Talk:Go the Fuck to Sleep/Archive 1

CE
Thanks to everyone for the copyedits. This may well be the worst I've ever produced and I appreciate the editorial oversight. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

More info
I'm not sure the best way to add this info to the article at the moment, so I'm leaving info about a couple of sources here for others to use:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/05/13/go.the.f--k.to.sleep/index.html has some more details such as the first printing is at least 150,000 books and there's a G-rated version in the making, as well as providing more background commentary from author/publisher/etc.

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/spoof-kids-book-canongate.html says that Canongate Books has publishing rights for most Commonwealth countries and will be publishing on the same day as in the United States.

VernoWhitney (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC) There's an interview with Mansbach at http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_18073311 and his original facebook post is at http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=507473700#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=119097981468302&id=507473700 (note that it's not censored as currently listed in the article). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I figure tracking down more sources is the least I can do to help this along. This is certainly an article that deserves to be well-featured at DYK. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you one of those parents too? Drmies (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment. I will say that I know some new parents and soon-to-be-parents who will be getting copies from me this summer, though. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was likely censored by the newspaper, it would be good to find a RS that can be used to quote the uncensored version. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously it was censored by the newspaper (they censor the title too), but since there wouldn't be any basis for choosing one source over any other as more reliable without going back to the primary source, why not just cite it directly (in combination with the current NYT reference, since it's the secondary source which prevents it from being undue)? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One more review from the NYT here. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories
I'm confident that this should be categorized as children's literature, besides a few other things. I'm not certain that it's actually a parody (though I won't press the point), and I wouldn't qualify it as satire. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this a children's book? Apart from the obvious profanity, it's actually making fun of children (albeit it in a beautiful and tasteful way). What parent would read this to their kid? --Merbabu (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sequel?
The author should consider a sequel with the title Why you got to wake up so damn early?.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * lol - but, I heard the sequel was called "Eat your f**king vegetables". --Merbabu (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion forum for the book, it's for discussion of the article, please take this elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.247.13 (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your (6) contributions to wikipedia. Please sign your posts with four tildas: "~" thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversy?
This section, whether intentionally or not, seems to written with a definite bias. Saying someone has "...has expressed amazement that no one seems to be acknowledging that this book is clearly a parody of their book 'It's Time to Sleep, My Love'" should be taken from an actual quote from the source, rather than rely on the actual text of Wikipedia to argue from their point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.247.13 (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Apostrophe in first paragraph
I don't agree with LadyofShalott's undo of my removal of the apostrophe in "booksellers'" in the first paragraph. If the sentence said "...campaign which consisted of booksellers' forwarding of PDF copies of the book...", the sentence would be possessive since it is the "booksellers' forwarding" of the PDF copies. As the sentence stands, there is no possession here that I can see. I'm writing here on the discussion page to avoid an edit war. Erikvcl (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're absolutely right; no possessive, no apostrophe. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The standard example of the gerund that I was taught by Mrs. De Wit (ah, the good old days...) was "Do you mind my opening the window?" The Lady's reversal sees the sentence, "...consisted of booksellers' forwarding PDF copies of the book by email," as falling in line with that construction; that is, what's operative here is the forwarding, not the booksellers. Your reading poses that operative is the forwarding by booksellers (as actors). Anytime a grammatical difference is argued one way or another by some reading of meaning it's not really a grammatical difference, but one of style--and Malleus, my reading of grammar is influenced much more by Rodney Huddleston (and his Cambridge grammars) and by the Oxford Grammar (I think this is the one I have in my office), that is, by descriptive grammars, rather than by for instance Fowler. In my opinion, the use of the gerund (or its non-use) in many cases, such as this, is not a matter of grammar (or "correctness"). But I'm a liberal in that matter. In other words, it doesn't really matter to me. I don't think I wrote that sentence; if I had, I would have done it differently to avoid that possible dispute. I can go with the Lady out of love, and with Malleus out of respect (or vice versa!); I don't think it's grammar per se which mandates one over the other. I'm open to argument and suggestion, of course. Malleus, feel free to disregard my commentary--I'm smoking a cigarillo as I'm typing this, which certainly would make me suspect in your eyes. ;) Drmies (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Smoking anything makes you suspect in my eyes, but I'm not one to talk as I have a nice glass of rosé in front of me right now. There is, in my opinion, absolutely no plausible argument that the gerund (forwarding) belongs to the booksellers, although I give you full marks for a very spirited attempt; it's what the booksellers were doing, not what they possessed. There are only two uses for the apostrophe; to indicate possession or to indicate a missing letter, neither of which applies here. And as for teachers, well, what was it that GBS said? Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so suppose the situation were that I was the one doing the forwarding. Erik and Malleus, are you saying that it would be incorrect to say "my forwarding"? It's not ownership, no, but just a different use of the possessive form... or is there some distinction you are drawing that I'm just not getting? Lady  of  Shalott  01:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's put this in context. The full sentence in the lead currently says "Described as a 'children's book for adults', it reached #1 on Amazon.com's bestseller list one month before its release, thanks to an unintended viral marketing campaign which consisted of booksellers' forwarding PDF copies of the book by email". I'll let pass the "#1" MoS violation for now and concentrate on the apostrophe issue. There is only one use of the possessive form, and that is possession. We're agreed I take it that the apostrophe isn't being used in place of a missing letter, so we can concentrate on the possessive. Gerunds as I'm sure you know are formed from verbs, therefore they're not nouns that can be owned. Who could own swimming, or talking, or walking ...? Drmies's contortion is precisely that, a contortion. The correct thing to say would be "my forwarding of", not "my forwarding". Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (Yes we are agreed this has nothing to do with a missing letter.) It is now clear that you are drawing a distinction that I'm not getting, but would quite like to. The "my forwarding of" versus "my forwarding" is still not clear to me. I have no problem with using "of" or not in that phrase, but would have used the possessive in either case. (As for the sentence as a whole, I have nothing invested in it, and would not care at all if someone wanted to rewrite the entire thing.) Lady  of  Shalott  02:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite convinced that the possessive is wrong, but even I recognise that I'm not infallible. Anyway, let me offer an alternative that gets around the problem: "Described as a 'children's book for adults', it reached number 1 on Amazon.com's bestseller list a month before its release, thanks to an unintended viral marketing campaign during which booksellers forwarded PDF copies of the book by email [to each other?]." Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. (I don't know the answer to the question of to whom they forwarded copies. I don't think the source spelled that out.) Lady  of  Shalott  02:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I'd be the last to say that you're fallible (though there's a case of an incorrect "it's" on your talk page). You are a grammatical luddite of course. But my main point is that the "apostrophe s" is not necessarily indicative of possession, and that thinking of that s (or the attendant apostrophe) as possessive is too restrictive. Now, how I'd be contorting by saying you're both right, I don't rightly see that, haha. (Or, you're both wrong, of course.) I have no problem whatsoever with your alternative. As a bit of OR, let me add that booksellers did not forward them necessarily just to each other, but also to others, such as (presumably) their friends and just about anyone else--such as me and Kelapstick. I mean Kelapstick and I. Lady, did I send you a copy? MF, would you like one? Now all of y'all, get the f*** to sleep! Drmies (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How little you know me; I am very far from being any kind of a Luddite. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kelapstick sent it to me, thanks. Lady  of  Shalott  02:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

<--But MF, talking about the "'" as marking a possessive is the mark of a luddite, as I have disrespectfully called it (you) here. (With my apologies.) One could call it the marker of the gerund, shifting the problem to the usage of the gerund, and the very word "usage" in my opinion points to where it's really at: rules of behavior, rules that your Fowler--completely prescriptively--was so good at, to the point that English teachers like the abovementioned Mrs. De Wit and my mother in law accepted things as grammatical rules that weren't grammatical rules, at least not in the opinion of Huddleston, the Oxford Grammar people, et al. Lady, do you care to tweak the lead according to MF's proposal? Thanks Lady, cheers MF, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lady  of  Shalott  03:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well done. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A word to the wise Drmies; never try to bullshit a bullshitter. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your lack of a comma there. Ahem. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing: striking--at the end of an entire semester of Advanced English Grammar, in which we discuss rules and what not and conclude that it's really not like Mrs. De Wit taught us, there's always a couple of exasperated students who throw their hands in the air and say, "but we want rules!" Drmies (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to grammar and related, I may have more in common with those students than I would prefer. Part of me likes descriptivism, but there's a prescriptivist still in there who rears her head to say, "but, but, but that's the rule!" Ah well... Lady  of  Shalott  03:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's rather simple; there are a few rules, but the most important thing is to have an ear for the language. Dylan Thomas comes to mind as an author who broke the rules, but then he wasn't writing an encyclopedia article .Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dylan Thomas is a god. I tried teaching a few of his poems one time, and have never been less successful. Why is this a redlink? Drmies (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to turn it blue as your next project... --LadyofShalott-alt (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Audio book a record holder?
I just purchased the audio book and have added some detail about it to the applicable section. With its running time of 7 minutes of which only about 4 and a half minutes is actually the book itself, I think a case can me made for this being the shortest released-to-CD audio book in history. We'd need a source but I think this is the case. There have been shorter CD music singles released, but not an audio recording of an unabridged novel released on its own. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would need a WP:RS secondary source to confirm and verify that, if it's the case. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

nonsensical summary - or excessive quote - or rename section?
The "Content Summary" section of the current article (this is permalink to it) doesn't make sense. It gives 3 lines, apparently a quote from the book, and then has a sentence or two that might be a summary. The 3 lines might be an excessive quote and don't seem to be a summary, but rather are some kind of example. If the sentence or two are the whole summary, then they don't need a separate section, IMO.

I like the Wikipedia article very much, overall, from the perspective of a reader not previously aware of this topic; it is informative and seems well-written, but this content summary section needs to be renamed or merged or changed to make sense. By the way i came to here from a tangential link in a now-hidden section at wp:ANI commenting use of F*** word at wp:ANI. -- do ncr  am  14:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, removed blockquote at beginning of that sect. Hopefully it looks a little better now. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Prospect for GA
I think this book is a good prospect for Good Article, and needs only a very few days' work - mainly a few more citations, including some less approving (one note above). I'm very tempted to go for it my self, but those who did the real work should get the credit. Please don't delay, as I am easily tempted. --Philcha (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, . This is a good prospect for Good Article. I wish you were still here to help us! ;( &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Go the Fuck to Checklinks
Will go through links in article and perform some minor fixes with Checklinks report in mind, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Checklinks
 * Update: Going sect by sect from top to bottom, up to Reviews sect so far. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All sects now done except Celebrity readings sect. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, archived everything able to be archived. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)