Talk:Dreamsnake

Link to other books necessary?

Is the link to books by other authors necessary?

Paulsen sees this as a cultural tendency typical of patriarchy, and writes that McIntyre's depiction of an ethical need for wholeness and an understanding of connections between the facets of society is also found in the work of Le Guin and in Doris Lessing's Canopus in Argos series.[52]

Given that the comparison to a specific work is made by a high-quality source, why wouldn't we mention it and link to it? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent Scholarly Analysis

The article can benefit from additional recent scholarly commentary as much of the quoted sources are from 40 years ago. It excludes sources inside the publishing industry as those would be suspect of self or cross promotion for commercial gain.

What sources are you asking to remove, or to add? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I am asking if recent scholarly commentary outside of the self-interested publishing industry can be added. The existing commentary would be left in place. It would benefit the article by examining the impact the novel has had in the last 40 years. A web search turns up many self-promotional articles, blogs but not scholarly commentary.

It is a request for ones in the scholarly community to suggest addition of modern commentary sources.

Self-promotional excluded as these are suspect of fluff to draw viewers towards purchasing something or selling advertising.

When writing this article, I read virtually every scholarly piece that I could find that had substantive mention of this book. I would be very surprised if scholarly commentary exists that isn't already covered here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree that there seems to be little in the way of scholarly articles on Dreamsnake. The scholarly sources I looked at had simplistic recaps little more than a few lines of text. Surely, a longer more critical analysis is warranted using a recent lens as to the initial impact of the novel, its impact 40 years later and how it shapes modern fiction. Such an analysis would not just repeat the 1978-1985 ones and add original commentary. For example, the impact it has and how close the Chinese language version of the novel released 2018 is different than the original English language one. Is it just a case of research papers are unlikely to be published if there is a critical mass of them already on the topic?

I would agree that a longer analysis is warranted, but until such is published, there's little we can do here. If I had to speculate, yes, I'd say scholars of literature today are likely less interested in analyzing texts from the 1970s. When such retrospective analysis occurs, it's usually with respect to specific tropes or themes; and I would argue that the influence of this book, such as it was, was more subtle. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Please Shorten

The article can be cleaned up by removing non core fragments and listing the main themes. It reads as PHD dissertation by a gushing fan and would benefit from shortening to the main parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:bd23:1cd4:27fa:ebb6 (talk • contribs)

Featured articles are required to be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; [and] well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 06:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The article should be accessible by a worldwide audience and put the summary, plot, characters on top of the article and the detailed scholarly analysis at the bottom. Focusing on the scholarly aspects up front detracts from the book as a sci fi fictional story. Suggest splitting the major characters into a list instead of a bit about them in different sections.

Second suggestion is to break out the sci fi tropes reversed into a list as well .

As Tbhotch states above, the article is required to be comprehensive, and detailed coverage of scholarly commentary is expected by the featured article criteria, Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, and common sense. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

As suggested, breaking out the scholarly parts of the article without removing it can improve the article. It reads as three different lists scattered throughout the entire article: Characters, scifi tropes reversed or subverted and book/plot.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dreamsnake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVCtt7U?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehugoawards.org%2Fhugo-history%2F1979-hugo-awards%2F to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1979-hugo-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dreamsnake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1979-hugo-awards/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806053213/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Locus1979.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Locus1979.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118132016/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Ditmar1979.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Ditmar1979.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dreamsnake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Some comments from a straight read through first. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits if you disagree.

Copyedits look good; I had a truly appalling number of typos, apologies. Working through your comments now. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• In the plot summary paragraph that mentions Melissa we have Shortly after, she is attacked on her way to the mayor's house by a man she assumes is the crazy. Her scars make her self-conscious of her appearance in a town of otherwise beautiful people. I think the first "her" is Snake and the second "her" is Melissa (I haven't read the novel in decades so I can't remember the plot well enough to tell); in any case since the prior sentence mentions both we need a bit more signposting.

  You're quite right; the second "her" is Melissa. Reordered a little to avoid ambiguity and aid flow; let me know if further tweaking is needed...

• The first sentence of "Themes and structure" talks about the arrival of wome in the genre. I don't know if you have a copy of Eric Leif Davin's Partners in Wonder, which is about early women sf writers, but given the articles you've worked on you might find it useful. He only makes passing comments about McIntyre, but he does argue at one point that women arrived earlier in sf than is accepted by conventional wisdom, which is what you cite. I don't think you need to make any changes to this article -- it just came to mind and I couldn't remember if I'd mentioned it to you before. (If you think you'd use it I can send you my copy to keep -- I never refer to it.) FYI I think Mike Ashley's next book is also going to have a little retrospective coverage of this point, though he's not finished writing it yet.

  I confess I didn't know of it, but I just looked, and I have access to a digital edition. It's very kind of you to offer me yours, though! I skimmed a little, and it's a persuasive argument, though I hadn't entirely realized the popularity of the "women came to SF in the 70s" idea until researching this article. I also do not see a need to change anything here based on this book; though he is disputing the general narrative, he is acknowledging that McIntyre was a new arrival in the 70s, if only one of few, rather than many.

• to explore a variety of social structures and sexual paradigms from a feminist perspective, including by prominently exploring female desire: "explore ... exploring" isn't ideal, and "including by prominently exploring" isn't very fluent. How about "to explore a variety of social structures and sexual paradigms, particularly [or such as?] female desire, from a feminist perspective"?

  I agree it's sub-optimal phrasing, but female desire is neither a social structure nor a sexual paradigm...This took me some time to come up with (Wolmark's writing here is a little dense) but how about "McIntyre uses the post-apocalyptic setting, to explore a variety of social structures and sexual paradigms from a feminist perspective.[14] By giving female desire a prominent place in the narrative, she explores gender relations in the communities Snake visits.[41]"?

  Much better than my suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• The archetype of a heroic quest is also rewritten, with a woman at its center, and the challenges she faces requiring healing and care, rather than force, to overcome. I think the structure of this sentence leaves the second half too far from the idea at the start of the sentence. Suggest "The archetype of a heroic quest is rewritten: the central figure in Dreamsnake is a woman, and the challenges she faces require healing and care, rather than force, to overcome."

  That is better, thank you.

• her family is not what she seeks ultimate fulfilment in: suggest "her family is not where she ultimately finds fulfilment" if the source will support "find" instead of "seek" -- the following clause talks about both what she seeks and finds so I think either will do, and "find" makes it clear we're talking about the outcome, not about the journey to the outcome.

  Hesitant about the implication that her eventual success is where she finds fulfilment; the distinction between fulfilment and triumph is small, I suppose, but how about a simpler "Although she finds a family in Arevin and Melissa, Snake does not seek ultimate fulfilment in a family"?

  It would be nice to avoid the repetition of "family", but I don't see an easy way to do it. It's only clear at the end of the novel that she, Arevin, and Melissa will be a unit, right? So could we emphasize that although this is positioned where "fulfilment" is usually positioned, it is secondary for Snake to her triumph with the dreamsnakes? Something like "At the end of the novel, Snake, Arevin, and Melissa have become a family, but this is not the fulfilment of her goals; instead the story gives primacy to her triumph in discovering the dreamsnakes' breeding habits"? Though that wording could certainly be improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  What Paulsen says is "Snake has a deep-rooted sense of her own worth, and although the book ends with the creation of a 'family', it is not a love-conquers-all happy ending. Arevin and Melissa are not a nuclear family in which Snake seeks her ultimate fulfilment as a woman." (The triumph is earlier). Upon re-reading, I'm not even certain about the implied contrast drawn in my original wording (though I took care to make it explicit), because I think Paulsen's point is simply that it's what Snake is looking for when she triumphs, rather than what she finds. How about a simpler rewording to avoid the repetition, and minimize the implied contrast; "Although she finds a family in Arevin and Melissa, that is not where Snake seeks ultimate fulfilment in a family. Her triumph at the story's end comes from her discovery of the dreamsnakes' breeding habits."

  Paulsen's "fulfilment as a woman" seems to me to be a key point. Perhaps that's implicit by this time in the paragraph, since we're talking about feminism, but I'd like to try to find a wording that makes that clearer. One option would be just to quote that fragment of Paulsen's sentence, so the first sentence becomes 'Although she finds a family in Arevin and Melissa, that is not where Snake seeks "her ultimate fulfilment as a woman".' Given that the paragraph is about Paulsen, I don't know that you'd have to attribute inline at that point, but if you think you do I'd make it "in Paulsen's words" as the shortest way to do so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  I like that, done. I think it's fairly clear we're still discussing Paulsen's views, so a second in-text attribution isn't necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• The ideal of mutual respect is also shown in the utopian structure of the nomads' society, which includes respect for individual strength. In contrast, the people of the city isolate themselves from the world from a desire to protect themselves, and in doing so exhibit a patriarchal cultural tendency. The last clause seems to declaim rather than explain. If it's inarguable that this isolation for self-protection is a patriarchal attitude we should be able to say so more concisely, but I think it's not obvious enough that we can make the statement without attribution. Suggest "The ideal of mutual respect is also shown in the utopian structure of the nomads' society. The nomads respect individual strength, in contrast to the people of the city, who isolate themselves from the world from a desire to protect themselves. Paulsen sees this as a cultural tendency typical of patriarchy, and argues that McIntyre's depiction of an ethical need for wholeness..." which avoids having two consecutive inline attributions to Paulsen.

  Yes, fair. I've used your wording, with "writes" in place of "argues".

• ... uses language conveying complex and multiple meanings, thus challenging readers to engage deeply.[3] Examples include the dreamsnake Grass, who in the story is a powerful tool for ...: Grass is not an example of use of language.

  Reworded, also moved that sentence down. This paragraph felt a bit tricky even when writing it...

• modern-day physicians use a Caduceus, or staff with intertwining snakes, as an emblem. Snakes have a number of other symbolic meanings, including being associated with both poison and healing, thus connecting McIntyre's protagonist to Asclepius, the Roman god of healing. I think you need to mention the rod of Asclepius and its snakes for the reader to follow this. (I'd always thought that the rod of Asclepius and the caduceus were the same thing, but from following those links I see they're not.)

  I've added a bit

• Yes, snakes are a recurring motif in fiction, but for a variety of reasons; I think if you're going to mention Dune and The Face in the Abyss we need to know what they represent in those stories. It might be better to avoid talking about other works completely, and just link to something like serpent (symbolism), instead giving possible interpretations for the snakes in this story, as you do with the reference to Genesis.

  That's fair, particularly as Westfahl lists far too many works to cover...I've attempted some rewording, let me know how it looks.

  Looks good, but how about changing "biblical myth" to "the biblical myth of Genesis" or "the Fall of Man"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Added "of Genesis".

• whose incurable gigantism has led to a psychotic rage: suggest "has led to psychotic rages", unless the character is in a constant state of rage, in which case perhaps "has led to constant psychotic rage".

  Wendell writes "North...would seem an example of unmotivated evil if it were not for his physical deformity that has caused his psychotic rage at a world that could not cure his albino gigantism..." to me that implies a constant state, so I've gone with your second suggestion.

• Snake's centrality to the book also makes gender its central theme: to me this says that gender is the central theme because the protagonist is female, as if any book with a female protagonist has gender as its central theme, and I don't think that's what's intended.

  Yes, that's not what was intended, and would be quite incorrect...modified to "Snake's centrality to the book allows McIntyre to explore gender as its central theme, including by using her character to subvert gendered tropes"; how does that look?

  That fixes it, but I think "including by using" is a bit ugly. I think if we join the second half to the subsequent sentences, which explain the point, it might flow better. How about "Snake's centrality to the book allows McIntyre to explore gender as its central theme. McIntyre uses Snake's character to subvert gendered tropes: Snake, like many of McIntyre's protagonists, is an assertive woman in a traditionally male role, although she is a healer, rather than a male warrior more typical to the heroic fantasy narrative." But see the next point about the last few words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  That is cleaner, yes.

• Snake, like many of McIntyre's protagonists, is an assertive woman in a traditionally male role; however, she is a healer, rather than a more typical warrior protagonist: I think "typical" here refers to genre expectations, and not to what is typical of McIntyre's protagonists, but I think that needs to be clearer. However, if that's so, I don't like the use of "warrior" -- warriors may often be the protagonists of fantasy novels but they're not common in sf.

  Here's what Cordle has to say: "Dreamsnake...has as its main protagonist not a male warrior but a female healer, who resists the urge to power and violence...". The contrast is with a couple sentences previously: "Sheri Tepper’s The Gate to Women’s Country (1988), for instance, plays with the reader by seeming, as it begins, to be a conventional heroic fantasy narrative in which men in a future (post-nuclear) land prove themselves through chivalric acts of military heroism." I've reworded a little; does this look okay? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  The other remaining issue from Cordle (below) makes me think he's not very precise in his language about the genre; "fantasy" and "warrior" are just wrong. We could just quote Cordle, making it 'a healer who "resists the urge to power and violence"', but that doesn't seem ideal either. How about saying something like "male archetype" or "archetypal male hero", which is what Cordle is referring to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  That works, thanks.

• The first paragraph of "Characterization" has several contrastive conjunctions: "also", "however", "Conversely", "whereas". I don't think all of these are necessary for flow.

  Removed a few. Upon re-rereading, I agree.

• Sarah Lefanu might be worth a red link.

  Added; I hadn't realized SFE had an article about her; she likely meets WP:PROF anyhow. Perhaps I'll write an article, when I have a moment.

• Snake also explores her sexuality while retaining more control over it than was typical for female characters. The source is 2017 so I think this might be better as "was then typical", or "as was typical in the 1970s", unless Cordle is really saying that it is still the case that Snake is atypical in this way, in which case that should be clearer.

  Cordle is in fact saying "is typical", writing in 2017; however, he also says "in fantasy fiction", which Dreamsnake is not. My best guess is that he's simply casual about genre here, but I'm a little hesitant about broadening that of my own accord...I've changed to "is typical for female characters in fantasy"; let me know if that's creating more problems than it solves...

  It does a bit. Can we sneak past the problem by saying "is typical for female characters in this genre"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think that should be okay, because I think it's quite clear in the source Cordle is referring to the genre Dreamsnake is in, so "the genre" doesn't contradict what he's saying...

• Suggest dropping the mention of White Dragon as having beaten Dreamsnake for the Ditmar -- the reader doesn't care. (Though in passing I have to say that it's scandalous that White Dragon won!)

  Removed. Having read both of these in the last few years, I entirely agree. I admit that I am likely overlooking the impact of McCaffrey's work because I read it long after it was published; but the fact that Dreamsnake can still surprise a 2020 reader, while White Dragon cannot, says something, I think.

  Agreed. I have a sentimental fondness for Dragonflight, but the series got more and more like a soap opera after that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mention of the Nebula reminds me of a point I should probably have made earlier: I think it would be worthwhile to tell the reader the point in the plot where the original story ends.

  I tried to fit this nicely into background, but struggled; so I ate my words below, and added a footnote in the plot; if that's too hidden, d'you have any suggestions as to where to place this?

• being eligible because the 1978 version had been published as a hardcover: I think this could be dropped to a footnote.

  I'm not the biggest fan of footnotes, but okay.

• This might be an AmEng/BrEnd thing but "dragged too long" reads oddly to me; I'd expect "dragged on too long".

  An error. Fixed.

That's it for a first pass. Once these points are addressed I'll do a MoS and source review (though the sources look fine at a glance) and run down the GA criteria, but this is in pretty good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I think I've addressed everything so far. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've struck most points; I need to be less tired to think about the others so will look again in the morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Jones is out of order in the source list, but that's a minor nit. Running down the GA criteria I think this passes with flying colours. I will have another read-through if/when you nominate this at FAC, but I reviewed with FAC in mind and I doubt I'll be able to come up with much to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Fantastic, thanks for a very thorough review, as always. I've fixed the source list. I may go to FAC pretty soon, depending on how RL work is looking. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1978 science fiction novel Dreamsnake subverts gender expectations by including a named character whose gender is never revealed?
  • ALT1:... that the 1978 science fiction novel Dreamsnake includes a named character for whom gender pronouns are never used, thereby subverting gender expectations?

• Reviewed: Siege of Bednore

Improved to Good Article status by Vanamonde93 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good article, long enough, well-referenced, no copy-vios detected. Both the hooks are cited-inline / interesting, either could be used. QPQ done. Good to go! Ashleyyoursmile! 06:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Why claim the Caduceus as a medical symbol?

I was surprised to see the front page of Wikipedia claiming that the Cadeuceus is a common symbol of medicine. However, the linked article assert that the Caduceus as a medical symbol is a modern, American phenomenon that is "... a result of documented mistakes, misunderstandings and confusion." This article seems to perpetuate these mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.15.101 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

As I stated at WT:TFA, fundamentally, this article discusses the Caduceus rather than the more correct Rod of Asclepius, because the reliable sources that this article is based on do so. With respect to your specific concern, though, while it's true that the use of the Caduceus as a symbol of medicine may have been based on a misinterpretation of mythology, that doesn't change the fact that it is so used, and as a result conveys symbolic meaning. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, "often used as..." is an accurate description of common use - sadly reinforced by the US PHS and other high-profile entities. So, I think this page is accurate in its representation of common (mis)use of the symbol. — soupvector (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  The IP repeatedly adding the phrase "mistaken symbol" would do well to participate in this discussion. The interpretation of mythological symbology might have been incorrect at some point in the past, but that doesn't change the fact that the Caduceus is today a symbol of medicine, and is described as such by the sources. The figure caption is not the place to get into this debate, and the phrase "mistaken symbol" doesn't make sense. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Mike Christie, I wonder if you'd be willing to take a look at the dispute over the description of the Caduceus. I'm in disagreement with an IP who will not engage in talk page discussion, and I'd appreciate a second opinion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've been watching the conversation, and I agree the historical error doesn't need to be commented on in the article. It may be mistaken but for purposes of interpretation that's irrelevant unless the sources mention it. A link from "caduceus" to either caduceus or perhaps caduceus as a symbol of medicine should be enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll give it a little more time to see if the IP will engage, but if not, I will shorten the content again. The figure caption, I think, is particularly confusing. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted most IP edits

I've reverted most of the IP edits. The IP's last edit summary asked for an explanation of what meanings had changed. One example: The change to the synopsis doesn't give us the narrative through Snake's eyes, but shifts the viewpoint to Stavin's parents, which is not ideal as Snake is the viewpoint character for the novel. Another: the change to the explanation of the use of dream venom no longer says it is the dreaming that relieves the pain, but makes it appear the dreaming and pain relief are independent effects of the venom. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The change you've reinstated, I can live with. The "constitute sections" wording was to address the concern at FAC that the pieces were chapters published as stories, rather than stories which became chapters; I can live with the current wording, but the IP's edit implied they were standalone stories. Of the other edits by the IP that I felt were unhelpful was the wording "McIntyre wrote the "Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand" 1973 short story for it", which isn't directly stated in the source; in fact it's implied she developed the writing assignment into the final story, because it was written at a workshop, after all. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

1970s Expanding Readership Base

Stats on male vs female readership of sci fi by decade can help. Was the bookseller industry trying to use the ERA & Women’s Lib movement to gain a whole new customer base? Was this covered in scholarly journals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:4968:38A0:F52C:308 (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)