Talk:The End of the Road

Year written
Hey, isn't the awesome book written in the late 1950's and not in 1967? Its in the 1967 category for some reason. Maybe it was written later and I'm just suffering from acute cosmopsis, the cosmic view. Teetotaler 30 June, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First published 1958. See http://www.wordcat.org and refer to LCCN 58-9381. Revised 1967. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.38.5 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have access to these books?
It looks like the following books have substantial information on The End of the Road (up to full chapters):



It would be great if anyone who has access tot hese books could use them to contribute to the article. I live in Japan, so I can't access them either online or in the library, and I haven't found copies that fit my budget. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox fields
Note: There was some discussion about what fields belong in the infobox (in this article specifically, and in articles-using-Infobox-book in the abstract) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Archive_17, in September 2013. –Quiddity (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That conversation really should have taken place here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd've preferred it stayed on the talk pages of myself and GrahamHardy, who obviously disagrees with you. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion to remove File:EndOfTheRoad.jpg
I propose removing the non-Free image File:EndOfTheRoad.jpg for the following reasons:


 * 1) The omission of the image has zero appreciable impact on the reader's ability to comprehend this article.
 * 2) * WP:NFCCP #8: "Contextual significance'. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
 * 3) The image is not discussed in the body of the article, and I am aware of no source that does.
 * 4) The image illustrates none of the content of either the work or the article
 * 5) *It appears to be generic book-cover artwork, and gives no strong impression that the illustrator had even read the book.
 * 6) The image is not strongly associated with the work:
 * 7) *Only the obscure first edition used it.
 * 8) *The overwhelming majority of editions of the book are of the revised version of 1967.
 * 9) The copyright tag does not state the owner of the copyright
 * 10) * WP:NFCCP #10(a): "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value."
 * 11) *There is a guess in the rationale that it is either owned by the publisher or the artist, though it could also have be owned by a third party who provided the artwork for the book on a work-for-hire basis; basically, no attempt has been made on the part of the uploader or anyone else to find out who owns the copyright.
 * 12) It is the only non-Free image on a page that is otherwise entirely Free content.
 * 13) *There is no guideline requiring the inclusion of non-Free images, nor could there be.


 * Support. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We have a very well-established consensus supporting such use, which falls squarely under the WMF's statement that nonfree images may be used "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "May be used" is nothing like "must be used" or "should be used". Please tell us why you think this image is necessary for this article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ordinarily I would "support", as I firmly agree with Wikipedia's image policy. But this is the cover of the book, for the infobox.  That's two good reasons to agree this is fair use.  There is no guideline that suggests one non-free image out of several free images is somehow a "fail". Of course please do not use any further copyright images from this book nor use this image anywhere else on Wikipedia. Prhartcom (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The cover of a book at the top of the article dedicated to that book is as relevant as image usage gets: it's the perfect MOS:LEADIMAGE. From the point of view of the non-free content policy, usage like this is standard and unproblematic and explicitly addressed by the guideline (see WP:NFCI§1 and the footnote for why contextual significance is met). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per point 3 and 4 above. This particular image is not identifying for this work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I encourage reading User:Angr before considering whether to support or oppose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Problems with article
The End of the Road has been one of my favorite books for many years, and I've reread it numerous times. I am loath to rewrite an article, especially one that is so well sourced and has attained "Good Article" status within Wikipedia, but I think the article has several significant problems as it stands:
 * I don't recall Jacob calling his condition "cosmopsis." Both Jacob and the Doctor refer to his condition merely as "paralysis." I may have forgotten a line that contains the term, but it certainly isn't central to the book in the way that repeated references to the term in the article suggest.
 * You have to be joking: "It is the malady cosmopsis, the cosmic view, that afflicted me. When one has it, one is frozen like the bullfrog when the hunter's light strikes him full in the eyes, only with cosmopsis there is no hunter, and no quick hand to terminate the moment -- there's only the light." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, two sentences. That's half as many times as it appears in the article. Throughout the novel, it's "paralysis."Schoolmann (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The book doesn't identify Joe Morgan as an existentialist. Based on his line, "Energy's what makes the difference between American pragmatism and French existentialism--where the hell else but in America could you have a cheerful nihilism, for God's sake?" you might categorize him as a pragmatist, but "super-rational" (or perhaps "hyper-rational") fits the bill by itself.
 * Sources do identify Joe Morgan as an existentialist:
 * "Joe Morgan, the rigid existentialist in The End of the Road
 * "Joe Morgan ... is the archetypal existentialist"
 * "Joe Morgan ... a principled existentialist"
 * "Joe Morgan, an existentialist who has forsaken both objective and subjective values"
 * "The existentialist Joe Morgan"
 * "Rennie, the wife of the existentialist Joe Morgan" Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The plot section introduces "mythotherapy" almost immediately, and attaches it to the Doctor's advice that Jacob read Sartre and to Jacob's pickup of Peggy Rankin. In fact, mythotherapy isn't explained to Jacob until his meeting with the Doctor in the middle of the book, some time after he picked up Peggy Rankin for the first time, and mythotherapy basically replaces Sartre and existentialism in the Doctor's treatment of Jacob:
 * "This indicates to me that you're ready for Mythotherapy, since you seem to be already practicing it without knowing it, and therapeutically, too.... Some time ago I told you to become an existentialist. Did you read Sartre?"
 * "Some things. Frankly, I really didn't get to be an existentialist."
 * "No? Well, no matter now. Mythotherapy is based on two assumptions...."
 * It would be better if mythotherapy were introduced in the plot summary later on as a development in how Jacob views the world, rather than as the initial condition that launches him into the events of the novel.
 * You're right—I've moved this forward, and reworded things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In short, the article reads as an overly academic analysis that loses sight of some of the basic points of the narrative. Schoolmann (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article makes much of Jacob's "cosmopsis," and barely deals with the larger issue of his extremely Protean relativism--his chameleon-like adaptation to mood and circumstance that forms the polar opposite to Joe Morgan's rigid rationalism, with Rennie caught in the middle. This is the true philosophical conflict that the book illustrates.
 * So find and cite a source that explicates this. It isn't hard to find sources that talk about "cosmopsis". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That really got your goat, didn't it? Doesn't change the fact that all those sources boil down to two sentences in the book.Schoolmann (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That really went over your head, didn't it? Sources make a big deal of those "two sentences", such as this one which calls it "one of Barth's trademarks".  The "paralysis", as you're aware, is not a literal, physical paralysis. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The plot summary focuses on relatively minor incidents, such as the pickup of Peggy Rankin, to the exclusion of the Morgan's extraordinary marriage and Rennie's breakdown over the course of the second half of the novel. In fact, the whole second half of the novel is dealt with only in the final paragraph of the plot summary.
 * Peggy Rankin appears in one and a half sentences. Are we reading the same plot summary?  You're not seriously suggesting removing those bits?  A plot summary is not a play-by-play—if you want all the details, you read the actual book. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting talking more about the Morgan's relationship and its breakdown, which is absolutely central to the book, and glossed over in favor of a couple of specific incidents in this plot summary. That's not asking for a play-by-play.Schoolmann (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it glossed over? What details would you add?  What sources would you provide to back them up? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The map locating Wicomico county and the photo of Jonathan Lethem have very tenuous relevance to the book.
 * Almost the entire book takes place in Wicomico. By what definition of "tenuous" is that a "tenuous relevance"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? This isn't Ulysses, in which a map of Dublin would actually make sense. Wicomico is a nondescript college town; it could be Anytown, USA--at least, Anytown near a beach. Knowing where Wicomico is on a map contributes exactly nothing to understanding the novel..Schoolmann (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting removing the image would improve the article? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit hard to buy the argument from someone who claims one of the basic and widely-discussed points of the book ("cosmopsis") never appeared in the book. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is consistently called "paralysis" throughout except for two sentences. Look, I didn't vandalize your precious article. Keep it word for word for all I care. Where is all this hostility coming from?Schoolmann (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article reports what Reliable Sources have said about a particular subject, not our personal takes on it. Go read through a few summaries of the book in other sources and see what they choose to focus on.  Obviously, if there are "basic points of the narrative" that have been missed it should be pretty easy to find sources that discuss them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I do want to say I appreciate getting feedback, and I'd like to get more—even when I disagree. I don't see the article as unimprovable or error-free.  Please keep it coming. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)