Jump to content

Talk:A Morbid Taste for Bones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plot

[edit]

The plot needs trimming. MOS:NOVELS#Plot dictates that only 3 or 4 paragraphs of plot are needed and excessive information should be avoided GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 19:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three or four paragraphs is a very tough standard. One attempt to edit the summary was done. A character section was added at the same time, so interesting details related to characters have a place. Can someone else trim the plot summary of this delightful novel yet more?

Prairieplant (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another go. Details (such as Prior Robert's motives and actions) which are only hinted at in the book should not be stated as unarguable fact. HLGallon (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot is about the action. This plot is driven by Prior Robert Pennant's desire for relics of a saint. Prior Robert's motives are very directly stated in the text, not sure why you say hints. Cadfael saves the day for the Prior, but not until there is a day to be saved, by Columbanus's actions, and Engelard's reaction, in addition to the people of Gwytherin. More to the point, the change did not make the Plot Summary shorter. Can you have a go that really shortens it, keeping the focus on the action? It is hard to do! I looked at the Plot Summary of several famous (and much longer) novels, and it is amazing how terse their summaries are in wikipedia.


Here is a quote from text of Chapter One of the novel, stating the Prior's motives at the start. If you mean some other aspect of the Prior's motives and actions, could you be specific?

After all, he [Cadfael] knew that most of the remaining time, once a couple of minor malefactors had been dealt with, would be given to Prior Robert's campaign to secure the relics and patronage of a powerful saint for the monastery. For the past few months very little else had been discussed. The prior had had it on his mind, in fact, ever since the Cluniac house of Wenlock had rediscovered, with great pride and jubilation, the tomb of their original foundress, Saint Milburga, and installed her bones triumphantly on their altar. An alien priory, only a few miles distant, with its own miracle-working saint, and the great Benedictine house of Shrewsbury as empty of relics as a plundered almsbox! It was more than Prior Robert could stomach. He had been scouring the borderlands for a spare saint now for a year or more, looking hopefully towards Wales, where it was well known that holy men and women had been common as mushrooms in autumn in the past, and as little regarded.

Prairieplant (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that plot is about the action, and yes, Robert's motives were stated as you describe. However, as I pointed out in the summary to my last edit, your edits omitted important details while including obvious trivialities e.g. "The five [actually six] set out for Wales". You had introduced Columbanus twice, but Sioned, Bened, Annest, Cai, Peredur and Prince Owain's bailiff not at all. Their subsequent appearance could only be confusing (and presence in the list of characters does not make up for their lack of placement). Commentary or even the appearance of commentary e.g. "Cadfael figures out the devious ploy by Columbanus", should be avoided. Plot summaries do not require citations from the work they are summarising. HLGallon (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the text is challenged for accuracy to the novel, then citations do seem necessary. Plus, I see citations in well-rated summaries of other novels, particularly for quoted lines or phrases. If you think it reads better without the sentence about setting out for Wales, then delete that one sentence. Sorry that I miscounted. Details are what we are asked to eliminate, to make clear the main thread of the plot. Characters do not need to be introduced in the summary, only in the real book. I recycled a lot of text from some prior writers, it can be tossed. A bailiff needs no introduction. Job is clear enough. Actually that whole sub plot/paragraph might be dropped for clarity of the main point. Having John wave to Cadfael, then be told John married Annest, may be enough to tell John's story. If Columbanus is "introduced" twice, then let's delete one or both.

'Obvious trivialities' sounds very much like commentary by you and not of the productive kind. I would like to discuss in a more level tone. If this summary feels too short, take a look at David Copperfield by Dickens summarized in four paragraphs. Lots of exquisite detail is omitted. Some of it is found in the character descriptions. This is hard to do, for me, meet those wikipedia goals. Easy to find the starting thread, much harder to concisely follow it. Next stage after the parts we have in these 20 stories is library research (online sources I can find through my library's research service, or an actual book) to find what others have said in print (newspapers, books, magazines, not blogs, the editor says) about the story, beyond what I have found so far for Reviews, Awards. It might feel easier to cut the summary shorter when another source picks up on interesting aspects of the plot, putting them back in the wiki entry. I will start doing that after I am through the whole series in order. I am reading #19 now. #3 still has no list of characters.

I do not understand how the sentence you flag is commentary. For me, it cleared up the plot flow. What change will make it straight plot summary to you? I see, you dropped it, replacing it with details of the level of poppy juice.

Prairieplant (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the plot summary is right now, it is just under 1,100 words, and on the way to being more concise, I think. Prairieplant (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the summary of the plot of David Copperfield, you will notice that, with the exception of Gummidge, not one character appears in the summary without at least a word of introduction. Deleting all explanation of who a character is makes a summary incomprehensible. HLGallon (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cadfael said Columbanus did not need the poppy syrup on this trip, and Cadfael thought the events of that day cast doubt on Jerome as the murderer, not Columbanus -- until his realization that Jerome did not sleep on purpose. Now Cadfael cast his doubts on Columbanus. Cast doubts, not provided alibis.

The brothers have no private property, so he can search the scrip any time. Peredur's mother is a minor plot device so he does search; the main point is the discovery and Cadfael's new view of that day. Perhaps you could provide the text quotes for your changes, next time.

Quotes from the text of A Morbid Taste for Bones

Jerome lacks an alibi, rather than providing one for Columbanus in Chapter Six

"Father, you sent me with Brother Jerome, yesterday, to keep vigil in the chapel, and pray earnestly for a good outcome, in amity and peace. Father, we came there in good time, before eleven, as I judge, and having eaten our meal, we went in and took our places, for there are prayer-desks within, and the altar is kept clean and well-tended. Oh, Father, my will to keep vigil was good, but the flesh was weak. I had not been half an hour kneeling in prayer, when I fell asleep on my arms on the desk, to my endless shame. It is no excuse that I have slept badly and thought much since we came here. Prayer should fix and purify the mind. I slept, and our cause was weakened. I must have slept all the afternoon, for the next thing I remember is Brother Jerome shaking me by the shoulder and telling me there was a messenger calling us to go with him."

He caught his breath, and a frantic tear rolled down his cheek, circling the bold, rounded Norman bone. "Oh, do not look askance at Brother Jerome, for he surely never knew I had been sleeping, and there is no blame at all to him for not observing and reporting my sin. I awoke as he touched me, and arose and went with him. He thought me as earnest in prayer as he, and knew no wrong."

Nobody, probably, had thought of looking askance at Brother Jerome until then, but Cadfael was probably the quickest and most alert, and the only one who caught the curious expression of apprehension, fading rapidly into complacency, that passed over Brother Jerome's normally controlled countenance. Jerome had not been pursuing the same studies as Cadfael, or he would have been far from complacent. For Brother Columbanus in his self-absorbed innocence had just removed all certainty that Jerome had spent the previous noon and afternoon motionless in Saint Winifred's chapel, praying for a happy solution. His only guarantor had been fast asleep throughout. He could have sauntered out and gone anywhere he chose.

Cadfael speaking to Peredur in Chapter Nine

"Never mind, you can show me where they lodge. Columbanus brought some of my poppy syrup with him, in case of need, the phial should be there with his scrip, he'd hardly have it on him. And as far as I know, he's had no occasion to use it, his cantrips here in Wales have been of a quieter kind. We can find a use for it now."

Prairieplant (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow your own quote. What use was to be found for the syrup?
Your text, as it stood. "Cadfael seeks the vial of poppy syrup, to find most of it gone. Columbanus had not needed it this trip; how was it used? Cadfael then recalls that on the day of Rhisiart's murder, only Jerome drank the wine provided for sustenance for his and Columbanus's vigil. Had Columbanus laced it with the syrup, Jerome would almost certainly have slept through the vigil but would have been ashamed to admit it. This story cast doubt on Jerome's actions as Cadfael saw it, until now." What poppy syrup? Why should Columbanus need it. There is no context for it. As with characters, when introduced in a summary, props should have some explanation. The reader should not be expected to plough all the way to the end of the paragraph or even the whole summary to discover a person's or article's function, or relation to others. I have replaced the waffling generalities with a version which is both more concise and precise.HLGallon (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New editing term - Anchor?

[edit]

What does this mean? <<anchor|Plot summary}}Plot>> Why not just say, Plot summary?

Plot is the shortest it has been, good job! Prairieplant (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Morbid Taste for Bones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Morbid_Taste_for_Bones&oldid=1197181954"