Talk:Ring of Fire (anthology)

Story titles of the anthology

edit

Cut out of article as redundant with ShortStory Sections

The stories in this book are:

Some Leads for reviews and Cites

edit

Praise for 1632 and 1633:

“[Eric Flint’s 1632 is] a rich complex alternate history with great characters and vivid action. A great read and an excellent book.” -David Drake

“[1633 is] thoughtful and exciting . . . highly recommended. . . .” -Publishers Weekly

“[Readers] of Flint's 1632 will see its strengths in its sequel right from the beginning . . . The same formidable historiography, wit . . . intelligently ferocious women, and mouth-watering displays of alternate technology are again on view . . . [many readers] will turn every page and cry for more, which the authors intend to provide.” -Booklist

“. . . Weber and Flint take historic speculation to a new level in a tale [1633] that combines accurate historical research with bold leaps of the imagination. Fans of alternate history and military sf should enjoy this rousing tale of adventure and intrigue.” -Library Journal

The article is written like an advertisement.

edit

Seriously, Ring of Fire needs to be shorten into a summary, but not an advertisement gimmick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgyen (talkcontribs) 19:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion this may be the least fannish of the Grantville articles, lol. There are no adjectives stating how wonderfee it all is, etc. Could you be more specific about which sections you think should be changed? I do think that the Background, Premise and "Departure" sections should be condensed and combined into one. Most of the Grantville articles suffer from redundancy at the hands of multiple wiki editors. Tkech (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think the "Series names" needs to be deleted.--Drgyen (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply