Talk:The Book of the Book

Strange edit

This edit is confusing. The summary says, "Edited typo - Sutton quote removed as is a reference to other works not the Book of the Book - neutral quote from Studies in Comparative Religion review added."

The explanation leads off with a "typo". I'm not sure what typo there may have been as there really doesn't seem to be one involved here.

Next is the claim the Sutton quote is not about the subject of this article. It is quite obviously about TBotB. The source says, "I wish that, when I was writing my article, I had been able to include a notice of Idries Shah’s latest publication, The Book of the Book. Of this it could scarcely have been said that it was not worth the paper it was printed on. Out of nearly 200 pages only nine carry any print at all; the rest are blank. But I suppose his admirers among the Hampstead intelligentsia will have swallowed this buffoonery with the same enthusiasm with which they have gulped down the rest." Yes, it is an opinion. Reviews are opinions. We uses them when they are published in reliable sources, such as The New York Review of Books. If reviewers said it is "the most important and influential rock and roll album ever recorded", we say that. If reviewers said it is "one of the worst films ever made", we say that.

Similarly, the opinion of the subject in Studies in Comparative Religion is an opinion in a reliable source about the subject.

The edit also removed a summary of the work... Oh, there's the typo. Removing the summary because of a typo is not "edit(ing a) typo".

There seem to be two other editors at work here. An undiscussed concern is the IP's apparent desire to remove "spoilers". Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler. We do not avoid spoilers. In plot summaries for the respective works, we plainly state that Rosebud was a sled, Darth is Luke's father, Jesus dies and magically comes back to life, etc. Yes, the book hardly qualifies as a short story, but we still summarize it and give away the ending (such as it is). Whether we're summarizing "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" or Shyamalan's latest film, it's all there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Lessing's comment

"Ignorance, I will admit, is no crime, and I am sure that Dr. Elwell-Sutton does not claim to be a literary man. But motivation has its mysteries."

This is a comment on Elwell-Sutton, not TBotB. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

With respect, the quote from Elwell-Sutton that you cherry-picked: " Lawrence Paul Elwell-Sutton writing for The New York Review of Books said, "I suppose his admirers among the Hampstead intelligentsia will have swallowed this buffoonery with the same enthusiasm with which they have gulped down the rest." " is clearly an attempt by him to discredit Shah, and the book is merely a convenient vehicle for this.

Similarly, and to avoid undue weight to criticism of the book, Doris Lessing discredits Elwell-Sutton, suggesting that he is ignorant of the real purpose of the book. After the initial bad reviews, others did see what the book was really about, and wrote favourable reviews, but unfortunately being prior to the internet, and not as yet being digitized, these are difficult to come by. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 09:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the contents of the book actually predict such reactions, among others, as was intended by the author. Esowteric+Talk 10:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no way to accuse me of cherry picking "with respect". If you are saying that I am deliberately choosing evidence on one side and ignoring the other, you are "respectfully" questioning my honesty. The alternative is that you are "respectfully" saying I'm incompetent in failing to find other sources you say exist but have not presented.

The source in question arrived here before I did, which is easily verified. Any implication that I sought it out is clearly incorrect.

Incompetence on my part would hinge on those other sources existing -- which is not in evidence -- and the underlying assumption that what I have done here is all that I will do here or that my effort was intended to somehow "complete" this article.

I feel I have fairly summarized what this source says about the book. If I sought to discredit John Travolta by saying that "Battlefield Earth" is the worst film I have ever seen, whether or not that is a "convenient vehicle" is completely immaterial: I said that it is the worst film I have ever seen. (BTW: It is.)

In an article with two sources, I fail to see how a one line summary of a review is "undue weight". Arguing that that inclusion means we must torture the source to make it say something nice about the book (or at least weaken the negative comment) would involve guesswork and present a false balance. You might take my theoretical attempt to discredit Travolta as an indication I hated "Grease", even if it did not mention "Grease". (You'd be wrong: I think it's an insubstantial but enjoyable diversion.) Yes, Lessing's statements do attempt to discredit Elwell-Sutton. Lessing's comments, however, do not say anything about TBotB, the subject of this article. Elwell-Sutton's comments about the subject are on topic and published in a reliable source.

What other sources not presented here say about TBotB is not presented here. As such, there is nothing to say about any of them at the moment. I can't speak for where you are editing from, but there are plenty of top-notch librarians throughout the city who can pull up relevant journals from the 1960s without breaking a sweat. (The academic databases I have access to turn up nothing substantial. I'm not inclined to hit the library between semesters.)

That you feel the book predicted and intended such reactions is irrelevant. Had Travolta said something which might be interpreted as predicting and intending for many reviewers to hate "Battlefield Earth", we would still report that many reviewers hated it. To report that he predicted and intended it, we would need a reliable source directly making that claim. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)