Talk:Iain Banks

Inversions as a Culture novel?

I'd like to dispute Inversions being a Culture novel. As far as I'm concerned, the vague assertion that the Culture may be involved in the storyline doesn't make it a Culture novel, any more than references to death make one of Shakespeare's comedies into a tragedy... Excession 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To quote Banks, "Inversions was an attempt to write a Culture novel that wasn't." [1] This is unlike Feersum Endjinn which Banks confirmed being entirely unrelated to Culture, after some people had interpreted it otherwise. Aapo Laitinen 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I found "Inversions" to be one of the most pleasing Culture novels. The impact of the story was inherent in its subtlety. I'd recommend it to anyone as a non-genre but they'd have to read "Consider Phlebas" first! P.S: (user: "Exession") "...The vague assertion that the Culture may be involved in the storyline..." Way to miss the whole point... Twat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruskin35 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's a Culture novel! If the 'vague' assertions are not enough for you, how about the knife missile? //roger.duprat.copenhagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.176.245 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the novel's key strengths is actually not knowing that it is a Culture novel. Unlike every other Culture novel, Inversions does not feature "A Culture Novel" on the cover, and this is precisely because that fact is not revealed until the very end. It is probably the most genius and memorable plot twist I have ever come across and the "surprise" is entirely intentional by the author. For this reason it is only correct for it to be classified outside of the list of Culture novels, but not because it barely makes reference to the Culture, but because otherwise the whole plot twist is given away. 2A02:8084:9841:2900:9896:9AF0:4F6F:45A3 (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care about spoilers. The book is listed as part of the Culture series on the author's website. That would seem to settle the issue. 64.141.80.200 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Transition, science fiction or not?

The book Transition has been moved from the Fiction section of the bibliography to the Science Fiction section. I think this is worth discussing. The edit comment cites evidence from the Wikipedia article about Transition, and also that it was nominated for a science fiction award. I don't think that is a particularly strong case as those are the opinions of others and the author himself described it as "a mainstream novel that borrows science fiction tropes" (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7948058.stm). Personally I think the whole bibliography would be easier to read if it was arranged chronologically, then such demarcation issues would not arise, with entries along the lines of: 1984, The Wasp Factory, an Iain Banks novel. 1987, Consider Phlebas, an Iain M Banks Culture novel. --User:DaveH —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. The attempt to separate his streams of work into two sections is far too subjective, and unnecessary. Those who claim that the nom de plume he used when writing one stream or the other is a definitive guide need to consider that in some markets some books were published under the other non de plume to the main markets. Greglocock (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

New TV series in development

Shouldn't [2] this be mentioned? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Ming and Aing

"He wrote mainstream fiction under the name Iain Banks and science fiction as Iain M. Banks"

Not this old cliché. The Bridge is a science fiction novel and is published under the "Iain Banks" label. As is Walking on Glass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.45 (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Nationality - Scottish or British?

I see a later editor removed the field entirely - workable, but a bit drastic IMHO.
So anyway, last week I was checking my watchlist, and a sock had added "British" to the nationality field of the infobox, apparently the first wikipedia edit by that address. If you are at ALL familiar with the works and life of Iain M Banks like I am, you would know that he fervently disliked being called anything but Scottish. I noted this and reverted it. The next time I checked I found this in the edit history of the page:
"90.243.22.131 Undid revision 1010729790 by [[[User:Timmccloud|Timmccloud]] (talk)] It's not a matter of identity or style. Banks' passport said 'British' and that is his legal and meaningful nationality"
This was done by an anonymous sock, without any references for the changes made, and had begun an edit war with me. He's been warned about the concept of edit warring, and I told him to weigh in here, like he should.
I still think this deserves a discussion, what is the consensus? Scottish or British? Whatever consensus is, it shall be done.

VOTING:

• British - I assume this is the IP sock vote 90.243.18.24
• Scottish - This was Iain's personal preference, it's stated in all his book cover bios as such, and I believe it should be reflected as such in the info box. Timmccloud (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Leave the field out - I'm the editor who removed the field. As I said in my edit note, it is an optional field, nothing is lost by not having it. Place of birth, place of death, education... there's plenty of content in the article that shows Banks is Scottish without needing to have a nationality line in the infobox. Looking at some other articles on Scottish writers as examples, Muriel Spark and William McIlvanney do not have a nationality field, while [James Kelman]], Ian Rankin and Robert Louis Stevenson have their nationalities listed as Scottish. I don't see the value in having a nationality field when it's already strongly implied; it seems to be most useful for highlighting when a writer is maybe not the nationality you'd expect. But if it must be there, it clearly should be Scottish - to counter the passport argument, that's what the Citizenship field is for. H. Carver (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. British With all due respect, British nationality is a legal concept. What about Scottish nationality? The term just redirects to the same place British one does. Internationally, Banks is considered a British writer. Maybe a footnote can be added with a comment that he preferred the other term? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not believe errors and simplifications made internationally should be cited as precedent. Great Britain is an United Kingdom of four nations. The distinction exists. Perhaps we should change Drake's page because he's internationally known as a North American rapper? Perhaps we should go through the many Wikipedia articles of Catalan people and change them all to being Spanish? There's also the fact that while there is nationally as a legal concept, the documentation for the template does not say that is the definition applied for the template. H. Carver (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks, your comment made me change my view. Until Scotland becomes independent, there is no such thing as Scottish nationality. Although as I said, I'd be fine with a footnote about his personal views on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If interested editors haven't already seen it, there exists an essay that discusses the issues of British nationality in some detail, and may help inform - Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom H. Carver (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

British isn't a nationality. Banks was Scottish.

Northern Ireland is not in Great Britain

This is to answer the comment above that says that there are 4 countries in GB. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the editor wrote "Great Britain is an United Kingdom of four nations". He's confusing two things. Great Britain is an island, consisting of Wales, Scotland and England. It is essentially a geographical, not a political, concept (although it was once a political entity when the Kingdom of Great Britain existed 1707-1800). Nowadays, it provides three of the four home nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The other one, Northern Ireland, is a part of the United Kingdom, but is most definitely not part of Great Britain. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)