Talk:The Right Stuff (book)

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books Spaceflight Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article could use some quotes from the book.

I would suggest one explaining the title in Wolfe's own words. The NY Times review begins with such a quote.

The astronauts cynically used "Spam in a can" as a nickname for Project Mercury, because they felt that '... they would just become "Spam in a can." '

And we can achieve a first at WP by using the term "anal thermometer" in an article. (page 60)

Wolfe describes the exasperation of the Americans at the anonymous Soviet genius with indisputable powers, known only as "the Chief Designer", who guides the

Wolfe also seems to use the name of a spaceship called the "mighty Integral", which is a reference to Yevgeny Zamyatin's novel We, as a metaphor for the Soviet launch vehicle, the Soviet space program, and the Soviet Union.

The quote "our Germans are better than their Germans" is not in the book and should be removed from this article.

BTW, the full text of the book can be searched at http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search and at http://www.amazon.com.

--Jtir (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, I have the book at home and will include some quotes. BTW, masterful job in editing. Bzuk (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for adding the quotes. The quote boxes are a new to me and they look great. --Jtir (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what edition is "The Lord giveth" quote on page 367? We say in the article that TRS is 350 pages. Indeed, "The lord giveth" is the final paragraph of the epilogue -- in my copy that's 348. --JayHenry (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is on p. 348 in the version I'm referencing [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Stuff-Tom-Wolfe/dp/0553381350/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product on amazon.com], which is

ISBN 0553381350 and what is listed in the Bibliography. --Jtir (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, if Bzuk has a first edition copy, I believe that the default should be his wording of the quotes and his page numbers. Then, in the footnotes, we can mention the page numbers and wording changes in the later editions. That's my initial thought at least though I'm of course open to discussion. We certainly shouldn't use our quotes and his page numbers, as the article does at this very moment. --JayHenry (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made them consistent so that we can conveniently edit war over the matter. :-) (I'm joking!). Is there a guideline on this problem? I don't regard the differences in the quote as significant except in the phrase "Cold Warrior" vs. "Cold War Warrior". And I'm fine with amending the Note to describe the differences. --Jtir (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you fixed it just after my comment. Thanks!

The MLA Style Manual suggests. --JayHenry (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This is essentially a conflicting sources problem (minor to be sure). I'll look for a WP guideline. One practical problem is with future editors seeking to "correct" the quote -- whichever one. --Jtir (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorta "tempest in a teapot" issue; as long as the source used is quoted or cited accurately, no problem. I simply adjusted all the quotes, pages numbers and ISBNs to be from the same source. That's one of the reasons why ISBNs are so sticky as a source of information. Bzuk (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Now the cover illustration doesn't match the ISBN.[http://www.amazon.com/Right-Stuff-Tom-Wolfe/dp/0553240633/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1201128122&sr=11-1] --Jtir (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was just a nicer looking cover; BTW, I have two slightly different editions of the 1979 printing, and I just liked this cover better as it was a contrast to the film poster which is used as the infobox illustration for the Right Stuff (film) article. The other edition which I had used for the quotes has a "now a major motion picture" with a 1988 cover art copyright. Bzuk (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I also like the current cover, but maybe we could use both. Player Piano (novel) uses three covers (first ed., "modern" ed., different title ed.), although I don't know if "fair use" allows that many. I will add the later edition to the Bib, since there are, we now know, differences. That would also allow the different pagination to be cited in the Notes. And I apologize for giving the impression that I was questioning your transcription. I began with the first quote because it has a lot of ellipses and looked like it was from the review, both of which raised flags for me. I have no idea why I didn't look at the page nos. :-( --Jtir (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that it is [http://www.amazon.com/Air-Classics/dp/B00006K2HU this magazine], but could not find a specific web site or any mention of it in several databases at my library. --Jtir (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Air Classics magazine ran a two-part "making of the film" article by film historian Jim Farmer that documented the behind-the-scenes production work, concentrating on the realism that was entailed in bringing together a large fleet of aircraft in both scale and full-size form.

BTW, not a problem with the "string" above; I readily appreciate that there are subtle differences in the various editions and printings and I quite enjoy our exchanges. You will find that I am actually easy-going rather than that characteristic testy Wiki editor renown for picky, picky edits that seems to be my legacy in this WikyWacky world. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have added this "second" edition(?) to the Bib.

• Wolfe, Tom. The Right Stuff. New York: Bantam, 2001.
  ISBN 0-55338-135-0
  .

• Wolfe, Tom. The Right Stuff. New York: Bantam, 1979.
  ISBN 0-553-24063-3
  .

--Jtir (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK to switch the ISBN in the book infobox back to the one that corresponds to the cover pic., now that we can cite both editions in the Notes? --Jtir (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is not really okay. The information in the infobox really needs to pertain to the first edition. If we decide to use the later edition picture we should just note in the caption field that it's a later edition. --JayHenry (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go. The first edition is

ISBN 0374250324. If we're going to include a fair use image, I think it should be the first edition cover. It's quite an interesting cover, see here: [1]. --JayHenry (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a beauty! --Jtir (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of this book, like all Wolfe's books (thus far), was published by

Sounds good, but we will need a cover image of the first ed. for the infobox. --Jtir (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our comments in different threads overlapped. The first edition is

ISBN 0374250324. There's a rare trial run cover: [2] and the original first edition cover: [3]. --JayHenry (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, JayHenry, for adding this section. Ragen sounds like a superb source. Here are some comments:

• "... with 1975's The Painted Word and published a collection of magazine pieces in 1976's Mauve Gloves & Madmen, Clutter & Vine."

While the contrast between the two subjects (space vs. art) is fascinating, this seems to be more detail than we need here.

• "... Wolfe's bestselling book to date."

Which date? (the present?)

• "...the unspoken code of bravery and machismo that compelled these men to ride atop dangerous rockets."

Is this a paraphrase or a quote from one of your sources? Personally, I prefer any wording that sounds like interpretation to be quoted inline.

--Jtir (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a good source. Regarding your points. I wasn't trying to make a contrast between state and art, but since he started writing the book in 1972 but published two other books first, I think it's important to say what those book are in a section about that seven year period. By "to date" I meant, "up to that point in Wolfe's career", I actually thought that was a common and unambiguous expression. Apologies for confusion. The final line is just a paraphrase of common explanations of the "right stuff". I could inline it to a variety of places, as I have some other critical works on Wolfe. Thanks for giving the section a sharp look! --JayHenry (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarifications. On the first two points, I made copyedits taking them into consideration.[4][5] I dropped the distinction between research on the "whole of the space program" and on the "astronauts", assuming that the former entailed the latter. The Painted Word describes it as "a book of art criticism", which is slightly different from what you had. I don't think we need so much detail on what it is about. The sentence is essentially saying that he was working on more than one project during the seven year period. --Jtir (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on previous experience, this section will grow ad infinitum. We should probably work the shorter ones into the article text, so they have some context. The longer one, about the title, could go in a separate section that explains the title of the book. --Jtir (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, think about moving them over to Wikiquote, and then adding a Wikiquote box. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All good suggestions but for the time being, nothing needs to occur unless there is an outbreak of further submissions. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Although I find this annoying, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that em-dashes (—) should be unspaced.

If you find it annoying, it's probably because it is annoying. Em-dashes that are unspaced are harder to read than em-dashes that are spaced. I am not the one who made the dits you mention, but I fail to see the point of adhering to a convention which you recognize as being a poor one. A compromise might be to use en-dashes instead. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with en-dashes. The reason I'd prefer to adhere to the convention is that it's nonetheless a requirement for getting an article to featured or good status on Wikipedia, and it's really a minor typographical thing. --JayHenry (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor using

WP:AWB will fix the change in spacing. --Jtir (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I had never heard the expression before either, but according to this book-collecting terminology guide:

First state (of first printing)

Primary focus of collectors. Copy printed during first press run before any alterations are made to book. Alterations (aka issue points or points of issue) which indicate second or later state may include any modifications made during the production process - e.g., editorial corrections, additions or subtractions of pages, changes in binding cloth, alterations of dust jacket, etc. NOTE: all changes affecting state are more often than not assumed to occur prior to distribution. SYNONYM: first issue.

What's odd is that the cover is completely unfamiliar to me. Could it be a "first-state" cover in somewhere other than the US or Canada? The UK or Australia, perhaps? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question -- following the source link in the image file leads to this info:

This first edition includes the very scarce trial dust jacket, which was changed at the last minute from a striking design suggestive of the covers on Wolfe’s earlier books to a more somber, patriotic illustration. Copies in the trial wrapper were never sold to the public and even now are not widely known to exist.

That explains why I've never seen it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edition state terminology link and for adding it to

Edition (books). Why did you add the <small> tag to the caption? (It has no effect on my display.) --Jtir (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

On my display, it changes the size of the type to small, allowing more to fit into the same space. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be contrary, but why would reducing the caption size be useful? (Just asking, not being used to that convention, no other motivation for the question.) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Well, for one thing I reduced the size of the image, feeling that it was dominating the text a little (and the design is striking enough to survive visually in a smaller presentation), so if the caption text stayed the same, the caption box was somewhat out-sized compared to the image -- hence the shrinking of the text size. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Bzuk (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Figured it out — I had Firefox configured to display a minimum font size of 16. --Jtir (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Wolfe coin this phrase? If not, who did, where did it come from? I note that a 1974 album Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters uses the term as a song title and lyric in connection with the pilots of F-104s, so this would suggest the phrase predates Wolfe by at least that much. 60.229.10.93 (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he coined it or not, Wolfe popularized its useage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]