Jump to content

Talk:How We Are Hungry

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

Abbreviation

[edit]

Why is it HRAR and not HWAR?

Synopses

[edit]

I deleted the synopses from the short stories, and while I understand the revert, I really dislike their inclusion in the article. Writing the plot like that not only spoils most of the stories' endings but is also incredibly overstated, cheap, and superficial. Literary fiction, like Eggers', is about form and style, and, above all, giving away the stories misses the point. KyleGarvey 04:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Outriggr, but the spoiling is only one small aspect of what I find wrong with synopses. Therefore, a spoiler warning is not really middle ground. I'm hoping we won't have to get into an edit war, but if Koavf doesn't bother to explain his change as I did I'm going to remove the synopses again. KyleGarvey 04:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>My thinking I wrote them, so I simply didn't want them to be deleted without any apparent reason. After reading your comments and furhter edits, you were concerned about spoilers. I'm fine with a spoiler tag if you are; makes sense to me. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fine with a spoiler tag, which is what I just said. I don't like the concept of providing plot summaries for literary fiction at all, especially if those summaries are as shallow and overstated as these are. KyleGarvey 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Whatever I don't really care enough to argue about it, Kyle. If you want to go to Gravity's Rainbow, or A Tale of Two Cities and just write articles like "X is a book by Y and it is good," then go ahead; delete all of the fiction synopses if you want. I don't know why someone would be opposed to synopses on principle, and then want them to be more detailed and essentially reveal more information about the stories themselves. I'm also not sure how these are exaggerated in any way. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 01:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Gravity's Rainbow and A Tale of Two Cities discuss the literary merits, forms, and techniques as well as the plots of their works. If you're prepared to discuss each of Eggers' stories in detail in this way, I'd be fine with synopses in addition. Plot summary alone, however, does not cut it. I'm not prepared to get into that much detail (and I'm sure WP isn't either), so for now the stories should only have general information. KyleGarvey 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippogriff rather than Chimera

[edit]

A hippogriff -- like a griffin -- has the head of an eagle, claws armed with talons, and wings covered with feathers, while the rest of its body being that of a horse. A chimera has the body of a goat, the tail of a snake or dragon and the head of a lion, in the alternative, the chimera had heads of both the goat and lion, with a snake for a tail. An examination of the cover indicates the animal is a hippogriff.

Perhaps the hippogriff is symbolic of something like "love conquers all" or "anything is possible," as griffins are traditionally regarded as having an antipathy for horses. Since the hippogriff -- being the offspring of a horse and a griffin -- was a doubly impossible being, pehaps the reader of HWAH will find among the stories the same magic that brought together the horse and the griffin. Just a thought D-Looth 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Koavf

[edit]

In response to Koavf's comments here, what can I say, except to tell you that you are wrong? Pictures of authors provide no "context" whatsoever for articles about their books. What Dave Eggers's face looks like tells readers nothing at all about his book How We Are Hungry, and it is foolish to pretend it does. The overwhelming majority of articles about books do not contain pictures of their authors, and nor should they. I challenge Koavf to explain how the appearance of this man's face shows anything about his book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on How We Are Hungry. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:How_We_Are_Hungry&oldid=1202815808"