Talk:11/22/63

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

reviews

hey book was released few days ago any many king fans are waiting for first reviews. if you find any meaninful reviews, please post them here so we could build a proper section. Bartekfm (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartekfm (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a section on reviews? 198.96.2.93 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

released 8 Nov 2011, and we should have meaningful reviews already? I guess some got advance copies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/stephen-kings-112263/2011/10/27/gIQARCxmaM_story.html but I expect it will take time for a proper review section. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to change the critical reception to a little better than "mixed" - the section has only one outright negative review, and the novel has received a warm reception on Amazon (currently averaging a strong 4.5 star rating) and elsewhere. Janors (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Here's a link to Metacritic's page for the book, which shows overwhelmingly green "liked it" reviews (not "mixed"). Janors (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of about a dozen reviews for this book that I have read, only one was outright negative, the Guardian's. I'd say the reviews have been mostly positive. Jmj713 (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change from "mixed" seems appropriate after new crop of reviews. However, Metacritic site still needs ownership notation as this is a conflict of interest on a Scribner publication. Ofazomi —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think it's relevant at all, unless we can find a wealth of negative reviews that disagree with the Metacritic selection. Janors (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of project

It says above that this novel falls within the scope of the horror project. However, unlike other Stephen King novels, this is not a horror novel at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.203.61 (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a horror novel; that's not what the WikiProject associations identify. Since King is notable for being a horror writer, all of his works are obviously of interest to the Horror project (which is what the banner means.) (Then there is the subjectivity issue: because of the crossover with It, and the Earth-destroying side effects of the time travel, who is to say it couldn't be argued that there are horror aspects to this? In any event, that's the type of original research we try to avoid here, in absence of a reliable source that independently publishes such a judgement.) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

links with other King works

how about the fact that the protagonist's name is Jake? Dark Tower anyone? ayyem (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's too trivial. We can't catalog every instance of an author reusing first names. That's nothing at all like the definite crossover with It and the possible appearance of Christine. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre weaseling

"Although the novel contains science fiction and alternative history elements, the majority of it is historical fiction dealing with real-life events and people between 1958 and 1963." The book is science fiction: "alternative history" is a well-established SF subgenre, and of course writing in that subgenre reads like "historical fiction." Stop being frightened of science fiction: the book is screamingly SF (okay, since there's no attempt to actually work with science per se, "fantasy"...but trying to wish it away as "historical fiction" will not work). 2fs (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious reference to an It character

Sadie mentions dancing with Don Hagarty at the school dance. Hagarty appeared in It as one half of a homosexual couple who encounter Pennywise.

Uh, excuse me? Sadie lives in Texas, and the school dance occurs there. It occurs in "Derry", Maine. Does this person move? (Also, the reference to Pennywise needs to be explained; we can't assume readers are familiar with all King works (which I don't pretend to be, BTW.) And "half of a homosexual couple" is probably irrelevant TMI.) JustinTime55 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more fundamental and relevant question would be, where do we draw the line between "trivial" and non-trivial references? JustinTime55 (talk)

Historical Character List

What is Richie Tozier doing on the Historical, rather than the Fictional list? He is a fictional character created for the King novel, IT. 24.245.39.61 (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

spoiler early in the Wikipedia article

There is a spoiler early on this page, in the background section. It contains a quote by Stephen King that gives away the end of the book. I tried to edit it some years ago because it ruined the book for me while I was with midway through. A moderator rejected my edits each time I made them, ultimately threatening me with a ban. I would really appreciate it if someone would take a look at this. I'm not saying that spoilers should be omitted entirely, but perhaps the quote can be moved somewhere deeper into the article so that is not one of the first thing a reader sees? And, perhaps moderators can be less dictatorial and abusive of their powers? Thanks.

No one is being dictatorial. Wikipedia does not leave out spoilers. Read WP:SPOILER. Sundayclose (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the situation described above one Wikipedia moderator is indeed being dictatorial in the sense that they are threatening a ban for a reasonable user-driven edit. I have searched several other Wikipedia pages of novels and in no other can I find a quotation by the author that reveals the ending of the book at the beginning of the article. I understand that Wikipedia does not prohibit spoilers. My request is not that the quote article be deleted, but that the that the quote be moved elsewhere in the article so that it is not one of the first things the reader sees. I think this is a reasonable request, but it is one that I have not been able to implement myself due to the dictatorial actions of the moderators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01E:8B3D:ED95:DF91:8FC1:E (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article on spoilers you recommended, WP:SPOILER and bullet 3 of that article comments on appropriate placement of spoiler information, such as "Plot Summary". I am arguing that "Background" is not an appropriate location. Stephen King is quoted a lot about his thoughts for putting together this book. In fact, the book itself includes a section with historical notes that explains his meticulous research. This information is far more valuable to the reader searching for Background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01E:8B3D:ED95:DF91:8FC1:E (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]