Talk:The Thorn Birds

"second highest rating mini-series" and "number 1 bestseller"---in which country? --84.176.13.231 09:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Substandard article
Can something be done about the cursory plot outlining and actually get into some of the details/themes of the story? Ridiculous and hilarious as the Thorn Birds may be, it deserves more than simple "and then, and then" statements.


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in!  (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. -- &mdash;Moondyne 01:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thorn Bird Theme
Regarding the Thorn Bird theme, I know it had previously appeared in an Oscar Wilde story named "The Nightingale and the Rose" (Inside a story collection named "The Happy Prince and Other Tales"). I wonder if this was actually the source of TTB's reference, or if they both draw from the same source. Does anybody know? WhoMI (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. - be happy to be mailed an answer, if anybody ever comes accross one. Please use eyalnet shift-2 yahoo not-comma com

Thornbird myth
After the discussion at Articles for deletion/Thornbird and a comment on my talkpage, I've added a section about the "myth" to this article, with a few incoming links including a hatnote at Phacellodomus (to which thornbird and thorn bird redirect). Further expansion or improvement welcome! Pinging those involved in the AfD: Wikipedia ought to be able to answer the question "What's this 'Thornbird myth' I've heard about?". I've also included a separate "Thornbird myth" about the European goldfinch. Pam D  10:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious about the section as it is, honestly. All we have is a description of the "myth", a lengthy quote about the "myth" (redundant to the description), an uncited assertion that the "myth" is a gospel allusion, and the statement that it has been described as an old Celtic myth (cited to non-RS, which isn't great even if it specifically says that's the point).
 * If we're going to include it, it should be primarily in reference to what it adds to the novel, for which we need better sourcing. If I had sources, I'd rewrite it along the lines of "McCullough opens the novel with a description of an artificial mythological creature, the thornbird, which is a suicidal masochist but sings very nicely. There is no evidence that McCullough was drawing from an existing myth; rather, the thornbird is a literary device that allows the author to draw a parallel between Whatever Characters and the thornbird to reinforce her theme that 'the best is only bought at the cost of great pain'." If we find a cite for the gospel thing we can stick that in. Obviously we want to be less flip but I think that an integrated approach is the best way to point out that it's not a real myth, while also focusing on the literary significance of the device.
 * Edited to add - I'm also dubious about the inclusion of the goldfinch thing. It's not super relevant to the book or the "myth" from the book. Also currently it's just sourced to a blog, which is not great WP:RS-wise. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia article format change needed
The Wikipedia format for articles on novels & films is missing what the people really want/need. We need a synopsis that summarizes the story, and we rarely get that. Instead we get a long plot detail that cannot substitute for the summary. Writers are perfectly able to compose a summary right out of the detailed plot. But it's not possible for the format to change that allows them to do so, to meet people's needs, eh? Rtdrury (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)