Talk:The Natural

Odyssey Comparison

The line "...and finally arriving home to the mother of a son he never knew." is incorrect with respect to Homer's The Odyssey. Odysseus knew of his son Telemachus before he went to fight at Troy. In fact, that was one of the reasons that Odysseus didn't wish to leave for Troy was because of his wife and newborn son. Darwin's Bulldog 06:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to edit the article and weed out that kind of stuff. I liked the movie, but I think whoever wrote some of this stuff was getting a little carried away with analogies to famous literary works and legends. The original book was simply supposed to be a dark satire. Wahkeenah 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• I corrected the error. While leaving the analogy in the article, I removed the obvious mistake. Darwin's Bulldog 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Odysseus had fond memories of his tryst with that one nymph who drew in men, as Larry Miller might say, the way a powerful magnet attracts cheap metal: "Aye, Calypso, I sing to your spirit, the men who have served you, so long and so well!" (Somewhere John Denver is cringing). :) Wahkeenah 01:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Roy + Iris in the Movie

Sorry--I remembered this question from when I saw the movie way back in the day, but I don't have the two hours to watch it now.. In the movie, when Roy meets Iris again, does he realize that it's Iris from his youth? I can't remember, but it seemed to me (from my old, tired memory) that he didn't know it was her? Thanks, in advance. Madmaxmarchhare 23:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• He knew. He saw her in the stands and it jolted him out of his hitting slump. Wahkeenah 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Did he know immediately that the kid was his? Madmaxmarchhare 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not till she told him. Wahkeenah 12:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed split

The film-related material is a big part of this article, and it makes sense to split it off because it has its own history and cultural impact. My only concerns are that 1) it might be a little tricky to separate the two within the later sections, and 2) the novel page would probably end up a bit short and need to be fleshed out again. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Realistically, I suspect that the interest in the film far outweighs interest in the book. And then there is the question of how you handle differences between the book and the film, i.e. which of the two articles do you put it in? For The Wizard of Oz, there are separate pages, but that makes sense because each has a lot of material. I'm not so sure splitting this book-film page into two pages is the way to go. Wahkeenah 05:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• If not, then the introduction needs to be reworked to acknowledge that this article is about both. Right now, I've got an opening that tells me only that it's a novel. Then I see a list of sections telling me that I can read about the musical score (for a novel?), the plot (which does not give the plot of the novel; it gives the plot of the film), pop culture references (the novel on its own is not pop culture relevant; it's the film that is), and criticism (which offers barely a mention of the novel but rather dicusses criticism of the film). Mwelch 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• I suspect that a lot more people have seen the film than have read the book. I did read it, and found it very cynical. The movie is quite different; not just in the way the film ends, but also in how he revered his father vs. in the book where he really didn't know his father very well. I'm not sure I'm qualified to discuss the book in depth, since it has been 20 years since I read it. But you make a good point that the article needs to be done better if it intends to discuss both versions. Wahkeenah 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• One article, specifically written to indicate that it deals with the novel AND the film. Vidor 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Split article

I've split the film information off into its own article. The previous arrangement did not work well at all. If a book is made into a movie, you don't write out the synopsis of the film adaption and intermittently add in the changes made from the original story when they occur. Not only is that sloppy and unprofessional, it is very bad spoiler-wise for those who haven't experienced one or the other. Also, most the non-plot related information is for the movie and belongs on its own page anyway.

I've copied the plot synopsis over to the film page sans the info about the book. An actual synopsis of the plot of the book needs to be added in to this article as soon as possible. Any info on the differences between book and movie needs to be in its own section. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Since the book was published 30-plus years earlier than the film was released, the logical place for the "differences" is in the spoilers section of the film. As far as the book synopsis, you could practically extract that info from the "differences" and just leave out the parts about the film, and voila. But don't count on me re-reading the book to give a better synopsis than that. Reading it once was more than enough. Wahkeenah 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BernardMalamud TheNatural.jpg

Image:BernardMalamud TheNatural.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added this and deleted the bot notice from the image file. If I didn't do it right, someone please correct. Thanks! --Karen | Talk | contribs 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot fixed

I have done a substantial rewrite, to make the "Plot" section solely about the book. DO NOT ADD PLOT MATERIAL REFERENCING THE MOVIE BACK INTO THIS ARTICLE. The two entities, while related, are separate, and should remain that way. I recently re-read the book, but if I missed any details that are important, please feel free to put them in there. Theirishpianist 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Real "Natural"

I think this article should mention that the book was based on Eddie Waitkus. I would add it, but don't want to do it until folks agree.

Trucker11 (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have no problem as long as you provide appropriate context and reliable sources for the information and properly cite it.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Eddie Waitkus makes reference to he being the inspiration for the story, so if you do not want to add it to this article, then I will. Hobbomock (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the WP article on Waitkus is not properly sourced, and we can't use other WP articles as sources. It needs a valid source to remain in. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found and added a couple of external sources. Aardvark92 (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Most people are only familiar with the Roy Hobbs of the movie, portrayed by Robert Redford, as oppossed to the Roy Hobbs of the book, who is much more flawed. In the movie Hobbs chooses Iris over Memo and chooses to "swing away" rather than counter-offer the Judge, whereas the Hobbs of the novel does the latter in both instances. I suggest moving these Pop Culture references to the article on the movie The Natural (film).Hobbomock (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it likely is not directly related to this article. It should be removed. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Last Paraagraph

The last paragraph of the synopsis needs a little work. Why is Hobbs punching everybody? What is Memo doing there? Why does Memo shoot at him? Why does Memo put the gun in her mouth? Also the opening line saying it's a book "about baseball" doesn't seem right. It's not non-fiction. It doesn't focus on the sport of baseball, it focuses on characters who happen to be involved with baseball.66.167.234.246 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Drive by tag

This article has recently been tagged with the following:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

yet the tagger has left no sign here on the talk page of what items he or she believes need sourcing. I will remove it until such time as the tagger gives us some guidance here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Major Themes

i hid the 2nd paragraph in this section:

Roy represents the knight, Perceval, from the story of The Fisher King. Both are uncultured and unintelligent. For example, Pop tells Roy to, "knock the cover off the ball," as Roy goes up to bat. He does just that, and when Pop asks him after why he did that, Roy says it was what he told him to do. When Perceval became a knight, he asked many questions. Finally, his mentor advised him not to ask too many. Consequently, he stops asking questions altogether, and thereby fails to cure The Wasteland.

the thing that caught my eye, as i skimmed the article, was the 2 spellings of Percival. i know that both are acceptable spellings, but i thought the article should stick to just one, to avoid confusion. i see the spelling was changed in the 1st para. last January, when the link to the wiki page on Percival was added. that editor missed the next 2 instances. when i went in to edit the spelling, i actually read the 2nd paragraph. it repeats the main argument already presented in the 1st paragraph, then makes a...well, either a logical error, or just poor writing. take your pick.

much of the paragraph is opinion, and it isn't sourced (perhaps a reason for the 'lack of sources' and 'original research' tags being placed on the section THREE-AND-A-HALF YEARS ago). the "for example" given doesn't demonstrate being uncultured nor unintelligent, which is what it should do, based on its placement. (and, as an aside, "uncultured and unintelligent" seems inaccurate. "unrefined and unschooled" or "inelegant and nescient" seem closer. Roy isn't a barbarian or mentally deficient.) the example doesn't illustrate anything about the 2nd half of the paragraph either. in fact, i'm not sure what the connection between Percival and Roy is supposed to be for...okay, this whole paragraph. the 1st para. of the section pretty much covers the comparison. unless someone finds "being told what to do" the same as being "advised" of something. which, at any rate, would need to be sourced.

but, it was added nearly 5 years ago, and if no one else finds this paragraph to be poorly written, unsourced opinion, then i guess it should be un-hidden.Colbey84 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)