Talk:Stone of Tears

Plot Summery
NICE WORK Alvspr! I can dig your gig! You have made a great start. I see a few more improvements, but I'll defer in order to give you time to complete the task. If I can be of any help please let me offer up my assistance... BTW! Welcome to Wikipeda..happy editing! Mystar

Tone and content
Half of this article reads like a publishing blurb and the other half like a story. Most of it is written in unencyclopedic tone and/or first person story telling format. The whole article is in need of a total rewrite. NeoFreak 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see the point of the plot introduction section when there is a detailed plot summary. Seems like it could be taken out completely. The plot summary seems OK, the only parts I see as problematic are the direct quotations (which seem too specific as compared to the rest of the article) and as you said the first-person and story telling format. It'd be hard to rewrite it without coming out choppy though, "Richard goes... Richard does... Richard finds..." I'm not familiar enough with the book to attempt a re-write, I'd be afraid of the verbs I used inaccurately representing the events. WLU 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the plot introduction is necessary, please see WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate. The idea behind the plot summary is to give the reader a very general idea of what the novel is about without giving away any spoilers.  That way, you can read the plot intro and decide if you would like to read the novel.  The plot summary gives away specific plot details and is more useful for individuals who, for example, are about to read part three of a trilogy but have forgotten what happened in parts one and two.


 * Essentially, the plot intro will often sound like a "publishing blurb", because they both serve the same purpose. The plot summary should be better written, but it's still going to contain a whole lot of "Such and such did this, then so and so did that" type sentences.- Runch 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have listed some examples of highly rated articles in Talk:Soul of the Fire to give a better idea of what it is I'm talking about. NeoFreak 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well rather than just tag and run! Why don't you fix what it is you see as being wrong? This is the problem with what you do. All you wish to do is to point out something you feel is incorrect. We disagree. So fix it...if you can.... or leave it alone. Simply popping in to tag it, and leave the real work for someone else is not right. So if you cannot fix what you do not feel is right, then I shall be forced to remove your tag as vandalism. Unless all you are going for is edits to date... is that all you care about? Mystar 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Jedidiah
Jedidiah is the "best" wizard of the palace before Richard "joins". At the beginning it is said, that he loves and "ever" loved Sister Margo who was the novice caring for him. But at the same time he is the great love of Sister Verna? Did I mix them up or is there a strange error? I understand it, that he was a "good" boy over 20 years ago as Verna was still at the palace and was after that changed by the sisters of the dark. But how can he be "in deep love" with Margo and Verna at the same time when he was a "good boy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.240.41 (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it ever claims they were together at the same time. 20 years is a long time for someone to move on. I don't know where it says "ever loved" but it could be what Verna believed but Jeb was interested more in looks since the sisters at the castle would have aged only about 3 years while Verna aged 20.

It could be because the Sisters consider two people with "the gift" being together as a "Good" dead since they believe it can improve the amount of people with the gift. The sisters reward any woman in the city that get pregnant from a wizard even if thats the only time they ever meet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeBoldInEdits (talk • contribs) 20:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)