Talk:The Shelters of Stone

Criticism
Probably the worst book ever written. There needs to be a concerted effort to produce Wikipedia quality articles about each of the 5 published books.

As of right now, publishers notes have been put in verbatim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.122.196 (talk)


 * You may paraphrase, but you should not copy and paste from other sources, as your entry here implies. That is called copyright violation. However, if you really wish to add a Critical Response section, feel free to rephrase your previous addition and reference the original source. However, please do not let your personal opinion cloud your judgement while editing Wikipedia, and please remember to keep the article within a neutral point of view. Nique1287 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

'The Shelters of Stone is the precursor to an as yet unnamed sixth book that will likely be even more Mary Sue-ish than the first five.'

Is it just me, or is this comment a little inappropriate based on the rest of the page?

JoeldeBunchastu

"I think this is one of the best books ever written about prehistorical fiction. The detail in these books is like none other than I have read and it is no wonder that Jean M. Auel's book has gotten so many awards. I also think that people who critic her work should also write a book about historical fiction to see if their work comes close to her awesome writing. If they actually have written a good piece of work then, please, be my guest and critic."

user:sabriel6426234

Character Descriptions
Early in the article, the author introduces the character of Echozar, but fails to identify him correctly as being a member of the Lanzadonii, not the Zelandonii. I find this objectionable because the Zelandonii are the group of people among whom almost the entire book takes place, and Echozar and the Lanzadonii only appear during a short period of time in the second half of the book. This should be corrected.

David R. Briggs (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)