Talk:The Apprentice (Libby novel)

Criticism from Japan
Had the book received any criticism from Japan? Nil Einne 06:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Errr, do sovereign nations typically criticize books? Seriously, unless he characterized all Japanese people as sexually 'deviant', I doubt there was or will be an outcry. From what I've seen, Japan is the world's leading producer of sexually 'deviant' media (most famously H anime and manga, but also live action.) I'm not a hentai fiend, but if you asked a hentai fiend I'm sure they could readily find dozens of animes involving bestiality, at least a few involving necrophilia, and thousands that involve rape or pedophilia. Not to characterize all Japanese people as condoning these things, but the point is they apparently do tolerate fiction (visual, and thus presumably textual as well) containing these acts, and this makes outcry regarding this (comparatively) tame book rather unlikely. --Lode Runner 07:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Washington Post
I read a New York Times article that said the book recieved highly postive reviews from the Washington Post, that should definitely be mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.143.178 (talk • contribs) 17:26, March 7, 2007 (UTC)

Link to exact page at Google Book Search
I've inserted links to the exact pages of the quotations at Google Book Search. This should be much more convenient for readers than just a page reference. Please don't remove the links. Cheers. Grover cleveland 22:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about previous change; I left your links to direct page numbers in (verification); but I fixed the citations; 2005 and 2002 eds. would be paginated the same. [See later section re: pagination variations in various reissued paperbacks.] The 2005 printing is not a new ed.; it is simply a reprint (reissue).  Otherwise it would be "2nd ed." or "rev. ed."  A reprint [in trade paperback] [generally] has same pages numbers as edition being reprinted.  The notes are rather redundant, but at least they are clear. [Not so sure now which version Google Book Search used for its scans.]  Note 1 says the page references are incorporated within parentheses in the text.  (Standard format: see WP:CITE.)  Thanks again. --NYScholar 00:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 10:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * If the quotation is permissible, it can be part of text; need not be confined to note. If not, someone will remove it later.  I don't think there's a problem quoting it; it documents the statement.  But linking to the Google pages directly as "hot links" could be problematic in terms of copyright.  Might want to consider that, given copyright restrictions for Wikipedia.  Posting a page directly is re-distributing the copyrighted material via the internet, which is a no-no generally.  (See Google Book Search copyright notices.) --NYScholar 00:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I don't think there should be any problem with copyright infringement:  The Apprentice is available under Google Books "Limited Preview" mode, which means that Google has an agreement with the publisher to display limited portions of the book to the public.  In any case I don't think that merely linking to an infringing website itself constitutes copyright infringement in U.S. law:  if it did Google, Microsoft and every other search engine would have been out of business long ago.  However Wikipedia does have a policy discouraging such linking.  Could you point me to a link to the Google Book Search copyright statement you refer to?  Cheers. Grover cleveland 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The blanket copyright notice is featured as "Copyrighted material": U.S. copyright laws pertain. All content in Google books search features such a notice. See U.S. copyright law. It means that you cannot re-distribute the material that Google has acquired the copyright to feature [if it even has done so--see more recent sec. below] if it's not within fair use provisions of U.S. copyright laws. You are hot-linking to the content. Quoting content is within fair use. [Click on a terms of use or legal type link on Google books search (usually at bottom of pages of such sites) for legal information.]


 * Hi NYScholar. Linking to content is not redistribution.  If it were, then every single external link on Wikipedia would be a copyright violation.  There is no copyright problem here. Grover cleveland 11:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

2002 paperback reprint
Here, btw, is the publication information about the 2002 reprint (Thomas Dunne Books division of St. Martin's Griffin; or "St. Martin's Griffin/Thomas Dunne Books", not "St. Martin's Griffin" alone); later the 2005 reprint features on back of book "St. Martin's Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Griffin" logo; a reissued paperback that was already a reprinted paperback of a hardcover edition (first edition still, but paperback, not a second ed.) features both imprints on back of cover; that's how one knows it's the 2005 and not the 2002 reissue/reprint:

St. Martin's Press 256 pages Size: 5 1/2 x 8 1/4 $12.95 Trade Paperback St. Martin's Griffin/Thomas Dunne Books Pub Year : 2002 ISBN: 0-312-28453-5 The Apprentice takes place in a remote mountain inn in northernmost Japan, where a raging blizzard has brought together wayfarers who share only fear and suspicion of one another. It is the winter of 1903, the country is beset with smallpox and war is brewing with Russia. In the flickering shadows of the crowded room, the apprentice, charged with running the inn during the owner's absence, finds himself strongly attracted to one of the performers lodged there. His involvement with the mysterious travelers plunges him headlong into murder, passion and heart-stopping chases through the snow. Lewis Libby is the current Chief-of-Staff and National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney and Assistant to President Bush. He previously held positions at the U. S. Departments of State and Defense. The Apprentice, originally published by Graywolf in hardcover, is his first novel.


 * The search feature for author does not seem to function properly on the St. Martin's Press website (New York); this is from the St. Martin's Press online catalogue search for "St. Martin's Griffin", which is time-consuming (page by page). It lists the 2002 publisher as "St. Martin's Griffin/Thomas Dunne Books" (as per the cited news sources in this article). --NYScholar 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Notice that the 2002 St. Martin's Thomas Dunne Books Trade paperback (which is the same size as the hardback [first and only ed.]) is [listed there as] 239 pp.; the "St. Martin's Griffin" paperback (which is apparently smaller in size than the first two printings) is listed as 256 pages in some sites; in others as 239 pp. Google Books Search may not be accurately giving the date of publication if the page numbers given as 239 pp. are correct; that reissue is paginated differently than the hardback and trade paperback earlier printings of the novel. [A smaller book in terms of size of pages and size of cover (in the hand) would be more numerous in pages than a larger trade paperback (depending on size of the typefont).  So I don't know for sure which date of publication goes with the version featured in Google Book Search to which this article hot-links pages; even though the date given is 2002 in Google Books Search.  It is hard to know for sure because Google Books Search may not be properly presenting the information from copyright pages of the books that it is scanning.  Unlike Amazon.com's feature "look inside", there is no reproduction of the title page (inside copyright page on back of title page) for the book. It would help to see that. (FYI: Huge inventories of copies of this book are available via online booksellers and book re-sellers at as low as $1 plus some cents.  Contrary to the Nov. 2005 publicity re: online auctions, it is not hard to come by or expensive to purchase.) --NYScholar 09:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [some emendations; confusing still. --NYScholar 10:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * Here's a link to the scanned actual copyright page (back of title page) from Amazon.com "look inside" feature. (I used that to emend some info. above.) --NYScholar 10:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 256 pages; says 1 of 258 probably because the cover and back cover are included in scans? --NYScholar 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the copyright page that Google Book Search scans and it's different from the copyright page that Amazon.com scans: here's the link to the Google Book Search copyright page given for its scanned material: Link to copyright page; if that doesn't work, go to the righthand menu and click on "more" to get to "copyright" scanned page. It is the "Thomas Dunne Books" imprint w/o the St. Martin's Griffin ref. on it (2002).  "2001" is when the author copyrighted the book before he transferred his copyright to the publishers (which it appears that he may have done; authors have choice to do that or not). --NYScholar 11:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pagination: If "pages 128-248 are not part of this preview" in Google Books Search, then the imprint version featured has more than 239 pages and it could be the 248-page or 256-page printing that some online booksellers describe; it is not clear from Google Books Search which date of publication goes with the version that it is featuring on the site. Confusing.  --NYScholar 10:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your work figuring this out. Grover cleveland 14:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the thanks! :-) (I hope that I figured it out; it's somewhat murky due to the way Google Books Search identifies its source [or doesn't?]. Some discrepancies there.) --NYScholar 23:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Google terms of service (guidelines)
Here's Google's Terms of Service; the appropriate link concerning what one can and cannot do with Google Features (inc. Google Book Search) is at "Guidelines" (permissions) hyperlinked in that text. (There is a menu re: how to link to Google as well; it is quite thorough. Given Wikipedia's own policy re: not hot-linking to copyright-protected material, that means that one should not link to the pages in the book search.  If Wikipedia readers want to do "original research" (see WP:NOR re: articles), they can do that themselves, via the external link that I already provided in "External links" sec.  That's why I provided it.  It is also not appropriate to link to advertisements for the book on the publisher's page or online booksellers like Amazon.com due to Wikipedia's "no ads" (WP:SPAM)policies. --NYScholar 08:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement by Google in Google Book Search has been a hotly-debated issue: e.g., Google search results yield for Google Book Search copyright. In view of the controversy (also see "About" Google Book Search on its home page for that feature), it is unwise to hot-link to content copyrighted by publishers and authors via Google Book Search. One can provide a link to the Google Book Search URL (for the specific book--but even that might be dubious to do), but to link to the pages themselves compounds the unresolved copyright infringement issues? (It is still a question.) [See, e.g., the NPR story on it.] --NYScholar 08:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the subject of the search is Google itself, one may want to try some other search engines too for other possible perspectives on the subject of copyright and Google's Book Search tool. E.g., MSN Live Search: Google Book Search copyright. --NYScholar 09:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [Note: See discussion of these issues in Google Book Search. --NYScholar 10:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * Hi NYScholar. Thanks for your reply.  However I think you are mistaken.
 * The only controversy about copyright and Google Book Search applies to those results that come up via "Snippet view". These results are for books that are in copyright, and for which Google Books does not have an agreement with the copyright holder (either because the copyright holder could not be identified or contacted, or because they refused to sign an agreement with Google).  These search results display only a few words.  There is a pending lawsuit between Google and the publishers about the scanning and display of these results, but this lawsuit does not apply to books that come up under "Limited Preview" mode.
 * The link you provided to http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. It is about third-party websites using Google's trademarks in such a way as to imply endorsement by Google.
 * There are really only two questions to be asked about these "Limited Preview" search results:
 * Is the Google Books search result itself a copyright violation? The answer is clearly "No", since as Google explicitly states, "Limited Preview" search results only apply to books where the publisher has given permission for Google to display search results.  See this link.
 * The answer is not clearly no. It is disputed all over the place, including in Wikipedia itself.  --NYScholar 11:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Point me to a single example. There is none, for "Limited Preview" results, because Google already has an agreement with the copyright holder to display the results. Grover cleveland 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The publisher has given permission to GOOGLE to feature the material (Google say--though plenty of publishers dispute that claim; basis of law suits in some cases), and that publisher has not given permission to Wikipedia et al. to feature the material elsewhere on their own sites. --NYScholar 11:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Point me to a single lawsuit where a publisher is claiming that Google does not have the right to feature material that the publisher has signed an agreement with Google to display on Google Books. Grover cleveland 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not "featuring" the material merely by linking to it. As I said above, if linking to a site violates that site's copyright then every single external link on Wikipedia is a violation. Grover cleveland 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the Google Books search page itself is not a copyright violation, is there any reason why Wikipedia should not link to it? You have provided absolutely no reason, other than a vague feeling of apprehension, why this should be the case.
 * To quote from your own earlier reply above: "However Wikipedia does have a policy discouraging such linking." --NYScholar 11:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a policy discouraging linking to copyright-infringing sites. However "Limited Preview" results from Google Books are not copyright violations because Google already has an agreement with the copyright holder to display the results. Grover cleveland 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to continue this discussion, please provide a specific argument (not a list of search results or an audio NPR story) why this poses a copyright problem. Cheers.  Grover cleveland 10:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry--I answered your question; it took me a lot of time, and that's the best I can do. I suggest that you do the rest yourself.  Read the article in Wikipedia for example; I gave you the link to it.  I can't read it for you.  Please do that, and I won't be discussing this any further.  I've spent quite enough time on it already.  I want to rest. [Sorry, but I cannot continue discussing this any further.  I suggest you consult Wikipedia guidelines and policies and its own article about Google Book Search for more info.] --NYScholar 11:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [Going offline.  --NYScholar 11:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * Are you talking about this link? The arguments there about copyright only apply to snippet view.  For example:
 * the publishing industry and writers' groups have criticized the project's inclusion of snippets of copyrighted works as infringement
 * Rubin specifically criticized Google's policy of freely copying any work until notified by the copyright holder to stop.
 * Neither of these objections apply to "Limited Preview" because, as I've repeated ad nauseam, Google already has an agreement with the copyright holder to display the results. Sorry for shouting but I don't know how else to make the point.  Grover cleveland 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not what Google can do but what Wikipedia can do. Please re-read. In my view italics are not shouting (as caps are); it is simply emphasis. Sorry that you have become frustrated; I suggest just consulting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and following them as best you can. I can't debate this with you further. I leave it to you and others (consensus) whether to leave the links to webpages of copyrighted material in this Wikipedia article or whether to remove them. According to WP:CITE a page reference (page number in parentheses) is a sufficient reference. One does not need to link to the text for verification. If the source (the novel) has the sentences and one has verified that through one's own research by reading the passages of the text, then the page citations on which the text appears are the reliable and verifiable sources of the quotations. Wikipedia does not require or recommend linking to copyrighted text posted by Google. (That is actually "original research"; your own search term "deer" is highlighted throughout the search of one passage--or it was before when I looked at your link--see WP:NOR. The external link to the Google Book Search page for the whole book suffices as a "reliable and verifiable" source citation.  The link to your own personal search result is not necessary [although, I agree with you that it is very convenient; I just don't know if it is a permissible or recommended link in Wikipedia; see Fair Use: hot-linking to scanned copyrighted material (even that permitted to Google to scan [not to Wikipedia]) is parallel to linking to copyrighted photos (without permission).  Why isn't the material in "External links" enough for a reliable and verifiable source of the page refs. given in parentheses?]  --NYScholar 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated: --NYScholar 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * I know this is an old discussion, but just for clarification, hotlinking does not copy the linked material, nor is it considered the creation of a copy under US copyright law. The entire previous discussion and argument by "NYScholar" ignores this point. For future reference, hotlinking to non-infringing material never constitutes infringement. S. Ugarte (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

character list, plot summary
As it currently stands, the entry has no list of characters or plot summary. I find it fascinating that spies and a secret society figure in Libby's novel, and that the apprentice has unwittingly hidden plans or maps which affect Japan's ongoing security. Other characters compete to find those plans, and that's what this "thriller" turns out to be all about, in fact...even if the apprentice himself, the title character, is left in the dark about the details.

In his 2002 Diane Rehm interview, Libby himself said Japan was at a pivotal moment in 1903, citing this as a reason he was drawn to that particular time and setting. Why not mention that? And why no summary of the novel's plot, the characters, their actions? I don't know what New Yorker writer Lauren Collins thought was "homoerotic" in the plot, but I've deleted the LBGT studies template. Seriously, apart from those few passages, has anyone else actually read The Apprentice? &mdash; Sandover 01:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)