Talk:The Machine Stops

"Derivative works"?

I am not sure the works listed are all derivative works according to the definitions I can find: Derivative_work says "In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work)."; Sidebar Saturdays says "A derivative work is a new version based on a preexisting work. Common derivative works might be an adaptation, translation (languages or into new mediums), musical arrangement [etc]", Duhaime's Law Dictionary says "Derivative Work Definition: Intellectual property (copyright): a work that builds on, or reassembles, with some degree of originality, existing works."

So I think that "bear multiple similarities" is not sufficient to make it a derivative work, nor does "refers explicitly". I have had a quick listen to The Hawkwind album of the same name, and there are some direct quotes from the story, but only contains a fraction of the words in the story, so I am not sure that is a derivative work either.

One of the definitions says that "an adaptation" is a type of derivative work, and there is already a section called "Adaptations" so there is no need for another section with the basically the same sort of thing.

I think the items in the present section are fine, but with the section having a different title. I am not sure what a better title might be, perhaps "Influences", or "Influenced works ", or "Works inspired"?

FrankSier (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

After a suitable pause for other people's comments, I have changed section title to "Related works". FrankSier (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this review acceptable?

I was going to add the the following review extract (from https://readingbug2016.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/book-review-the-machine-stops-by-e-m-forster-1909)

The Reading Bug describes The Machine Stops as "strangely prescient" and says "this text is closer to the Victorian science fiction of Wells and Verne than it is of the Bloomsbury authors Forster is commonly associated with." but goes on to say that "as a story The Machine Stops is a failure. The two main characters are two-dimensional. The ending is sign-posted in the title, so hardly comes as a surprise. And as social commentary the story is a little preachy. When you compare what Wells was able to do with similar ideas one begins to appreciate how little Forster makes of his unquestionably original insights."

...but a caution popped up as this probably not being a suitable website (because of it being a Wordpress website I think).

I was already uncertain about this review as the negative opinion expressed in it seemed to go against what seemed to me the grain of general opinion, and also against my feeling. On the other hand it felt POV to omit something just because of these considerations.

Opinions anyone?

FrankSier (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect it depends on the credibility of whoever writes the WordPress blog, and whether it is within their area of expertise? JezGrove (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Derogation??

There's a quote from Wired describing the story as "a chilling premonition of the George W. Bush administration's derogation of "the reality-based community". It's an accurate and enlightening quote, but the word "derogation" is (imo) meaningless in the context. I suspect the author meant "denigration" as is used in the reality-based community article. Is it possible to keep the quote but give the phrase some meaning? Chris55 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I've answered my own question. A problem with an online dictionary that only gave one meaning! In my Collins paper dictionary the first definition is given as "to cause to seem inferior or be in dispute; detract" which is quite ok. Chris55 (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)