Talk:The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plot summary is incorrect

The plot summary conflates events in the book and puts things in the wrong order. I'm too lazy to correct it, but someone should make it right. (Unless that's intentional to expose high school students who don't actually read the book, in which case I heartily approve.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.147.194.228 (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Editing

To the commenter above: "I'm too lazy to correct it, but someone should make it right." That is not how Wikipedia works. Personally, I've read the Jonathan Hoag story two or three times over the years. I just visited this page after I discovered that Hoag was referenced in a Charles Stross Laundry novel. The Hoag plot summary sounds about right to me. Do you really expect me, or anyone else, to magically figure out what *you* think is wrong with it, and then waste our valuable time fixing it to please you? What an attitude.... 50.132.207.101 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nephilim

Please see my question at Talk:Nephilim#Sons of the Bird --Trovatore 18:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at that location.... the theory is interesting but I think it's unlikely. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 08:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie time

This is to be made into a movie. http://fe46.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080820/film_nm/heinlein_dc;_ylt=AvvAYNShFmwCBSZ7w0wI.51xFb8C 69.154.137.203 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twelfth or thirteenth floor of the Acme building and Guy Noir?

Does anyone have any evidence of a connexion between the twelfth and thirteenth floors of the Acme building, the former housing the office of Guy Noir, the latter of Jonathan Hoag? As of 9 July 2013, there are no Google hits for "floor of the Acme Building" "Guy Noir" "Jonathan Hoag".

—FlashSheridan (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit unlikely to me. Acme is a pretty common name for "generic business" (Wile E. Coyote patronized them), and if I can indulge in personal speculation, I just don't quite see a lefty down-home populist paying homage to a technophile libertarian. The other direction I could maybe believe (Heinlein didn't limit himself too much) but someone would have needed a time machine. --Trovatore (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I now see from your comment above that you have a time machine, so who knows. --Trovatore (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Purely coincidental?

Is this purely coincidental that there was a soldier of this name? Image from March 1944. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely to me.

There was also a poet of the same name whose collected works were edited by H. P. Lovecraft. See s:The Poetical Works of Jonathan E. Hoag -- Beardo (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Žižek response

Someone recently added a note about Slavoj Žižek's analysis of the end of the story, bringing in a Lacanian concept. Is there a reason to think this is a "notable" critical response?

I confess I'm not entirely neutral here — I find Žižek in general extremely tiresome, and Lacan just a mystifier. That aside, I admit that some readers could find it an interesting path to explore. --Trovatore (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]