This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Runch (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 25 September 2006 (WP:SoT, Reply to WLU). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:40, 25 September 2006 by Runch (talk | contribs) (WP:SoT, Reply to WLU)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Novels B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Sword of Truth
Tone and content
The problems of tone and content are in this article as the other individual SoT pages. Please see the Talk:Stone of Tears page for more info. NeoFreak 14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Major Themes
So I noticed that some of the information in the themes section had been deleted, so I replaced it because it seemed fairly worthwhile. However, even though I think a themes section is a great addition to this novel, I'm not entirely sure we should keep it. Despite however obvious (or subtle) any of the novel's themes may be, I think for us editors to make judgments about it would fall under the category of original research, which as we all know isn't allowed.
So basically, unless we can find some references for the section, even though some of the themes of the novel may be obvious, I think we might have to temporarily delete the section. What does everyone else think? - Runch 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, my problem with what you reverted is speculative opinion. While one could see similarities between the two books, one could also make many such claims of several books. What was placed there was more plot and book specific. It spoke to the theme of the book and its power. Personally I would have it reverted. Maybe I could enhance it, but I do think making comparisons is not NPOV--Mystar 14:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- My point is that it could all be considered speculative opinion, even the obvious stuff about Richard and the Spirit statue. Since the only reference we could cite is Faith of the Fallen itself, I think any observations made from the book are original research. So personally I don't think we should include any of it. I'm just waiting to see if anyone else has any good arguments either for or against. - Runch 14:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a review that could be potentially mined for themes, or at least ideas regarding the book. Admittedly it is pretty negative, but it's still a resource. 'Taint got a lot in it, but it does justify the mirroring of "The Fountainhead". http://www.flakmag.com/misc/worst.html WLU 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Come on now, that's not nice. Posting that link is going to rub Mystar the wrong way and you know it. Kinda innappropriate as it looks like you're purposely trying to egg him on. I took a look at the article, and it has no place here. I have no problem seeing positive and negative reviews, as some people like the book, and some people don't. But to post a completely negative and derogatory article is too much. Merrit 17:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm expecting people to cite gushing reviews of the book and its themes, and as much as a completely negative article is unbalanced, so is a completely positive one. The review does acknowledge TG's merits as a writer, it is not completely negative and derogatory. It also addresses in an official venue some of the complaints that TG's readers have about his books - overly political, excessive sexual violence, awkward wording. Note I didn't put it in the article, I put it in the talk page as an option for inclusion. Whether it is used or not is up to the regular contributors. WLU 18:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, implicit in what I said was that we need reliable sources, which this obviously isn't. - Runch 18:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)