Talk:Mashup novel

Rather arguably, in fact.

The article describes Pride and Prejudice and Zombies as "arguably the first", though Neil Gaiman's A Study In Emerald (combining Sherlock Holmes with the Lovecraftian mythos) dates to 2004. And that's just one of the examples I can think of off the top of my head. 75.118.50.215 (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Source of definition??

Ashcroftlleum: Pls provide the source for the definition of "..mashup ...according to the definition in the article"; pls see Dis'cn at "List of fictional works using settings created by other artists".--Jbeans (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So the two New York Times articles aren't good enough sources? Or do you distrust my ability to synthesize what they said and construct a sentence of my own? AshcroftIleum (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The definition: "A mashup novel, or mashup book (also mash-up), is a work of fiction which combines a pre-existing text, often a classic work of fiction, with a certain popular genre such as vampire or zombie narratives."

Question: Did you compose this definition? --Jbeans (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, based on the way it is used in the articles cited this is the minimal definition which can be constructed. Since the sources we cite rarely offer encyclopedic definitions it is up to us Wikipedians to create them. I'm not sure what's the issue here - do you disagree with the definition or do you think the article shouldn't exist? AshcroftIleum (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia policy directly applies here: >>WP:ORIG: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." (Your two sources?—newspaper journalists—do not offer to create a new genre in literature; nor are they qualified—as authorities in literature—to do so. Pls review the 3 paras of the lede of WP:ORIG; very relevant here.)

2) No "minimal definition" needs constructing, nor should be constructed by a Wikipedia editor; such is original research. A list-class article is a good way to avoid the issue of creating OR. Pls review carefully the discussion concensus at "List of fictional works using settings created by other artists"; it is intended to accomodate the titles you have documented.

3) Pls know, Ashcroftlleum; I appreciate your excellent contributions to Wikipedia. I'm not castigating your good work, nor desiring to impede your efforts. The WP (policy) is sound and applies here, if you will think it through again. (Perhaps: adding a data column to the "List..." wikitable ((with a heading that identifies the 'class' {or 'style', or 'flavor', or 'type of narrative'} for each line-record)), and merging some descriptive narrative from your main article, would accomodate.)Regards--Jbeans (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being really nit-picky here. Are you suggesting that identifying a certain brand of writing as a genre is some sort of principled decision to be made by literary experts? According to the Genre article in Wikipedia a genre is "the term for any category of literature, as well as various other forms of art or culture e.g. music, based on some loose set of stylistic criteria." I believe Mashup is actually one of the most easily definable and recognizable genres. And I hope you realize that every single time you write a new Wikipedia article you are defining its subject, and often using terms that usually wouldn't be stated outright anywhere because they are so obvious. everything I've written about mashups is a fact, not an opinion - these books exist, they have these elements in common, and this is the name people commonly use when discussing them. If your only quibble is that I refer to it as a genre, then fine, call it a phenomenon or a trend or whatever, though I'm sure it won't be too long before some article offhandedly calls Mashups a genre (I've already seen several references in blogs, e.g.:

"In a USA Today article this week, Grahame-Smith commented on the future of the monster mashup genre by saying there’s life left in the genre but it won’t last forever." [1]

"Since the April 2009 release of Pride And Prejudice And Zombies, the book publishing world has been inundated with books in the monster mashup genre." [2]

of course these are not notable enough so I did not cite them in the article).

Please forgive me for not wanting to create a clunky-sounding list like "List of fictional works using settings created by other artists" which is probably inaccessible to most wikipedia users. And I don't really see the point of reducing an article which is 3 times longer than the list it contains into just a list. I appreciate your interest and concern for this issue, I just don't really see the benefit of your approach, especially considering the list mentioned above is itself in need of additional citations and may contain OR. All the Best. AshcroftIleum (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pls allow me to signal> I don't find much to disagree with your explanation of 'genre'; though its broader implications—ie, in writing the next aticles of this ilk—are mysterious for me; therefore still of concern. Still, after some readin' & searchin' I note I was visioning merely the formal, historical divisions (of literature) into genre by the early Greeks and their inheritors—who became scholars of those ancients as well as authorities of their own contemporary and inherited literature. Your concerns, it seems to me, fall into a more informal, popular lexicon in discussing modern literature and other arts; a more generic use of the concept 'genre'.

However, the hard matter at hand is the question> when is it ok to ignore WP (policy) that applies; my answer, which I largely draw from observing more dedicated & hard-working Wikipedians than I, is: never (or, almost never), especially once the offending narrative is challenged. (Which doesn't mean that the problem doesn't have an acceptable answer to meet the objectives of the challenged editor.) (Pls pardon me, I am waxing here, and not necessarily 'eloquent'.)

Hard reasons require that I stow my keyboard for at least two days. Until I can play again, pls do me—and yourself—a favor: read carefully the specifications of WP:ORIG; note how they illuminate your creative project, and apply to it. Pls respond here as to how you justify WP:ORIG not applying; or much better, that you accept it does, and how we can fix it.--Jbeans (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We seem to disagree on a basic fact here - You have decided that I am deliberately ignoring WP policy while I do not believe that I am. Here is a small recent addition I made to the article, which is in my eyes redundant, but might show that established sources consider mashup a genre as well:

Ward Sutton, writing in the New York Times, states that "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith, captivated readers and unleashed a whole new genre."[3]

That said, I have no interest in pursuing this argument further as we have clearly reached a dead end. AshcroftIleum (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)