Talk:What a Carve Up! (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.

Proposed merge

There is a new article, The Winshaw Legacy, which is about the same book, there is more content there (compared to this article) and it has references. I'm not sure which title would be preferred (I would prefer "What a carve up!" as the article with that title was created first, which suggests it may be more notable, also it's the title I have heard of). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've merged the article in as there were no objections. It still needs a bit of cleanup though. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What a Carve Up" is a genuine film

I agree with proposed merge. Like Snigbrook above, I would prefer the article to be named "What a Carve Up".

In the meantime, I propose to remove the following sentence, which is a "spoiler" but which is also inaccurate in a number of ways: "In the end, a traumatized Michael is transported to the Winshaws' family home, where he and they live out a Carry On film parody called What A Carve Up!, in which Michael's dreams are fulfilled and the Winshaws, in turn, receive their just deserts."

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_carve_up%21" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.236.188 (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bilge Of The First Water

I quote "“The Leadership Election was a Joke, and now we have a new tenant at number ten which can only be described as a political dwarf, with no idea how to govern, and mandate from the people” (pg. 133) This is an allusion to the Mandate of Heaven in China. The Mandate of heaven meant that a ruler could rule a land without any fear of revolt as long as the Gods themselves provided them with the mandate. As soon as the people felt that the mandate had been lost, they could revolt against the ruler and elect, or chose a new ruler."

Utter nonsense! It refers to the fact that John Major succeeded Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister without a general election being held - thus enjoying no mandate from the people of the UK for his leadership. It was only in 1992, that an election was held and he secured that mandate from the populace. Please amend accordingly.Jatrius (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial edit, April 2011

I know the novel reasonably well and agree that the version here is dire. I'll rewrite it, more or less from scratch, as and when I get time. Cerreno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

5 April 2011 - Okay, I've done what I think needs doing to make this readable. It contained the kind of detail a far more significant novel might demand, and nowhere near to the standard so most of the work was cutting. Anyone who wishes to check it for quality and make any changes they see fit is welcome to do so. I should say, I am a warm admirer of this novel - but it isn't The Crying of Lot 49. Cerreno (talk)

Margaret Thatcher "would later become"/"later became" prime minister, July 2012

I don't want to get into an edit war about this but this is significant because the present tense of this summary is about Henry Winshaw's Oxford relationship with a student called Margaret Roberts, it is not about the future trajectory of the woman who became prime minister. By changing "would later become" to "later became" you are forcing two present tenses into the sentence which is bad syntax and deflects the focus from its subject, which is Henry Winshaw. By all means explain your thinking here but repeatedly distorting the grammar of a precisely worded sentence is no use to anyone. Cerreno (talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]