Talk:The Queen's Gambit (novel)

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.

Chess Low‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess 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.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Local children of 'The Queen's Gambit' author reflect on father's life, legacy
‘The Queen’s Gambit’ is a bestseller, but its author, Walter Tevis, was hardly a one-hit wonder

post

This was my first post. Not sure how to do footnotes or hyperlinks. Hopefully someone will come and help clean it up. Thanks!--Sarahdeming (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Sarah[reply]

Notability of failed adaptation attempts

The by far most important information for a section titled "Screen adaptation" is actual realized adaptations. Failed attempts are generally not notable - these should be summarily treated if at all mentioned. They should definitely not lead the section. CapnZapp (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp: is the existing version of this section okay? It does seem a little off that the miniseries information is much shorter than the failed attempts. Does it make sense to expand the miniseries information? Or is that pointless since it's already linked to the full article on that? Sfern824 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Since I wrote that the section has been improved (by myself and others). Do check out the version I was commenting on: here's the one closest to 23:00, 27 October 2020, the timestamp of my comment. I should add that since that time, I have become aware of two pertinent facts that make the inclusion of past efforts more relevant: 1) the "Allan Shiach" that purchased the rights off of Tevis' widow and the Allan Scott that finally realized the Netflix project is one and the same, and 2) the main chess advisor on the Netflix show is the same Bruce Pandolfini that helped Tevis with the chess for the book nearly forty years ago. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp: Thanks for the clarification, I hadn't thought to look at the previous versions to see if it had been updated since. This now makes much more sense and I agree that it seems more relevant. I also missed that detail about Pandolfini in this article, pretty interesting! Sfern824 (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bildungsroman?

In the lede and in the categories it's unequivocally called a bildungsroman. Yet, in the body of the article we say:

The novel is difficult to classify, occupying a space between thriller, sports/game novel, and bildungsroman..

That means it's not exactly a bildungsroman after all. If it has characteristics of "thriller, sports/game novel, and bildungsroman", why is only the latter mentioned? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can phrase it better, give it a try :) CapnZapp (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]