Talk:Dolores Claiborne

Split
I would like to see the Dolores Claiborn page broken off into two sections, one dedicated to the book and one dedicated to the movie version.

Reason being is the large differences between the movies screenplay and the book as written by King.

I'll be looking for feedback here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathytreks (talk • contribs)


 * Indeed, the novel and film adaptation should be separated, and ideally written into separate articles. See the multiple articles on The Shining, King's novel, Kubrick's film, and the TV mini-series, for a fine model.  Chris Stangl 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. More work should be done on the article, almost all plot stuff were about the movie. Hervegirod 10:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Writing style
What I am trying to describe here is that the story is not narrated like a written work, but like a spoken work: it's as if there was a tape recorded in the room when Dolores is telling her story to the police and the text of the novel reads as if her remarks were transcribed verbatim. Have I got the gist of it? Ellsworth 21:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's exactly it. Early in the book she says "One other thing before we get started - I know you, Andy and Frank, accourse, but who's this woman with the tape recorder? Oh Christ Andy, I know she's a stenographer! ..." implying that this is indeed the transcript of that recording. Arnie Side (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DoloresClaiborneNovel.jpg
Image:DoloresClaiborneNovel.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 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 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * rationale added in April 2007. Hervegirod 11:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Bestseller year vs. Copyright year?
This novel is interesting in that it was "Publishers Weekly's Bestseller of the Year for 1992" but the copyright of the book is 1993. Now I know that the term "bestseller" is not really how many books are sold that year but how many books are ordered that year by bookstores which they are planning to sell. Take a look a Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue" at the present time 11/10/09. That book is a New York Times Bestseller and is not even published yet and probably won't be until next year. So that most likely will be another case of a 2009 bestseller which will have a copyright of 2010. So this sets up a prohlwm on the Bibliopgraphy page. Should we put the year of the copyright of the book or the year it was a bestseller? I think the definition of a bibliograpghy says we should put the copyright year. And then that means the beginning of this article is wrong. Which I have left alone to get further feedback on what we should do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesterloli (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The book was physically released in bookstores in November 1992. The article is correct. Jmj713 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Time mag. review
Dropped this link:


 * http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977189,00.html Book Review in Time by John Snow, 7 December 1992

The page linked to is subscription-access, I don't think we usually include those in articles, right? Ellsworth (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)