Talk:The Front Runner (novel)

dreadful
This is supposed to be a discussion of the book, not a badly written "tease" about its contents.

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this book-jacket blurb of a synopsis is truly awful. I saw the book mentioned on a Yahoo! message board and looked it up—and I literally laughed out loud when I read this article. While funny (unintentionally, no doubt), it really does need to be rewritten. 32.161.126.145 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)]]


 * I rewrote the atrocious synopsis and added an infobox and an image of the first edition cover.--Jim10701 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether the new version is "ideal" is debatable (no two readers will ever agree on what makes the best synopsis), but it's a huge improvement. Thanks for taking the criticism seriously.

However, I believe there's an error. Billy wasn't murdered by an "anti-gay" assassin -- per se -- but by a homosexual man who "had issues" -- though I don't remember what they were. (Of course, one can be homosexual and anti-gay.) I don't have a copy to confirm this. You might want to double-check.

PS: The article neglects to mention that the book was inspired by the author's having met or read about (I don't remember which) several gay runners. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The important point about the assassin is that he killed Billy only because Billy was gay - he was very careful not to shoot the straight runner at Billy's side as he approached the finish line - so it seems reasonable to refer to him as anti-gay. The book does refer to his "latent, repressed homosexuality," but if every man who harbored any latent, repressed homosexuality were to be considered gay I think we'd suddenly find ourselves in a huge majority in this country.


 * It also says, "in his fear he saw himself as God's avenging angel, sent to wipe Billy from the earth with the ardor of his own personal fire and brimstone" (pp 309f). He has more in common with heterosexual gay-haters (every one of whom may also harbor repressed homosexuality as far as I know) than with the gays in the book, which is why I still think it's appropriate to characterize him as I did.


 * Since this is Wikipedia, you are free to change it if you believe you can improve it, but I also am free to change it back if I think it's worth the trouble. I know my synopsis is not perfect, but I have worked hard on it and am satisfied with it as it is. Nevertheless, it belongs to the WP community, not to me.


 * The book is:"Dedicated to all the athletes who have fought for human rights in sports, and to the young gay runner I met at a party, who gave me the idea for this book."I agree with you: that is worth adding to the article. I'll go do that now. Thanks.


 * As for taking your criticism seriously, I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I started rewriting the synopsis. As you can see from the revision history, it has mushroomed into a much bigger deal than just a revision, and I continue to think of other things to add.


 * Thanks again for your input.--Jim10701 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)