Talk:Decipher (novel): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted 2 edits by Cyclades identified as vandalism to last revision by Piano non troppo. (TW) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|sf-task-force=yes |
|sf-task-force=yes |
||
}} |
}} |
||
wow, someone has copied the blurb!--[[User:58.178.227.52|58.178.227.52]] 09:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The book has the words "International Bestseller" on the cover. Publishers aren't allowed to print that unless there are sales figures to back it up. |
|||
==Predictions section== |
|||
Removed: apart from a smell of [[WP:SOAP]], unless some pre-existing commentator has made this analysis of the book's contents and real-world events, it's [[WP:SYNTH]], a flavour of [[WP:NOR|original research]]. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 21:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Those figures appear in many sources such as Publishers weekly, but are not available online because a paid account is needed to view them. |
|||
:Agreed. My contact with this article was removing what I presumed was fancruft or spam from that section, and was surprised when the author announced on my talk page that he had written it. [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Piano_non_troppo#Decipher] If the author had used those cited references as sources for his book, then it might not be [[WP:SYNTH]], but due to the protracted period over which the author has been adding support for the predictions, it seems that he is searching for events proving his foresight (à la Jules Verne). [[User:Piano non troppo|Piano non troppo]] ([[User talk:Piano non troppo|talk]]) 09:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Just because you haven't heard of a book doesn't mean that other people haven't either. |
|||
==Critical reaction== |
|||
Section removed. I can't be arsed to check them all, but here's an example why: |
|||
Since when did Wikipedia become an encyclopedia of what other websites say? |
|||
:''A wide-screen special-effects Technicolor blast, perfect for a Hollywood blockbuster.'' The Times |
|||
If this place continues down that path, it means that according to Wikipedia, the Yeti is accepted fact, but evolution is a lie put there by satan. |
|||
In actual context: |
|||
Grow up. |
|||
:''STEL PAVLOU's debut novel is, at heart, a work of pseudo-science fiction. But the less credulous would do well to suspend their disbelief because beneath the New Age flummery lies a pretty decent high octane thriller ... Wade through these lengthy preliminaries, and suddenly the novel takes off. With the team's arrival in Antarctica the story turns into '''a wide-screen special-effects Technicolor blast, perfect for a Hollywood blockbuster'''. From time to time it shows that this is Pavlou's first book. The plot is overloaded and parts have to be ditched unresolved and the tone wobbles between the dryly esoteric and the demotic. There is even an attempt at a rather coy love interest. But Pavlou has not spared the horses and the last third of the book makes up in thrills for any shortcomings. Yet with so much of his arsenal spent on his first book, you wonder where Pavlou will turn his talents next''. |
|||
And another, even more disingenuous: |
|||
:''A fascinating blend of science, mythology, language and much more.'' The Independent (UK) |
|||
The reality: |
|||
:''There are some great elements to the story, but the whole thing is too big, too overblown and far too long to sustain its momentum. This could have been an excellent science-fiction novel of ideas. The plot offers '''a fascinating blend of science, mythology, language and much more'''. But in casting it as a thriller, Pavlou has succumbed to the twin temptations of melodramatic writing, and of pulling too many rabbits out of his hat. The finale in Atlantis staggers beneath one wonder after another (including murderous golems that resemble the dead loved ones of our heroes), making it impossible to maintain suspension of disbelief''. |
|||
:- [http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/mythical-mumbo-jumbo-in-a-labyrinth-of-erudition-685074.html The Independent review] |
|||
With such cherry-picking going on, I very much doubt the other reviews are neutrally reported. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 03:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Very well spotted. This is an excellent example of why anything like this needs to be sourced to the original. I had a problem on an article where 'Editorial reviews' from Amazon (not readers comments), were being used but there was no source for them and some were clearly excerpts from something longer. There was a big dispute about whether they should be included. [[User:Dougweller|dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 08:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:16, 11 January 2009
 | Novels: Sci-fi Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
The book has the words "International Bestseller" on the cover. Publishers aren't allowed to print that unless there are sales figures to back it up.
Those figures appear in many sources such as Publishers weekly, but are not available online because a paid account is needed to view them.
Just because you haven't heard of a book doesn't mean that other people haven't either.
Since when did Wikipedia become an encyclopedia of what other websites say?
If this place continues down that path, it means that according to Wikipedia, the Yeti is accepted fact, but evolution is a lie put there by satan.
Grow up.