Jump to content

Talk:The End of the Road

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year written

[edit]

Hey, isn't the awesome book written in the late 1950's and not in 1967? Its in the 1967 category for some reason. Maybe it was written later and I'm just suffering from acute cosmopsis, the cosmic view. Teetotaler 30 June, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First published 1958. See http://www.wordcat.org and refer to LCCN 58-9381. Revised 1967. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.38.5 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:The End of the Road/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review; haven't read this particular one, but I've got more of a background in Barth than most reviewers likely to come along. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. As always, thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

There's been some mistake here--I thought I was reviewing this, but it's all about some crazy book from the 1960s instead?

Anyway, this looks like your usual solid work--thanks for the effort you've put into it. A few quibbles are below. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Appleton, Century Crofts" is punctuated differently at its article-- is this punctuation also correct?
  • "Jake feels himself bound into inaction "by the serpents Knowledge and Imagination, which ... no longer tempt but annihilate"." Sentence with quotation should be followed immediately by inline citation (I assume it's the one at the end of the para)?
  • "the parties involved be able to take each other seriously" -- should be followed by citation
  • The Sartre image seems to not be public domain in the US (at least, it needs a tag as it is), so probably isn't fair game for a tangential connection like this.

-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See minor prose point above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Sentences with quotations should be followed by citations, even if it means a redundant footnote or two.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Does a particularly good job balancing contemporary critics and later academic analysis.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Sartre image appears to need another look at its copyright tags.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA

Anyone have access to these books?

[edit]

It looks like the following books have substantial information on The End of the Road (up to full chapters):

  • Bowen, Zack R. (1994). A Reader's Guide to John Barth. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-27978-2.
  • Bloom, Harold (1994). John Barth. Facts on File. ISBN 978-1-55546-386-1.
  • Tharpe, Jac (1970). John Barth: The Comic Sublimity of Paradox.
  • Tatham, Campbell (1968). The novels of John Barth: an introduction. University of Wisconsin.

It would be great if anyone who has access tot hese books could use them to contribute to the article. I live in Japan, so I can't access them either online or in the library, and I haven't found copies that fit my budget. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox fields

[edit]

Note: There was some discussion about what fields belong in the infobox (in this article specifically, and in articles-using-Infobox-book in the abstract) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Archive_17#The_End_of_the_Road_by_John_Barth_image_debate, in September 2013. –Quiddity (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That conversation really should have taken place here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd've preferred it stayed on the talk pages of myself and GrahamHardy, who obviously disagrees with you. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to remove File:EndOfTheRoad.jpg

[edit]

I propose removing the non-Free image File:EndOfTheRoad.jpg for the following reasons:

  1. The omission of the image has zero appreciable impact on the reader's ability to comprehend this article.
    • WP:NFCCP #8: "Contextual significance'. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
  2. The image is not discussed in the body of the article, and I am aware of no source that does.
  3. The image illustrates none of the content of either the work or the article
    • It appears to be generic book-cover artwork, and gives no strong impression that the illustrator had even read the book.
  4. The image is not strongly associated with the work:
    • Only the obscure first edition used it.
    • The overwhelming majority of editions of the book are of the revised version of 1967.
  5. The copyright tag does not state the owner of the copyright
    • WP:NFCCP #10(a): "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value."
    • There is a guess in the rationale that it is either owned by the publisher or the artist, though it could also have be owned by a third party who provided the artwork for the book on a work-for-hire basis; basically, no attempt has been made on the part of the uploader or anyone else to find out who owns the copyright.
  6. It is the only non-Free image on a page that is otherwise entirely Free content.
    • There is no guideline requiring the inclusion of non-Free images, nor could there be.


Discussion

[edit]

Problems with article

[edit]

The End of the Road has been one of my favorite books for many years, and I've reread it numerous times. I am loath to rewrite an article, especially one that is so well sourced and has attained "Good Article" status within Wikipedia, but I think the article has several significant problems as it stands:

"This indicates to me that you're ready for Mythotherapy, since you seem to be already practicing it without knowing it, and therapeutically, too.... Some time ago I told you to become an existentialist. Did you read Sartre?"
"Some things. Frankly, I really didn't get to be an existentialist."
"No? Well, no matter now. Mythotherapy is based on two assumptions...."
It would be better if mythotherapy were introduced in the plot summary later on as a development in how Jacob views the world, rather than as the initial condition that launches him into the events of the novel.
You're right—I've moved this forward, and reworded things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article makes much of Jacob's "cosmopsis," and barely deals with the larger issue of his extremely Protean relativism--his chameleon-like adaptation to mood and circumstance that forms the polar opposite to Joe Morgan's rigid rationalism, with Rennie caught in the middle. This is the true philosophical conflict that the book illustrates.
  • The plot summary focuses on relatively minor incidents, such as the pickup of Peggy Rankin, to the exclusion of the Morgan's extraordinary marriage and Rennie's breakdown over the course of the second half of the novel. In fact, the whole second half of the novel is dealt with only in the final paragraph of the plot summary.
    • Peggy Rankin appears in one and a half sentences. Are we reading the same plot summary? You're not seriously suggesting removing those bits? A plot summary is not a play-by-play—if you want all the details, you read the actual book. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map locating Wicomico county and the photo of Jonathan Lethem have very tenuous relevance to the book.

In short, the article reads as an overly academic analysis that loses sight of some of the basic points of the narrative. Schoolmann (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A bit hard to buy the argument from someone who claims one of the basic and widely-discussed points of the book ("cosmopsis") never appeared in the book. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is consistently called "paralysis" throughout except for two sentences. Look, I didn't vandalize your precious article. Keep it word for word for all I care. Where is all this hostility coming from?Schoolmann (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Wikipedia article reports what Reliable Sources have said about a particular subject, not our personal takes on it. Go read through a few summaries of the book in other sources and see what they choose to focus on. Obviously, if there are "basic points of the narrative" that have been missed it should be pretty easy to find sources that discuss them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I do want to say I appreciate getting feedback, and I'd like to get more—even when I disagree. I don't see the article as unimprovable or error-free. Please keep it coming. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]