat willing to get rid of its nuclear weapons. AnonMoos (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos You're wrong: in May 2024, Biden signed into law a wonderful Lend-Lease bill submitted by the old Republicans, elected in the pre-Trump era specifically in case the Trumpists came to power in this House of Congress. However, Biden did everything to prevent it from working, and even during July-November 2023, when it became clear to everyone that the new composition of the Congress would not pass the aid package, Biden refused to extend the Lend-Lease law for the next year, even when Johnson came instead of McCarthy, with whom there was still a chance, Johnson came only because the Democratic politicians supported the resignation of McCarthy, who the Trumpists wanted to get rid of because of his agreement to make compromises, then it was possible to choose an excellent speaker together with the progressive Republicans, but the Democratic politicians wanted the election the worst Trumpist, and then blame the Republicans, who would obviously follow Trump's path with such a speaker. They knew that all these decisions would cost Ukrainians thousands of lives and Ukrainians would lose their only chance for emergency help, but Biden and his minions wanted something else - their own victory at the expense of Ukrainians. The transfer of aircraft has been blocked for more than two years, the US has not transferred any of its own modern air defense systems, and it is forbidden to respond even to military facilities on the aggressor's territory.
Ukrainians did not support the transfer of nuclear weapons, strategic aviation and aviation with missiles to Russia, so you know, our then president almost cried because he used to be the head of the plant that made these weapons and these missiles. However, Clinton forced us to do it together with Yeltsin, because your careless degenerates from politics believed and still believe in the possibility of the existence of a democratic Russia, although for centuries they only did what they robbed, killed and raped their neighbors. We were forced in exchange for recognition of independence and a small financial aid in times of devastation. And Russia was given weapons and hundreds of times more aid, so that Ukrainians would think that an alliance with Russia is better than an independent country.
Clinton admitted this mistake, but his protégé Sellivan is blocking all possible ways of helping Ukraine win, and Bill Burns is to blame for the fact that we were not accepted into NATO, he is to blame for the shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan and the fact that the USA set the whole world up for the defeat of Ukraine in three days. It was the democrats who passed the law banning training and giving weapons to Azov, which defended the surrounded Mariupol for 3 months almost without weapons, where from 25 to 100 civilians died from Russian attacks, including a famous academician, a boxing coach and an actor. And under Obama, there was an embargo on the supply of weapons to Ukraine. And the cowardly policy of the Democrats is to blame for all this.
We gave up nuclear weapons under pressure, but not for nothing, but under the guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum, and the United States neglected this document ratified by the UN Security Council. The only president who fulfilled the guarantees was Trump.
During Trump's time, American nuclear bombers patrolled the defense border with Crimea, he canceled the embargo on the supply of weapons to Ukraine and handed over the first javelins that helped a lot in the first days of the invasion. And Bush Jr., during the aggression against the country of Georgia, introduced the sixth fleet into the Black Sea and together with Ukraine and other friends, the war was stopped in 6 days, that was decisive behavior. However, immediately after that, the Kremlin agent Obama came to power and Hillary Clinton, neighing like the last mare with Lavrov, did a reboot with the killers, although she confused the Russian word and according to Freud, she did a reboot and Putin realized that he can always kill with impunity and realized this again during the invasion to Crimea, when Obama prohibited the use of weapons by Turchynov, and during the invasion of Donbas, when we received an embargo instead of powerful military aid as part of the Budapest guarantees, and the third time, when he destroyed tens of thousands of children and other civilians in Syria, and only Trump stood up to Putin there. And Biden, with his indecisive actions, continued the murders of Ukrainians because we are fighting like a rival of old Balboa with his hand tied behind his back and all because of the Democrats.
Therefore, King Bayoden must throw out his Gríma Wormtongue - Sullivan and Burns, the unpopular Kamala Harris, and all the rest of his cabinet and advisers, who are demoralizing him. In order to defeat Trump, a bold and extraordinary step must be taken. There should be a young, brave team around the old Biden, not connected to the corruption of the Democrats, but connected to the ideals of democracy. I didn't say stellar team for nothing. Because it should be an all-star team. The candidate's vice president should be the super popular Julia Roberts. He is also beautiful, intelligent and caring for the poor and not vain. The courageous and uncompromising Sean Penn should be named defense adviser instead of the cowardly and Kremlin-coddled Jake Sullivan, who should become the new vice president in the event of Biden's departure. And Biden should announce that he can leave earlier and these are the people to replace him - young and determined, not corrupt and blinded by Trump's vision with conspiracy theories in his head. Leonardo DiCaprio should become an adviser on climate and environmental policy, and George Clooney should become the minister for social policy. Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Aniston, Ben Affleck, Barbra Streisand and Orlando Bloom etc are also set to be on the star-studded team of 14 Biden friends. Blinken should remain as Secretary of State, William Taylor should be appointed instead of the Kremlin-corrupted Bill Byrnes. Scott Kelly should be Minister for Innovation and Space Exploration.
Therefore, either Biden takes the decisive steps that I have described or he will plunge us and you into an abyss of uncertainty, which will probably lead to a world war or a new Civil War in the USA or both. In order for this not to happen, Biden needs to change his environment. Because it doesn't matter to Trump anymore, he will win with the Vances and the Pences and with other types of dubious people.
An even more daring step is to take a bright Republican woman like Nikki Haley or Consoliza Rice as vice president - this will leave the Trumpists no chance at all. We need to think in terms of continents, as Baransky said.
Is Biden's removal in doubt? Then the cabinet changes and you, the ordinary democrats, should demand it, because you will either repeat the fate of the States of Roosevelt's or Lincoln's time. Or Germany during Hitler's time. How not to understand this. I hope for the wisdom of the Democrats, because at one time you united around Biden, but this time a new step is needed for victory - an almost complete change of the team to popular smart people with well-known names and values in their hearts. And Biden should introduce this young determined ambitious team and say we are going to explore this space and win this Oscar
Therefore, either Biden takes the decisive steps that I have described or he will plunge us and you into an abyss of uncertainty, which will probably lead to a world war or a new Civil War in the USA or both. In order for this not to happen, Biden needs to change his environment. Because it doesn't matter to Trump anymore, he will win with the Vances and the Pences and with other types of dubious people.
Biden should create a fairy tale for Americans and not convince them of his degradation...
I'M NOT AGAINST DEMOCRATS I'm against the policies of the indecisive and short-sighted corrupt current Democrats like Biden and their predecessors. They are predictable for us - this is their plus compared to Trump, but he is just as unpredictable for Putin. and This is its main advantage. You read Philip Dick's novel Titan Players to understand this
AnonMoos Somehow they do it late. But better late than never
How will you deal with the replacement of Biden Harris, for Ukraine it is of course a worse choice. Because she has as few ideals as Trump. And Ukraine occupies much less space in her heart, her advisors from Obama's circle, supporters of appeasement of the aggressor, but Blinken will not be around. Sean Penn, Timothy Snyder, Scott Kelly or at least Leonardo DiCaprio or, to a lesser extent, George Clooney could have helped her in the vice-presidential position without harming Ukraine at the same time, but she chose a politician. I would like to hear feedback about the candidate for the second position, it is clear that he is better than Trump's deputy, but Trump currently looks more optimistic for Ukraine and the world, so that I change my mind, I want to hear about you good news about the identity of a potential vice president from your party and perhaps something interesting about Harris herself. It is clear that it brought the democrats closer to victory, but I seriously doubt whether it will bring the end of the war closer to democracy and Ukraine. Unless she becomes a prosecutor not only for Trump but also for Putin. it's a pity that Trump rushed with the second number. If he had waited for a replacement from the Democrats, he would have chosen Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo, and the Kremlin and China would have been clearly put on the shoulders. Now all hope is on Trump himself and God forbid that he be killed and Vance becomes the president, the world has never seen such a cynical and intelligent schizophrenic bastard in the position of the most influential person in the world. Even the eccentric Trump will appear to us as a miracle of God. Harris should talk more about her priorities in foreign policy, because it seems that she will be even more isolationist than Obama or Trump.
AnonMoos I saw two stories about potential vice president Tim Walz, the first one talked about his priorities in domestic politics. In the second, they showed his position regarding external perceptions and Ukraine. As I understand it, the person is quite adequate and principled. Well, there is no comparison with Vance. The main thing is that Kamala should listen to him about external problems and not give preference to Gordon and Rice. Therefore, it is interesting to hear Kamala's own position in the debate with Trump.
I know almost nothing about Harris's foreign policy stands, and almost nothing about Walz at all. That's not really why I'm voting for them in November. AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Sometimes if I see a yellow-and-blue uniform, I wonder if it's a Swedish athlete or a Ukrainian ahtlete. (Could theoretically also be from Palau or Kazakhstan, I guess...) AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I pulled out my 1980s Soviet Atlas to better understand the Kursk incursion, and found out that Dnipro used to be known as Dnepropetrovsk. I understand that the Russian title of the book, "Atlas Mira", could technically be translated as either "Atlas of a village" or "Atlas of the world"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos It is translated as "Atlas of the world". But it can also be translated as "Atlas of peace" or "Atlas of society". But this doesn`t correspond to the meaning invested in this book, the village has nothing to do with it at all - it is a wrong translation. Until recently, Dnipro was called Dnipropetrovsk in Ukrainian, you gave the wrong transcription. I wanted to ask if there is a map of the USSR with an administrative division?
In general, the lands on which our troops entered under the Treaty of Brest (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk_(Ukraine%E2%80%93Central_Powers) of 1918 between Ukraine, Russia and other countries were part of Ukraine, as were many other Ukrainian lands. Unfortunately, our government is not yet ready to comply with these documents, which Russia, as always, has violated by occupying all these Ukrainian territories. The Brest and Gomel regions of Ukraine were later included in Belarus, and the Ukrainian lands of the Bryansk, Kursk, Bilhorod and Voronezh regions were directly occupied by Russia. As well as Rostov region, Krasnodar and Stavropol regions and adjacent Ukrainian lands of the national republics, which were also included in Russia against the will of the local population. In 1924, Ukraine filed a lawsuit regarding the return of the Ukrainian lands of the Kursk, Bilhorod, and Voronezh regions of the Russian Federation to Ukraine. A joint commission of scientists made this decision, but Russia filed an appeal and Stalin changed the decision in favor of Russia, also transferring the territory of the Taganrog District and Eastern Donbas to Russia, and all this against the will of the population. The question was also raised about the Kuban region, but it was also a violation. As a substitute, there was an agreement on the Ukrainianization of these lands, but due to resistance on these and other Ukrainian lands to collectivization processes on all Ukrainian lands of Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan, more than 10,000 Ukrainian schools were closed, and then an artificial Holodomor was carried out to suppress the resistance of the Ukrainian peasantry and deport, destroy the intelligentsia and the run of unarmed Ukrainians to the slaughter during the Second World War, a total of 25 million Ukrainians were killed in the years 1917-1952, although in 1917 the population of the territory of Ukraine in modern borders was 38.8 million, and it was the 8th place in the world among countries in by modern limits, now we have the worst birth rate in the world at 1.1 children per woman, and then normal families were families with 5-15 children. And our birth rate was on a par with China in 1-2 place in the world. today's processes along with the mass migration of women and children and the burning of Ukrainian books and the ban on the Ukrainian language in the occupied territories are the path to the destruction of Ukrainians as a nation.
Here is a list of some of the districts inhabited by Ukrainians as of 100 years ago, with the percentage you can translate into Google Translate, and the numbers are self-explanatory. And here is a map of the Ukrainian ethnic territory at that time
I wrote about the need for such an operation somewhere above, unfortunately, the Western partners forbade us to do so and forced us helplessly in the concrete-filled southern steppes last summer without air and air defense support. In addition, the US once again spoiled our media plans. It was fruitless and ended with terrible losses, although with less losses we could capture 4 unprotected regions of Russia that were previously part of Ukraine. And then either exchange them for our de jure lands, or negotiate "on the ground", but Sullivan and Burns all intimidated Biden with escalation and a delusional apocalypse as a result of the collapse of Russia. This time, just like before the invasion and before the Kharkiv operation, our command did not inform our "partners" of anything, who always leak all our plans to Russia and ask it for permission, and this is the result, although all our best forces were destroyed last year, and these people have already could live peacefully in their families. This is why I don't like Democrats. And now the US claims in Germany are supported by a fake about the Ukrainians undermining the Nord Stream. Although Russia did it, they are either idiots or work for Russia or do not understand its psychology at all. also, all the time we are forbidden to ban the Russian church in Ukraine, the employees of which sow hatred, because they are cadre employees of the FSB. Here, on the contrary, this fake is supported by the republicans, although it is the Russians who repress Ukrainian priests and generally kill Protestant pastors. Deliveries of shells and weapons from the USA are almost non-existent, there are only three months left to use 60 billion and less than 10 have been used, the last tranches of 100 million for 2 weeks, this is not serious at all.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was slightly confused because Mir was sometimes used as a synonym for Obshchina, but I guess that meaning would not be prominent except in specific contexts. It's a Russian-language atlas, and definitely has the name as "Dnepropetrovsk", with all E's and O's. It has many regional maps of areas of the Soviet Union. Some people think that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk means that Lenin and several of his comrades arrived in Russia on a German train, and therefore took the pro-German side in World War I (the Bolsheviks had a consistently somewhat pro-German foreign policy down to about 1925), and of course the Poles regard it as anti-Polish. I hadn't heard of the Ukrainian Brest-Litovsk treaty... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Brest is an ancient Ukrainian city that, like all Ukrainian-populated cities, was transferred to Belarus under the pretext that the western part of the Belarusian lands was too Polonized, and the eastern part was too Russified. In fact, it was not the Ukrainian Polissia that made Belarus a less Russified and Polonized territory, but the Ukrainian lands of Belarus - Brest and Gomel Oblasts - were almost the most Russified. Although during the existence of the German occupation, they again joined the Ukrainian formation of the occupiers "Reichskommissariat Ukraine". The memories of the descendants of the people who came from those lands remained in memory of the Ukrainian Berestei region. Like Wayne Gretzky. By the way, Adam Mickiewicz and Mykola Gogol spoke to each other in Ukrainian, which gives rise to thoughts, he was not a Pole or a Belarusian, but a Ukrainian, just like Gogol.
Here are interesting articles and maps where Brest was part of Ukrainian lands.
The Peace of Brest primarily concerned the young Ukrainian State, according to the Peace of Brest the countries of the Quadruple Union on the one hand and Bolshevik Russia on the other recognized the Ukrainian People's Republic as independent, including most of the Brest and Gomel regions, which were included in Belarus in 1939. Also, according to the Brest Peace of 1918-early 1919, Ukraine included Zakerzonny, which finally became part of Poland in 1945-51, most of Bryansk Oblast, a large part of Kursk Oblast, most of Bilhorod Oblast, and a third of Voronezh Oblast. Unfortunately, a large part of the Ukrainian lands of the Voronezh region was not included in Ukraine. Similarly, the Rostov region and the territory of Donbas, Occupied since 2014, were recognized by Ukraine as an independent republic of the Don. This was done by Hetman Skoropadskyi in order to have a buffer between Ukraine and Russia, on the other hand, Ukrainians made up more than 55 percent of these lands. The Ukrainian lands of Terek were also independent. It is still unknown whether there was a connection between Ukraine and the Kuban. But this issue was resolved later. Within the framework of the Brest Peace, Germany promised to supply Ukrainian weapons and provided military aid, and Ukraine provided food supplies to Germany. Unfortunately, this spy production had a bitter aftertaste in 1941, when the local population initially perceived the Germans as liberators from the Bolshevik occupation, because everyone remembered the Germans as allies against Russia 20 years before. Compared to the Bolshevik murderers, they appeared to be angels, but they were completely different Germans...--Yasnodark (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
In this week's issue of our Austin "alt-weekly", there's an article about Oleksandr Svatok, who previously played in Dnipro, now about to play for an Austin soccer team... AnonMoos (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Unfortunately, our entire "Dnipro 1" team went on sale, Svatok played in the legendary FK "Dnipro", which was founded under a different name in 1918, which ceased to exist a few years ago, it was one of the oldest in Eastern Europe. This is a good defender who was sorely missed by the Ukrainian national team at the European Championship...--Yasnodark (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I found two ratings that can help you in the future, because you may have forgotten some novels, and in the annual lists it is not always convenient to look.
I might join ISFDB if I could ask a story-ID or "YASID" question, but it doesn't seem that such questions would be welcome there... The "Top Novels as Voted by ISFDB Users" listing is a little strange, since it only sporadically corresponds to what are either great classics or highly-popular works in the SF field. For instance, books by Roger Zelazny and Alfred Bester are very highly ranked. I like one book by Bester, and have read 15 or 20 by Zelazny, but I don't understand the way that their books are ranked here -- for example, "Roadmarks", a perfectly readable but not necessarily highly-distinguished 1979 Roger Zelazny novel, is ranked over ten places higher than Tolkien's "The Return of the King" (which apparently stands in for the "Lord of the Rings" series)! AnonMoos (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos I agree that the rating you mentioned looks a bit strange. Although it is most likely compiled in the opinion of the site's editors, at the same time the second http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/stats.cgi?14 one looks absolutely adequate, but it is unclear whether I have an opinion there, because the number of points or grades is incredibly high. I think it's worth trying to register. Unfortunately, I do not have something to register. So if it's easy for you, I would ask you to try it. I can add more legal topics to start entering there.
In in this encyclopedia of speculative fiction "Энциклопедия фантастики: кто есть кто?": ок. 1300 статей / В. И. Бугров [и др.]; ред. В. Гаков. — Минск: ИКО «Галаксиас», 1995. — 694 с. — ISBN 985-6269-01-6 * there is an answer to the question about Sever Hansovsky and many others.
In addition, 2-3 years ago, someone not very smart put question marks next to all Slavic writers and their works, I claim that they are all fairly included in the isfdb database and are in the relevant encyclopedias of speculative fiction and databases in Russian, Ukrainian or Polish. This is very important. I think that this is enough to enter the community, and then you can ask about ratings without any problems.Yasnodark (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
As for ISFDB, I'm not sure what you're asking. ISFDB is a bibliography website, and I'm not really a bibliography person. I'm interested in discussing science fiction, but not in adjusting technical bibliographic details of science fiction stories and books. AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.
There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.
Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.
It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.
The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.
A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.
We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Haida! Зараз у Кнайпі (політики) один користувач різко підняв тему невичитаних перекладів і пообіцяв промонітирити місячники, тож я прошу вас переглянути створені під час останнього статті. Бо я та Медіафонд бувало помічали такі проблеми, тож краще підрихтувати текст вашого внеску для запобігання аналогічних проблем до згаданих у темі "Одеської евакуації 1920" у "така гаківка нам...". Якщо це повідомлення звідси до вас дійде — можете пінганути з словом "ознайомився" з вашої чернетки чи сторінки обговорення, щоб не було зайвого привертання уваги до вашого внеску. Бо проблеми можуть бути, суджу за прикладом. Та й рахувати мені буде простіше... --Yasnodark (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.
I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.
Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.
If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
...we are starting maintenance runs on the entire set of portals. Currently, we are doing this for the intro and Associated Wikimedia sections of portals. We will eventually work through all of the sections, automating each for each portal. Progress is being made.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Yasnodark. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Yasnodark. It seems you have no experience with this, and you are very close to being indeffed. Here is my advice. (a) Never comment again at ANI and about other users per WP:NPA. You are doing a disservice to yourself and others. (b) Discuss your differences on article talk page. (c) The tag-teaming is obvious, unless this is also a WP:SOCK problem. Do not do that or all of you can be indeffed pretty soon. Finally, I am petty much pro-Ukrainian, hence this advice. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Re to this. If reaching a consensus about new changes is not possible (yes, that often happens), then old/stable version should be kept. This is not a reason to blame your "opponent" on ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Debresser Thank you for being attentive, I just made a mistake because I did not correct the year. I see you that you are interested in speculative & speak Dutch and Hebrew languages. Could you translate them articles about prominent Ukrainian science fiction writers: Maryna and Serhiy Dyachenko, Oles Berdnyk, Mykola Rudenko, Yuriy Shcherbak, H. L. OldieVasyl Berezhnyi & others into Dutch and Hebrew? Perhaps you would also be interested to take part in a survey to determine the best science fiction & fantasy novels? Which I spend in other language sections of wikipedia among wikipedians. If you are interested, I will call the rules of the questioning.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hello Debresser, you said that might have some free time in July, so I wanted to remind you, and besides, to clarify what you then agreed to: write articles about Ukrainian science fiction, create your own list of the best science fiction novels, or both.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Yasnodark, and thanks for the reminder. I won't have time for translating, but I have added the 4 articles that exist on the English Wikipedia to my watchlist, which means I will at least make some minor improvements to them in time. Debresser (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!16:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!16:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! There is no reason for this, I have corrected, thank you and wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year (section)! And I wish to get rid of Donald, but not the Duck, completely and irrevocably.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Donald Trump has one last opportunity to cause mischief on Jan. 6th, but it seems unlikely that he'll be able to do much with it. Trump wishes that he was a dictator, but becoming a dictator takes more competence and willingness to work hard than Trump is capable of. Hope you're doing well... AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think I know any of those names, except Boris Artzybasheff (and Chuck Palahniuk ), though I knew some Russian names like Yevgeny Zamyatin, the Strugatsky brothers, and Bulgakov. How are you being affected by the so-called "special military operation"[ptui!]? Sorry I didn't ask before. I guess you were right about Ukraine joining NATO, and I was wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos Hello! Can you write something right below the phrase from January 6, 2021, where did you go wrong? I didn't find her. Unfortunately, the West is still indecisive, and the main newspaper of the Democrats, NT, is again blowing the Kremlin's tune. Surprises.
Unfortunately, translations of Ukrainian speculative fiction in the USA are very bad, maybe these links can help:
Perhaps you will be able to use the automatic translation in Google, then at least in general terms you can familiarize yourself with the texts of some books
And here you can hear the living Ukrainian language, this audiobook presents the text of the 1930s - one of the first science fiction books in Ukrainian by Volodymyr Vladko about the exploration of Venus "Argonauts of the Universe"
As for the science fiction writers you named, Bulgakov was born in Kyiv, the father of the Strugatsky brothers was born in the now flooded Kherson, the mother was in the Chernihiv province and spoke Ukrainian. All four were persecuted and not given freely in the USSR.
I suspect that you also do not know that Chekhov had both grandmothers and both grandfathers were Ukrainians and before moving to Russia he did not know the Russian language, he hated Moscow, and his Ukrainian city Taganrog was forcibly transferred to the RSFSR in 1924, this happened after the decision of the joint Ukrainian-Russian commission to transfer the Ukrainian lands of the Belgorod, Voronezh, Kursk and Bryansk regions to Ukraine and the subsequent appeal of the leadership of the Russian Federation, after which almost all these lands were forcibly left to Russia against the will of the local population, at the same time, two other Ukrainian districts - Taganrog and Shakhtsky okrug to Russia. In 1931, thousands of schools with the Ukrainian language of instruction were liquidated on these and other lands, and after that millions of Ukrainians were killed during the artificial Holodomor of 1932-33 and repressions in the 1930s, which was on all Ukrainian lands. Many others were exiled, the rest were recorded as Russians and Ukrainians were squeezed out of them. This process continues to this day, and although part of the population still speaks Ukrainian, they were told that this is only a dialect of Russian, and the majority have lost their Ukrainian consciousness. The same is being done now with the inhabitants of the occupied territories: they burn Ukrainian books, they kill or send them to torture in the basement for using the Ukrainian language, they send children to correctional concentration camps, where they are forced to learn the Russian anthem for 4 hours a day and brainwashed, the occupiers loot and they rape, including children and pesionaries, during the flood after the explosion of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station, unique reserves and museums were flooded, and drowning people are surrounded by cordons and are not allowed to evacuate, just like the villages were surrounded during the Holodomors until most people died out. In Kakhovka the reservoir had so much water that it was possible to drink the entire population of the Earth for two years, it supplied annually more than 4 million Ukrainians in the south and in the Crimea, thousands hundreds of thousands of wild animals and possibly thousands of people died. In total, more than a thousand medical institutions, the same number of educational and cultural facilities, hundreds of sports facilities, dozens of power plants and the same number of airports, thousands of houses and enterprises were destroyed and damaged in Ukraine. In Mariupol alone, from 25 to 100 thousand people were killed, and the city was wiped off the face of the Earth. Every night - rocket strikes, we had yesterday at 3 am. And this is in a "relatively peaceful" city, you can imagine what is happening in others. Back in October 2021, the head of the administration, Andriy Yermak, asked the "Patriot" systems to give them only in May and only two, thousands of victims and thousands of unique objects could have been avoided, the planes were promised to us on the third day of the big war, and only recently the issue began to be resolved.
At the same time, due to an incomprehensible decision of your government, Ukrainian businessman Maksym Polyakov was forced to sell the space company that connected our two cities due to the fact that he is a citizen of Ukraine and his brainchild "Firefly Aerospace" became someone else's, and this was a new chance for the Ukrainian nation to pave the way to space, because it is Ukrainians Kybalchich, Tsiolkovsky, Sikorsky, Kondratyuk, Glushko, Korolyov, Antonov, Yangel, Popovych and others made almost the biggest contribution to mankind becoming a cosmic race. It was Ukrainians who designed and created the first space vehicles, calculated the trajectories of the space flights of the USSR and the USA, launched the first satellite, and the first song in space also sounded Ukrainian --Yasnodark (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
See the comment of "02:55, 30 December 2020" directly above for my failed prediction about Jan 6th. Glad that you're doing at least somewhat OK. I was encouraged when the bridge to Crimea was blown up, but Putin seems to have taken that as a signal to try to kill as many Ukrainian civilians in as many cities as he can. I hope Putin is overthrown soon, or is poisoned by Novichok or Selenium or whatever, so that some degree of sanity may be able to return. The stupidest thing about the whole invasion is that it gives North Korea a reason to hold on tightly to its nukes. The North Korean regime is thoroughly paranoid in the best of circumstances, but after all the solemn assurances and promises made to Ukraine when it gave up Ukrainian nukes were brazenly and shamelessly violated, Kim Jong-un's regime will never believe any promises made to it on that subject. AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I answered above.
Persons associated with Ukraine who made space exploration possible:
On Wednesday, PBS TV in the United States had two hours of the "Nova" science program about developments in rocketry in the 2010s, and Tsiolkovsky was very prominently mentioned. Also, I didn't really know that you live in Dnipro until a few days ago, but I happened to look at the January 21 issue of "The Economist" magazine Wednesday, and there was a small item about Russian rocket attacks on Dnipro that killed over 40... I've never joined Facebook and am unlikely to do so at any time in the future, after all the scandals and the revelations about Mark Zuckerberg's asshole behavior. It would require Zuckerberg's departure and a new leadership with very different attitudes before that could happen. AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've known the basic Cyrillic alphabet since the 1980s, but I've never seriously tried to learn the Russian language (despite owning several books about it), so I'm quite unlikely to try to learn Ukrainian, for which there are fewer materials available here. The only language which I know well enough to read random passages on sight is French. I learned some Hebrew and a little Arabic as part of my linguistic researches, I used to know a little German, and I like to dabble in reading about various languages, but I don't think I'll seriously try to learn any more languages from now on. AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
AnonMoos 2 books by Oles Berdnyk "Star corsar" & "The apostle of immortality"
and 3 books by Maryna and Serhiy Dyachenko https://dyachenkowriters.com/books/
have been translated into English. I suspect that translations of Max Kidruk, the most famous among young science fiction writers, may soon be published. You can probably get some other books or find out which ones have been translated at the Ukrainian Society of Austin.
Also, by searching for the following sites in Google, you can press the translate button and go to the auto-translated version and at least understand something about our speculative fiction in general terms.
Even more Ukrainian speculative fiction books have been translated into French, but there is also something in Hebrew.
As for Tsiolkovskyi, he has a much smaller relationship with Ukraine, unlike the others. His father was from Ukraine, and he himself noted in the margins of the encyclopedia that he was a direct descendant of the famous Ukrainian Cossack Severyn Nalyvayko, but he made his discoveries in Russia. And Yuriy Kondratyuk, Serhiy Korolyov and other pioneers of cosmonautics have a direct relationship with Ukraine. It was according to Kondratyuk's calculations that the USSR and the USA flew into space and onto the moon for the first time. His fate is completely unknown, he disappeared during the Second World War, but somehow his diary ended up in the USA - either someone moved it from the concentration camp or he himself moved with von Braun, the most incredible version is that he is von Braun. John Houbolt said, he died in 1952 in the USA. The initiator of the USSR flights into space and the launch of the first satellite of dogs and people into space was another Ukrainian Serhiy Korolyov, he died on the operating table while preparing the project of an expedition to Mars, and the rockets were developed by Valentin Hlushko and him. The author of the "Big Bang" theory, George Gamov and Carl Sagan, whose parents were born in Ukraine, are probably the most famous astrophysicists and cosmologists in the world. Pavlo Popovych - cosmonaut number 4-5 and the first singer in space, Oleg Antonov designed the largest plane in the world "Mriya" destroyed by the Russians, it was the first air launch project. And the first large airplanes and helicopters were made by the Ukrainian Ihor Sikorsky, partly already in the USA. The sea launch project is connected with our Zenit rockets, which Musk called the best in the world before creating his own. Antares parts and stages are also made in Ukraine. Ukraine also participates in the Artemis project. Well, Max Polyakov, the 4th private space investor in the world, as I wrote earlier, had to sell his company because of the position of your government on the eve of the war, because part of the company was in the Dnipro and he himself was a citizen of Ukraine...
Just shortly before this, I wanted to write to you that there is the 4th company in the world headed by a Ukrainian, which is located simultaneously in Austin and Dnipro. However, it was not before that, and you did not respond to the SF list of 1999. By the way, you don't want to get distracted and return to the lists by years, at least it's very distracting.
About 50 civilians died in the Dnipro in just one incident. And in general, probably three times more. And even before February 24, 2022, more than 500 soldiers from the Dnipro died, now this number is also much higher. More than 350 Ukrainian athletes and coaches have died since 2014, and more than 300 since February 24, including 11 world champions and as many medalists of world and European championships and more than 100 champions of Ukraine. During the rocket attacks on the Dnipro, athletes were also killed, in the strike that you mentioned, it seems 4. 4 ballet dancers of the main roles also died. A window was broken 500 meters from us, and the buildings where I was on the same day also suffered. And any blow or even the work of air defense can be heard loudly throughout the city, and most often at night. Other cities were simply wiped off the face of the Earth by whole blocks and districts. When the dam was blown up, several large reserves with all the animals were destroyed, including all three branches of the Black Sea Biosphere Reserve, which will soon be 100 years old.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments3 people in discussion
Here you just replaced the references to reliable sources with references to unreliable sources, that is, to a user-generated slide presentation[6] and some local blog article written by an anonymous person[7]. And I see you are making mass-changes of "Russian Jewish" to "Ukrainian Jewish" on a bunch of article, again with unreliable sources or with no sources. You have 9,000 edits, you should know that this is not acceptable. If you continue this will go to the administrators' noticeboard.Mellk (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Mellk Hello! You have not looked carefully at the page history. It was I who returned the old version of the articles, because this anonymous user, who is probably a Russian chauvinist, massively changed from Ukrainian Jew or Belarusian Jew to Russian Jew. All the mentioned persons have their roots in Ukraine or Belarus and the cities of origin of them or their ancestors have nothing to do with Russia.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, for that article specifically, this IP reverted a change made by some driveby editor who made the change here. The original references e.g. Vanity Fair article were there before. Mellk (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Mellk This user wrote that he reverted the editing of a blocked user. All the more, you are not interested in the essence, her ancestors are not from Russia but from Ukraine, because Kharkiv has always been a Ukrainian city and even in the days of the Russian Empire it was the center of theSloboda Ukraine Governorate, later Kharkiv became the capital of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The edit the driveby editor is referring to is this. Except some IP also changed this earlier, even though the source does not mention Ukraine. Still, this is not a valid reason for that driveby editor to revert (their preferred state from 1.5 years ago when this has been edit warred a bunch since then) or for their changes to the referencing to be restored. Mellk (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I forgot this mention this edit. That IP only removed a category, so why did you make all those other changes? From what I can see, this was not a revert. If he lived in Moscow and emigrated to the U.S. in 1994, what makes him a Ukrainian emigrant? Also this was not just a revert. Mellk (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The concept of Pale of Settlement and the territory of Russia does not mainly apply to it, there is the concept of a Ukrainian Jew and Friedman corresponds to this particular ethnic group, because his father was born in the capital of Ukraine, the city of Kyiv, and there is no evidence in the article about the residence of a person in Moscow, rather correctly call him an emigrant from Tajikistan or add information to the article.--Yasnodark (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, it says he moved from Russia to Chicago, and this is sourced. His father was born in Ukrainian SSR, that does not make him Ukrainian. More importantly, your changes are unsourced. This is also a BLP so such changes do need to be sourced, rather than being based on your opinion about the concept of a Ukrainian Jew. If you do not add sources for this, then you will need to self-revert. Mellk (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You openly misrepresent the information in the article about individuals, your arguments are fictitious, so there is no need to persecute me according to the rule you have given and write on my discussion page, it is more appropriate to present your arguments about specific articles on their discussion pages and to return versions of articles from anonymous. And I don’t want to hear about your heresy about Ukrainian Jews at all, especially since the article does not have any sources about Friedman’s Russian life, on the contrary, during the war between Ukraine and Russia, he came to Kyiv https://twitter.com/lexfridman/status/1545499719111155713 - his father’s homeland, which was, is and will be the main city of Ukrainian lands and part of Pale of Settlement. Winona Ryder also does not have any ancestors from Russia--Yasnodark (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You fail to understand. You made an unsourced change. You need to cite a reliable source, but instead you keep referring to "heresy". Until you cite a reliable source, the edit will and should be reverted. Mellk (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi - my opinion: all sources that mention city, mention Kharkiv, which is an Ukrainian city. There is no argument here from either side. Those that claim the origin to be Russia do so because Kharkiv was occupied by russians at the time. There is no source citing any real Russian city. Also, there is no doubt that Kharkiv is in Ukraine. Hence I see that "Ukrainian origin" is valid. If we say that she is of "Russian origin" just because Ukrainian city of Kharkiv was occupied at the time by Russia then we should also say that Mahatma Gandhi was a "British freedom fighter" because India was under British rule at the time. This would be nonsense. Linuxator (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Linuxator Hello! You have given a very excellent example and I also agree with many other points you have made, but unfortunately, the other side is advancing opposite opinions. You can look at the discussion in the same section. Although there may be debates over the use of the term occupation in relation to that period, because such a term deprives us of a number of other arguments. For example, according to the constitution, the Ukrainian SSR was an independent state, and later became a founding member of the United Nations. In addition, during the entire existence of the Ukrainian SSR there were 2 concepts - citizen of the Ukrainian SSR and citizenship of the Ukrainian SSR, and from 1918 to 1931 and from 1990 to 1991 they had international use, and in the period 1918-1923 the citizenship of the USSR did not exist at all, instead there was citizenship of the Ukrainian SSR, although at least during a part of it, citizenship of the Ukrainian People's Republic and the Ukrainian State also existed, and all of them had their own peculiarities of granting and depriving. And from 1923 to 1931, residents of the Ukrainian SSR were simultaneously considered citizens of the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR at the international level and during foreign trips, in addition, the national team of the Ukrainian SSR took part in international matches, and the Ukrainian SSR itself established international relations with other countries, for example, with Turkey. Ukrainian films were presented abroad precisely as films of the Ukrainian SSR, not as films of the USSR, etc. And only since 1931, the citizenship of the Ukrainian SSR retained only local significance, and the passport of the USSR had only significance in the international arena. And so it was until 1990, the year of the new legislation on the citizenship of the Ukrainian SSR. By the way, Mikheil Saakashvili took part in the Referendum that decided the fate of Ukraine in 1991. But then he went to Georgia and even forgot that he was a citizen of the Ukrainian SSR. Although, on the basis of this, it would be much easier for him to regain Ukrainian citizenship, as well as to deprive him of it. It is a pity, but the fact of the history of Ukrainian SSR citizenship is rarely taken into account in the identity cards, as if it did not exist.
Taking into account all of the above, the issue of officially recognizing the occupation has both pluses and significant minuses. Although, of course, no one disputes that the reformation of the Ukrainian People's Republic into the Ukrainian SSR was forced, not voluntary, for a significant, if not most, part of the republic's citizens. Nevertheless, it is more appropriate to consider Ukraine as the legal successor of both the Ukrainian People's Republic and the Ukrainian SSR, although the existence of Ukraine as part of the USSR from 1932 to the end of the 1980s was undoubtedly a period of occupation, although in earlier years the majority of the population considered this entity an independent country, and the leadership of the republic blackmailed the leadership of the USSR by withdrawing from the federation. We know what happened in the 1930s to change these ideas and efforts.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Did you see somewhere that I called you to this page? Why are you interfering in a discussion with another user? I clearly wrote to you: if you have questions for me about the content of a certain article, write to me from the discussion page of that article and I will decide for myself whether it is appropriate for me to continue the discussion with you there or to ignore your ping.
Also, Linuxator gave you a great example with Gandhi. India was part of the empire for a certain period, but was not part of Britain, similarly, Ukraine was part of the empire for a certain time, but was not part of Russia itself. As for the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR was constitutionally an independent state within the USSR with all the nominal attributes of a state, citizenship and the right to leave the union. And the USSR fell apart not when Russia or any other republic left, but precisely when Ukraine left. This confirms that it is Ukraine that has more rights to legal succession from the USSR. This is how the union with Ukraine with the rights of a protectorate with Moscovia turned this united state into the Russian Empire, because the term Russia was synonymous with the concept of Ukraine and not at all synonymous with the concept of Moscovia until the beginning of the 19th century. However, there is no need for me to write here during these discussions.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
These are historical facts, and I am not obliged to cite sources here. Regarding the articles, no credible sources were provided by anonymous to change the content of the article. Similarly, the article lacks other such sources. In addition, there is also the concept of falsity of sources, because often certain characteristics are used by persons who are not oriented in the topic or have corrupt involvement. You can cite as many pseudo-sources as you want, that Ukraine sold "Kolchuga" to Iraq or missiles to North Korea or destroyed the Kakhovska dam or sent killer mosquitoes to Russia, but no matter how solid the media spreads misinformation, it will have nothing to do with the truth. And this is the main thing - the truth, not a false source.
Unfortunately, in that country, the interests of which you so passionately defend, the truth has no weight and almost no one hears the truth and no one wants to know the truth. Everyone who told or tells the truth is killed, put behind bars, repressed or forced to leave, all truthful sources are classified or destroyed. If you like this way of life, live it and you will not force others to fall in love with lies and tell everyone that war is peace or truth is a lie.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
I returned the adequate version of the pages, and you return the odious version of the anonymous troll, destroying the veracity of the articles, so it is you who are primarily subject to the rule regarding the editing of so-called controversial articles. However, there is no controversy here, because all adequate people know that Kharkiv, Kyiv or Odesa were and will be Ukrainian cities & the affiliation of these cities to Ukraine is confirmed by a number of UN resolutions, to which empire they were not forcibly included during the historical process. --Yasnodark (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
-- AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AveTory (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
