Talk:The Accidental

Confidence trick

Why the "See also" link to confidence trick. Is in fact the book about a con? Meanwhile, what about a section on "themes"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Style

All the reviews seem to regard the book's style as distinctive. What about a section dedicated to this? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold

I will have to hold this article for now. The article has a couple of grammar mistakes and is mildly confusing. Example from article: 'Michael believes her to be a wife of his wife', makes no sense and leaves the reader of the article confused. Please expand the article so that it's not so confusing in under 7 days or it will fail. I you do not think the article will be ready in seven days, please tell me, the article will be failed and you will have time to expand the article. Thanks!(Also I dont see the copyright information for the book cover, that too is needed) King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 05:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I spent a lot of time working on this article, only to find that every single one of my contributions have been summarily reverted.

The article has multiple issues, which I tried to fix in my changes. There are problems with sources and verifiability. Above all, however, with the prose. While, as always, I don't expect all my proposed solutions to these problems to be accepted, I do bristle at the notion that my interventions have been treated as vandalism, and simply reverted without any attempt at discussion on the talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And now the tag I put on the article to signal these issues has been removed, again without discussion, and also without any of the issues addressed. I have therefore put it back. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I undid them, yes, as several of them were replacing reliable references with the {{fact}} template, and other MoS violations. Fixing problems now. Qst (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problems are far from fixed. This has been a msssive downhill slide, and you haven't bothered to explain half your reverts. Just to take a couple of obvious errors: why put "fiction novel" in the opening line? Why keep to the ungrammatical line "The novel was subject to mostly positive from critics, with few negtive comments"? Where's the reliable source for the author's chronic fatigue syndrome? What is "a wife of his wife"? I had done a lot to help this article, almost all of which was mindlessly reverted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, because it is a fiction novel, for starter's? I don't know what your little grudge is here, but I don't think its healthy. The source for the author's illness is clearly cited in the article. How much trouble are you planning on making, here? Qst (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's start from the beginning, and go through these issues one by one. It'll take some time, because there are so many of them. And it would help if you assumed good faith, and refrained from uncivil personal attacks, such as suggesting that I am holding grudges, unhealthy, or causing trouble. But here goes...

• "fiction novel" is not only ugly, but also practically a tautology. What's wrong with stating that "The Accidental is a 2007 novel..."? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making personal attacks at all. There are not any issues at all in my view. The reason I've stated fiction novel is because that is how all fiction articles start. Qst (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're making plenty of personal attacks, but I'm prepared to pass over them. "Fiction novel" is, as I say, practially a tautology. I can't find a single featured article that employs that formulation. See, for instance, The General in His Labyrinth, El Señor Presidente, Le Père Goriot, The Lord of the Rings, Starship Troopers, To Kill a Mockingbird, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Mary: A Fiction, and Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to look at Novel, in which the genre is defined as "a long written, fictional, prose narrative." Hence the tautology. (Though I've been qualifying this as "practically a tautology," aware of course that there is the sub-genre of nonfiction novel; but the default assumption is always that a novel is by definition fiction.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPA if you think I've been making personal attacks, as I can assure you I have not, rather, I have been standing my ground. Anyways, I'll find some examples which support "fiction novel" being included in the lead, but I don't have time now to retaliate to such minor, trivial, and completely silly concerns such as two additional words in the lead. Qst (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA yourself! Anyhow, the point is that you reverted a massive amount of work that I did on this article, with no explanation. Rather than reverting back, I'm trying to go through the what I see as the numerous errors that you re-introduced. Some are more important than others, obviously. Can you explain why you want to cling to this tautology? I'm given you many instances from featured articles, i.e. Wikipedia's best work, none of which use the phrase "fiction novel," many of which just say "novel" (the others qualify by genre). There's nothing "silly" about trying to get things right. And why think of things in terms of "retaliation"? We are both, I hope, simply trying to improve the article. Once we have this details sorted out, we can move on to the next. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fail

I have looked over what the previous section talked of any why the editor added the tag, and I have seen that there are way to many problems to be fixed in under at least 3-7 days. First, the article is very confusing leaving much un said. Please elaborate on the article and tell more of the stroyline/plot. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's an unjustified move. I was in the process of fixing the problems; if you had given me time, I would have had everything done by today. Just because some editor wants to see more, doesn't mean to say there actually will be more added, as there is no other current information. I'd appreciate it if when I re-nom this, you do not review it. Qst (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then if thats the case do this, get everything straight and then renominate. I wont EVER evaluate the article again if you dont appreciate me giving you more time to not worry about a deadline. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this was rather fast. But Qst, I'd say you should take it to WP:GAR rather than renominating. NB that I do think there are a whole bunch of things that need to be fixed on the article. But it has an active editor, and it's nothing that can't be achieved in a week. (Though reverting good faith copy-editing and work with sources doesn't help!!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I've been looking for some decent sources for this article. Here's one that should definitely be checked out:

• Mark Currie, About Time: Narrative, Fiction and the Philosophy of Time. Edinburgh University Press, 2007.

--jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I'll look in to this tomorrow. :-) Qst (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems

I have a few issues with this article, some merely factual inconsistencies, others - which I feel are more troubling - where the author seems take his reading of the text as fact.

There are, primarily, a number of occasions where sentences simply do not make sense, for example:

'The novel was subject to mostly positive from critics, with few negtive comments'

This is clear and correct English, I don't know you see it not making sense. Qst (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah. There's at least a word missing: "mostly positive" what? And "negtive" is a typo. We do need to work on this more. I should say more generally that I agree with Joe Smith's comments (though he has clearly read the book, and I'm only about a quarter of the way through it). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

'positive' is an adjective (at least in this context) - there is no noun here for it to qualify. The novel must have been subject to positive 'something' Joe smith 83 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(say, rather: 'the novel received mainly positive reviews from critics, with some negative comments')

'The novel, as with the other characters, follows the thoughts of Astrid and her wonders throughout life'

(say, rather: 'the novel follows each of the four family members in turn, giving us access to their thoughts and feelings, albeit through a third-person narration')

There are also some factual errors, such as:

'Michael believes her to be a friend of his wife, but she believes him to be a student of her son, Magnus'

This is not true - she initially believes Amber to be a student of her husband, Michael.

Some points are taken for fact, which I believe should not be, for example:

'Astrid, the youngest female of the family, feels bored in life and begins video-taping some aspects of her life for her enjoyment'

Aside from the fact that 'youngest female of the family' is an awkward expression, the notion that she video-tapes life merely for enjoyment, as she is bored, is overly simplistic and does no justice to the text.

'Through her bonding with the family, Amber begins to slowly destroy the family through her beliefs, and showing them the wrong things in life, such as teaching Astrid to challenge authority'

The accepted notion here that Amber destroys the family is, at a push, a valid reading - but ignores the redemptive final section, and the ultimate effect Amber has had on the family. Also what are these 'wrong things in life'? Who is making this judgement? This is supposed to be an impartial review is it not?

The idea that Eve made Amber leave 'for teaching the youngest child, Astrid to challenge authority' is also overly simplistic, and in my opinion, inaccurate.

There are other issues with the article, of a similar nature, but I have picked out a few to illustrate my point - I think it needs thorough revision and rewriting.

Thanks

Joe smith 83 (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit

I've had a go at a more detailed plot outline for the article - I hope this is ok, I haven't been involved in writing/editing for Wikipedia before. --Joe smith 83 (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this! NB now the long weekend (in Canada at least) is almost upon us, I hope to get further with the book myself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just had a quick look, and what you've done is a great improvement! Really it is. Congratulations and many thanks. One thing to beware: for better or for worse, Wikipedia is very strict about objectivity, or not including personal opinion (what it calls original research). So some of your comments as part of the plot summary--e.g. "Michael also seems to find some redemption"--will probably have to be sourced or deleted. This is probably the major difference between Wikipedia and, say, a review or a term paper. At first it can seem startling. But I won't make any edits to the summary until I myself have finished the novel. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate your feedback - I did try to remain 'impartial' but as you say, it is different to writing an academic paper, and not having done it before I probably slipped up here and there - would appreciate your looking through once you have finished the novel - Joe smith 83 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I thought I'd make more progress on the book at the beach today, but mostly took a nap.  ;) I am liking it, however, and hope that we can ensure that it gets the article it deserves. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also changed the publication date - the novel was first published in 2005 - but now the date does not marry up with the edition shown in the picture, or with the publisher - is this a problem? Cheers, --Joe smith 83 (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the information in the infobox accordingly, in line with Worldcat, to the first US edition. Ideally, we'd have the cover picture of that same edition. Probably even more ideally, we'd have the first UK edition. For what it's worth, the edition I have is the UK/Canadian edition, from Penguin (ISBN 978-0141010397), which does indeed have a different cover. I have no idea if that's the same as the first edition cover. These are details, however, at least so long as the pagination is the same when we come to quote the book. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Accidental. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716143214/http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth91 to http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth91
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516175527/http://www.avclub.com/content/node/45680 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/45680

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) 22:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)