Talk:Shikasta

Excessively didactic novel
I have admired Lessing for many years and read most of her novels. However, I have given up on Shikasta, after my fourth or fifth attempt over thirty years. This time I tried harder and reached p.179. There are some attractive passages but overall she writes like Jonathan Swift without his wit, imagination and satirical genius. This novel is mainly (at least the first 179 pages) a dispiriting rant. It is not the ideas that I object to, but the uninteresting ways they are mostly presented. I might add that I enjoy science fiction novels. I cannot be the only one who sees Shikasta as a failure and the article needs to address such criticism better. Rwood128 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shikasta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012225914/https://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2007/bio-bibl.html to https://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2007/bio-bibl.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Frx8VM9e?url=http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/14.3-4.Perrakis.pdf to http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/14.3-4.Perrakis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Who says it's an allegory?
Lessing herself never did. Gray's review in 1979 says she was writing a "history of earth" (past and future). The interpretations that this is an allegory belong in the Analysis section, not in the lede or background sections.Martindo (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)