Talk:Seeds of Yesterday

Novels Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm curious if we could remove the last section surmising that Cathy died of a broken heart?

I've read this series twice every year for the last 20 years. In all of those times I've read the books, I never got that impression after I finished it. There is nothing to indicate that subtext in it either. I think is more a subjective statement by the person who wrote the synopsis than it is based in the actual storyline. The only thing that Cathy wrote was about was that she felt like no one needed her anymore as she points out that: Jory was married and had another child on the way, Cindy had grown into a beautiful young woman who could take care of herself, and Bart had finally found his place in the world, accepted Cindy as his sister and Chris as a good father. Then she states that because of that fact she felt she could let go and go join Chris who was waiting for her in a garden that was made just for them.

I don't know if that's where the synopsis writer got the impression, but I do know that when I read that last line I was like "What? The author did? Where was that written or implied?"

The other thing I was curious about is what is actually wrong with the article. I don't see any citations listed, but is it noted because the plot is too long? I don't see how the summary can be cited considering that is the sum of the book being written out. So why does it mention citations as a problem in the first place?

If someone could let me know the main issues with the article and why that notice on there, I'd appreciate it. Mostly because I'd like to be more informed about the wiki logistics and a lot if the pages describing it are written in an overly technical way, which is something that has always made me aggravated when trying to read them. The technical writing aspect of them makes the details so specific that they are monotonous and harder to understand. Or to quote as they say in the movie Beetlejuice "This thing reads like a stereo manual!"

Thank you! Sabriel (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]