Timeline for Which zone is the OnOff system in?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
37 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 8 at 6:40 | comment | added | galacticninja | Relevant Science Fiction & Fantasy Meta post about this answer: “Minor mistakes” rule for editing | |
| Feb 6 at 18:19 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 6 at 18:50 | |||||
| Feb 5 at 3:43 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 5 at 5:28 | |||||
| Jan 26 at 15:32 | comment | added | RLH | Attempting to edit the plot summary with the point that the spiders aren’t speculated to be the fallen ancients, they’re descended from the co-life-forms of the fallen ancients — “we Spiders are evolved from the gods’ garbage vermin” on page 602 of the hardcover. I can’t fix my suggested edit because after the temporal-language rollback-reject cycle, the rejection of this edit pushed me over the edge of an edit ban. | |
| Jan 26 at 14:36 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jan 26 at 14:52 | |||||
| Jan 26 at 14:34 | comment | added | fez | @Null I shall defer to your judgment | |
| Jan 26 at 14:27 | comment | added | Null♦ | @fez Revision 5 removed the chronological phrases without changing the meaning so I've rolled the post back to that version. | |
| Jan 26 at 14:23 | history | rollback | Null♦ |
Rollback to Revision 5
|
|
| Jan 26 at 6:30 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jan 26 at 8:34 | |||||
| Jan 26 at 5:56 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jan 26 at 6:18 | |||||
| Jan 26 at 5:54 | comment | added | RLH | I’ll just say that you’re the one who rolled back an approved edit that was a softening of a previously approved edit. | |
| Jan 26 at 5:50 | comment | added | fez | Let this one go my friend. There are other posts more deserving of attention | |
| Jan 26 at 5:48 | comment | added | RLH | (And it doesn’t change the answerer’s intent, which is to describe the information contained in the two books) | |
| Jan 26 at 5:41 | comment | added | RLH | It is incorrect — nothing in Fire can be a “later reveal” for anything in Deepness. My edit that you just rolled back puts in neutral phrasing that makes it a non-issue. | |
| Jan 26 at 5:39 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jan 26 at 5:49 | |||||
| Jan 26 at 5:30 | comment | added | fez | Just leave it as the original author intended please. It’s not incorrect | |
| Jan 26 at 5:25 | history | rollback | fez |
Rollback to Revision 4
|
|
| S Jan 26 at 4:44 | history | suggested | RLH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Removed any reference to Fire Upon the Deep being before/after Deepness in the Sky. Disagreement over narrative vs in-universe chronology was causing a rollback war.
|
| Jan 26 at 2:10 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 26 at 4:44 | |||||
| Jan 25 at 18:52 | comment | added | RLH | @DavidW: (The alternative would be to change the perspective of the statement from narrative order to character-chronological order, something like “what Pham later learns in Fire Upon the Deep is the Slow Zone” and “In Fire Upon the Deep he learns that this put him in…”) | |
| Jan 25 at 18:49 | comment | added | RLH | @DavidW: Because Vinge wrote Deepness as a flashback-sequel/prequel for an audience who he expected had read Fire, has not indicated that Deepness should be read first and uses the reader’s knowledge of the Zones to create narrative tension. The SW canon is a mess that I try to avoid touching, but I would certainly object to a statement that the meaning for something that happens in Rogue One is “later revealed” in A New Hope. | |
| Jan 25 at 18:39 | comment | added | DavidW | @RLH Why the insistence on publication order? Would you also claim that all references to A New Hope must state that it came before Revenge of the Sith? | |
| Jan 25 at 18:05 | comment | added | RLH | @DavidW: “As is later revealed in Fire Upon the Deep” and “It is later revealed in Fire Upon the Deep…” are statements about the narrative order, and are incorrect, because all narration in “Fire Upon the Deep” happens before all narration in “Deepness in the Sky” — Deepness makes use of the narrative tension between the reader knowing about the Zones, but the characters not knowing about them. (Which is beside the point of why dmkee’s previous comment about this point disappeared around the time my edit was approved then rolled back) | |
| Jan 25 at 17:53 | comment | added | DavidW | @RLH The snippet starting "Pham Nuwen embarks on a journey" is clearly from the point of view of Nuwen's personal timeline, in which the events of AFUtD followed ADitS, so the existing wording is correct. | |
| Jan 25 at 17:39 | comment | added | RLH | It looks like @dmkee’s comment about how revelations to the reader about the zones of thought from Fire Upon The Deep are narratively before those made in Deepness was just deleted, about the time my now-rolled-back edit to the answer referenced that comment. | |
| Jan 25 at 17:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jan 25 at 17:50 | |||||
| Jan 25 at 15:16 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jan 25 at 17:06 | |||||
| Jan 25 at 12:11 | history | rollback | DavidW |
Rollback to Revision 2
|
|
| S Jan 25 at 4:41 | history | suggested | RLH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fire Upon the Deep came out before Deepness in the Sky, so later -> earlier for description of when things were revealed (in line with dmkee's comment)
|
| Jan 25 at 1:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 25 at 4:41 | |||||
| Apr 14, 2023 at 5:50 | history | edited | JRE | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Jun 4, 2019 at 10:05 | comment | added | StayOnTarget | @Acccumulation but without specific supporting quotes from the text or maybe an author's comment it just seems speculative, although totally plausible. | |
| Jun 4, 2019 at 10:04 | comment | added | StayOnTarget | @KlausÆ.Mogensen something gave me that impression also | |
| Jun 4, 2019 at 7:37 | comment | added | Klaus Æ. Mogensen | I believe it is mentioned (or implied) towards the end that the On/Off system is right on the edge of the border to the Beyond and might be within it in a few decades/centuries. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 22:26 | comment | added | Acccumulation | @DaveInCaz Yes, but it's corroborated by the other points that I made. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 22:24 | comment | added | StayOnTarget | The quote from Wikipedia appears to be unreferenced, it may just be an assertion by some Wikipedia editor. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 19:10 | history | answered | Acccumulation | CC BY-SA 4.0 |