Talk:The Valley of Fear

Introduction Needs LOTS of Work
The grammar, style and basic composition of the introduction and the entirety of this article needs some real help. There are run on and incomplete sentences, sentence fragments, undefined pronouns - the list goes on. Please help this article out by making it more readable. The basics are there, but whoever wrote it needs some real help in basic grammar and writing style. Not to be critical, but the work of one of the finest authors in history deserves some good basic grammar at the very least. It is a well intentioned start, so let's help make it excellent!  The  Moody  Blue  16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and take the lead, and notify me when you start working on it. If you want more collaborative help, you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Novels, Sadads (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Moriarty
I don't understand this part:


 * making Arthur Conan Doyle himself the first of many writers to ignore the fact, established in "The Final Problem", that Dr. Watson first heard of Moriarty shortly before Moriarty's death, with no unrecorded adventures in between.

-- Tarquin 11:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In "The Final Problem", Watson learns of Moriarty's existence for the first time; later, with no gaps in the narrative, Moriarty is killed. There are therefore no gaps in which further Holmes vs. Moriarty adventures can take place (or at least, none in which Watson is involved). This has not stopped people from writing such adventures. The Final Problem is one such adventure, possibly the first.
 * Which bit didn't you understand? (And can you suggest a better wording for it?) --Paul A 08:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Moriarty and the date of the story
This whole paragraph:
 * The Valley of Fear is also notable for the involvement of Professor Moriarty, which contradicts the timeline of the stories. In "The Final Problem", Dr. Watson was first alerted by Sherlock Holmes to the existence of Professor Moriarty. In the same story, Professor Moriarty dies in the confrontation with Sherlock Holmes, as explained in "The Adventure of the Empty House", leaving no time in between the two events for any other story regarding the Professor. However, in The Valley of Fear, Professor Moriarty has been mentioned by Sherlock, and Dr. Watson had appeared to know both about the Professor's evil acts, and the fact that the existence of Moriarty is unknown by nearly everyone except Holmes. Moreover, "The Final Problem" and Moriarty's death is set in 1891, while The Valley of Fear is set in 1895 (twenty years after the events of the American part of the narrative).

is completely wrong. At the end of the first chapter, Doyle gives us the time at which the story takes place:
 * Those were the early days at the end of the '80's, when Alec MacDonald was far from having attained the national fame which he had now achieved.

The 'twenty years later' in McMurdo's narrative should be taken as a rough estimate, and since (to my recollection) there aren't any precise dates given therein, we can take Watson's initial date as the canonical one. Presumably he wrote this entry in the Holmes archive before he wrote The Final Problem; the order in which Doyle published the stories is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.232.21 (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Development
Unlike other SH novels, this wiki entry has hadly any information at all, and no commentary or development. Is it generally not well liked? I would like to see more information, such as a discussion on Doyle's tendency to use Sherlock Holmes as an excuse for writing relatively disconnected stories from outside of England. 85.227.226.149 07:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For instance, there are interesting info on the James McParland page which could well be transplanted here.85.227.226.149 08:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one don't much like the novel; but I'm not sure why I find it so unsatisfactory compared with most of the Holmes tales, and am disappointed to find no analysis here. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the plot summary only describes the action in the second part of the novel. The first part isn't even mentioned.Mawode (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Conan Doyle and James Carey
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stayed at the Hill House Hotel in Happisburgh, Norfolk on several occasions, most notably while writing "The Dancing Men".


 * Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stayed at the Hill House Hotel when on a motoring holiday at the beginning of the 20th century. The landlord's small son Gilbert Cubitt had developed a way of writing his signature in pin men. This intrigued Conan Doyle, who used the idea in one of his Sherlock Holmes stories, 'The Dancing Men'. It is based in Norfolk and is said to have been written in the Green Room of the old Boarding House which overlooked the bowling green – one of the finest in this district. Happisburgh Village site


 * Conan Doyle stayed at Happisburgh and wrote to his mother from the Hill House Hotel in 1903 about his ideas for a new story, “The Dancing Men”. Doyle drove the first motor car seen in Happisburgh. Gilbert John Cubitt, born at Happisburgh 1891, was the small boy who signed his name in an alphabetical code of dancing figures, and gave Conan Doyle the idea for his tale. Happisburgh Village website


 * It has been associated with the author Conan Doyle who, whilst staying at the Hill House Hotel in May 1903, is said to have got the idea for his story 'The Dancing Men'. He is said to have visited on several occasions and used a room in the Hotel to write as he looked out over the sea. The Cubitts were owners of the Hill House: Edith Cubitt who ran it until 1934 used to wait on Conan Doyle while he worked. Norfolk Heritage

See also Sherlock Holmes Society report

Gilbert Cubitt's father, Robert Thomas Cubitt was landlord of the Hill House Hotel from 1888 - 1892 Hill House Hotel on Norfolk Pubs web site. His widow, Emma Cubitt ran the hotel from his death in 1892, assisted by their eldest daughter Edith, who later married Herbert Thompson, a local farmer, and continued to run the hotel until at least 1934.

Robert Cubitt was a key witness in the trial of Patrick O'Donnell as this transcript of the trial shows:


 * ROBERT THOMAS CUBITT . I live at King's Arms Street, North Walsham, Norfolk—I assist my father, an ironmonger—I and my brother, Frank Cubitt, were passengers on board the Kinfauns Castle, going to the Cape—I saw Carey and O'Donnell together on board during the voyage—I did not know until my arrival at the Cape that James Power was James Carey—they appeared to be on friendly terms—we arrived at Cape Town on Friday, 27th July, and I stayed there, and put up at the White House Hotel—on the afternoon the Melrose left, which was on Saturday, I went into a wine and beershop, and the keeper of the shop made a statement to me in relation to James Carey—he gave me this document with a likeness of Carey. (This was a supplement given away with the "Weekly Freeman" of May 5; in one corner was "He swears in his victims" in another corner, "Look to the man in the grey suit," in another "He informs," and in another corner, "Crown witness," with a portrait of James Carey in the centre.) I recognised that likeness as representing James Power, the man on board—I went with my brother to the docks from which the Melrose was to start—my brother has since died—I saw O'Donnell standing on the docks at the side near the Melrose—I said to him "Have you seen the portrait of Carey?"—I produced it, and showed it to him—he said "I will shoot him"—he asked me for it, and I think he put it in his pocket—he went on board the Melrose, and I believe she sailed about a quarter of an hour after the interview referred to—I did not go on to Port Elizabeth—I remained some time at the Cape with my brother—I then returned to this country—I met with an accident in an explosion that took place a few weeks ago—I have lately given this information.


 * Cross-examined. I heard of Carey's death very soon after it occurred, when I was at Cape Town—I did not know of any inquiry being held at Port Elizabeth while I was there—I afterwards learnt that there had been one—I put myself in communication with the solicitors representing the prosecution after I got home in October—I knew as far back as July when I should probably get back to this country—I stayed three weeks at the Cape—I should have stayed longer if there had been a favourable opportunity in business—I made up my mind to come back again three weeks after I had been there—that would be about August—I did not then make any communication to the solicitors—I did not then communicate with the officials here, until they sent for me, which, I should think, was about a fortnight after I had got home—I think the Cape authorities saw my brother at Cape Town, where he died—as far as I observed the prisoner was a quiet, peaceable man, of few words—he was rather popular on board with the steerage and second-class passengers, and was a civil-spoken man—I did not see much of Carey—I should say he was rather excitable—I do not know of a man named McHardy being on board the Kinfauns Castle—I had not seen Carey in liquor or drinking, or heard him indulge in abuse of any people or person—I had very little to do with him, I had more to do with the prisoner—I have seen him use his revolver in the presence of the passengers, when he has fired at birds and fish—I heard Carey pretty freely discussed at the Cape, and abused—when the prisoner said that he would shoot him it was in a pleasant manner, smiling at the time, and when I heard of Carey's death I did not attribute any moment to those words.


 * Re-examined. My brother was with me when the words were spoken—after my arrival home in this country I found my brother had made a communication to the Cape authorities, who had communicated with the authorities here. Central Criminal Court records

There was apparently strong suspicion in the USA (particularly in the mining areas) that Patrick O'Donnell was in fact a US citizen and it is reported that the US authorities considered intercepting the ship taking him back to London for trial at the Old Bailey. (Butte Miner newspaper). Some aspects of that are reflected in the plot of The Valley of Fear.

Is there a clear enough link to make it worth boiling this down for the main page?

(On a personal note, Gilbert Cubitt was my grandfather.)

John Campbell (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot synopsis needs rewriting
I just started what promises to be a major undertaking in rewriting the plot synopsis. Not only is the grammar and tense awkward throughout, but Parts I and II are discussed interchangeably instead of chronologically, with almost no description of the story of Part II (other than the major plot spoiler of Douglas/McMurdo's true identity, which I have to say ruined it for me, LOL). Not only that, Mrs. Douglas is inexplicably given the first name Vena (with the article writer emphasizing this as "Vena Douglas, his wife" several times), and the names of the servants, Ames and Mrs. Allen, are also mixed up, as well as various plot points. My head is spinning! What was this person's source? A TV movie adaptation? I've got the Wikisource of the text open in another window and I'll get to work on it, but would really appreciate some help! --Magmagirl (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds good, this article certainly needs a plot rewrite. FYI, you must include spoilers per WP:Spoiler which is the result of a series of long and drawn out discussion which created the policy. I would also consider expanding the other content, such as critical reception, themes, etc. per WP:MOS (novels). Try to look for more real world information which you can WP:Verify per WP:Reliable sources and this article will be stellar. If you have any questions, I am watching the page, so I can answer question, though I don't have the time right now to participate in the revision (I may in about 2.5 weeks). Good luck, and if you have any question, go ahead and give me a holler,  Sadads (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! I'm also a little short on time, so I'll be adding here and there as I can.  I'll put up a spoiler alert if that is what's required, but I haven't read enough Sherlock Holmes plot synopses on Wikipedia to know if that's standard practice -- isn't everything a spoiler by the end of the story?  ;-)  I'm actually almost done reading the novel myself, and happened to come here to check it out, and thought, "Hmm, that's not right...or that, or that, or that..."  The only real world information I was able to link was the Pinkerton detective (as I remembered that word bantered around in season 2 of Deadwood.  Thank you and I will really appreciate any help and advice you can give me! --Magmagirl (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added a section about the likely location of Vermissa Valley, and I'm thinking, Maybe one day, this will be developed to "Article of the Day" status! A girl can hope, right?  ;-D --Magmagirl (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes you can hope, it takes a lot of work though, and there are only 365 of those and about 148,000 contributers every month. It's a lot of work and commitment. I would suggest that you read WP:OR, which talks about why some of the information you did on locations, may be original research, so may not be Wikipedia appropriate. Take a look at the sections on Quicksilver (novel) which I wrote and is a pretty good representation of what kind of verifiable content we are looking for. You will see that I talk about information that is directly discussed in sources, not conclusions about information in the novel. This is a careful distinction between encyclopedic and other forms of scholarly writing which we are constantly working with here on Wikipedia (and sometimes battle with). Please feel free to ask questions if you don't understand my meaning or the distinction, Sadads (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. So theoretic location for Vermissa Valley would be something better kept on the discussion page, whereas if I find, say, the etymology of the word "scowrer" from the OED, that would be a verifiable source.  What about a comparison of the "Order of Freemen" to Freemasonry?  I've seen a few sites that link Conan Doyle's writings to information he got about freemasonry. --Magmagirl (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as this particular novel is treated in the source, or if say one reviewer comments on the similarity with freemasonry, then it would appropriate to talk about the broader critical perspective and then link to a central discussion of the themes in Doyle's work. And yes, your example of the OED definition would be correct, as long as you do so to further understanding of something central to the novel commented on by someone else, or if you were doing some sort of background so that readers could better understand the topics discussed in the articles, such as at Purge (novel) Sadads (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What is it with this "plot summary"?  It goes into excruciating detail on Holmes' investigation, yet leaves out the main plot of part II:  McMurdo's infiltration of a terrorist organization.  The reader is led to believe that the avenger is a spurned lover (rather than an escaped terrorist) and no explanation is made of the shared brand.   Nor is there any mention of the controversy, that the real-life counterpart of McMurdo fabricated most of his evidence and the terrorist threat never actually existed.CharlesTheBold (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can definitely understand your confusion...try reading previous edits before I started hacking away at the synopsis. It originally blended parts I and II, left out important details or got them completely wrong.  I have started trying to write the synopsis for part II but don't have as much time as I'd like, so I have to do it in bits and drabs -- apparently by myself for the time being, since the worthy Sadads is busy, and no one else has stepped up.  Please, Charles, I asked for help on the plot synopsis for a reason.  I can't write it up myself!  --Magmagirl (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentence
...suggested the Douglas to leave England. - is it grammatically correct? 80.232.117.32 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) No Deipnosophista (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Lacks reputable sources.
Its only citation is of the full text of the book at wikisource. For one thing, you should never cite a wiki, and that citation ought to be replaced with a citation of the gutenberg version, or of the actual book. But even more important, is that there are no other citations. For example no source is cited to corroborate that it was released in 1915, I just have to take the article's word for it; and you can't safely take Wikipedia's word for anything without outside sources corroborating it. 149.160.81.112 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is the photo in the History section relevant?
The user St o'hara keeps inserting the claim that the Valley of Fear is "biased", and talks some guy name Kehoe. The claim builds a blog (which fails WP:RS and an article in LA Times which never says the book is biased. I've tried to explain WP:RS in the edit reviews and I've tried to explain it to St o'hara at his/her user page, but s/he is not discussing. I'd appreciate some other opinions on the matter. Jeppiz (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is this RfC necessary? I mean, yes, you (could) have started it, but WP:THIRD and WP:COIN would suffice, but oh well, as you started a discussion in here lets develop it. If the user ignores verifiability and inserts or or pov statements, his edits should be removed, the page should be requested full protection and the user should be notified if he keeps disrupting the page. Eduemoni↑talk↓  04:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree - St o'hara's edits are problematic for the reasons Jeppiz wrote. While WP:RS mentions some limited situations in which a blog may be appropriate, such as if it is written by a an expert who is recognized in the relevant field, the blog used here is not appropriate.  I suggest removing blog and LA Times article, as well as putting an OR tag on the historical accuracy section. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - If someone refuses to discuss the matter, then they lose the argument and any say in the matter, period. That's the entire point of community-based editing. You don't just throw your edits in, insist they are right and refuse to discuss it honestly and respectfully. A quick look at the contributor's edits indicate that, apart from only four edits to the article, no other edits have been offered here. I think its safe to suggest that the editor has moved on to greener pastures. I am not going to address the content of their edits, apart from questioning whether the references about the Molly Maguires were synthesis or if they came from articles explicitly discussing the group in a Sherlock story (hint: only the latter would belong in this article). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree - The edits are contentious and don't have the reliable sources necessary to justify their inclusion. Eidolonic (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with all users, above. Nothing to add, really.  I understand wanting to be safe rather than sorry, so no worries on not asking for a 3O, first; I think we're all happy to help, that might just be a quicker approach in the future!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree as well with the above consensus. Jus  da  fax   08:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Credulous and uncritical assertions/ Lack of documentation
The lead sentence of this Wiki article states:

"The Valley of Fear is the fourth and final Sherlock Holmes novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It is based on the real-life exploits[citation needed]of the Molly Maguires and Pinkerton agent James McParland."

I inserted the "citation needed" in the above sentence because the "real-life exploits" of the Molly Maguires are disputed by historians.

I also responded to Jeppiz's  communications to me  by providing references to several scholarly sources on the Molly Maguires and US labor history, including Kevin Kenny's of which the LA Times article was a review. The blog I cited contained oral history from the coal  region of Pennsylvania and was included because oral history is valid and important as an area of study and reference.

And though my references to scholarly works and additions were deleted, no documentation is yet provided or explanation given for what is meant by the article's lead assertion that Valley of Fear is based on the "real-life exploits" of the Molly Maguires. At the very least this article should be rewritten with updated and pertinent historical references included on the alleged Molly Maguires and the US labor movement (which I had provided and haven't time nor inclination to redo).

The guy named "Kehoe" (so called in a comment below) is John (Black Jack) Kehoe, one of the alleged Molly Maguires hanged in Pennsylvania on the hearsay evidence of James McParland the Pinkerton detective. The men accused and later executed proclaimed their innocence. In fact, many reputable historians since the time of Conan Doyle have come to see the unionized miners (called by the press and mine owners Molly Maguires) hanged in Pennsylvania in the 1870s as victims in a labor war. Some historians even doubt the very existence of Molly Maguires in Pennsylvania. After looking into his trial, Pennsylvania's Board of Prisons recommended a posthumous pardon for John Kehoe, the alleged Molly "ringleader," which was granted by Governor Shapp who called the men executed "heroes" of the labor movement. Renowned lawyer Clarence Darrow later exposed similar tactics used by McParland  in Idaho when he went after a group of striking miners there. They were all  acquitted. Making  credulous and uncritical assertions about  Doyle's version of history, as exampled in the lead sentence,  as if there could be no bias in his viewpoint, and then to delete scholarly references and additions to this article is not productive and  certainly reduces the value of Wikipedia as a trustworthy reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara (talk • contribs) 04:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about using reliable sources, and about representing what those sources say. You posted a long essay of personal opinions, and then inserted sources that did not support your opinions. That is why I first reverted your original research, and then requested comments from uninvolved editors when you insisted on repeating your opinions. There was unanimous agreement among those editors that your edits were unsuitable and that they were not supported by the sources you provided.Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I originally posted a reference to the Los Angeles Times which was a review of Kevin Kenny's scholarly work (his book was  published by Oxford Univ. Press) on the Molly Maguires in which Dr. Kenny investigates the historical record and history of the Molly Maguires in the coal fields of Pennsylvania. I assume you do not really mean to say that the LA Times and Oxford University Press are unreliable sources for Wikipedia. I also added scholarly references to the disputed history, which fall under the category of US labor history. I did this because of the unsupported assertion in the lead sentence of the Wiki article that VoF is based on the "real-life exploits of the Molly Maguires  and James McParland"--an unsupported and credulous  statement which those concerned with editing the VoF page somehow see  fit to stand though scholarly references are deleted. And you also have not answered  my concerns on this point.

I did not post an essay of personal opinions but simply stated the fact that the history Doyle presents as factual in the Valley of Fear is disputed. I referenced Doctor Kenny's book where one can read about the disputed history, and there are others going back quite a way. Anyone mildly conversant with labor history in the PA coal fields is aware that the history of events there is disputed. Why not look into  referenced books before deleting them?

And there is evidence supporting the innocence and the framing of the labor organizers known to history as the Molly Maguires. And that was why Governor Milton Shapp of Pennsylvania granted the alleged leader of the Molly Maguires,  John Kehoe, a  posthumous pardon in 1979--on the recommendation of  the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons after an investigation of the original trial of the alleged  Mollies, which was found by the examining board to be biased and unethical. I posted a reference to that information also. As further evidence of the sort of bias found by the PA commission on the trial  of the Pennsylvania miners  executed for crimes on the hearsay evidence of the Pinkerton agent James McParland,  I also  linked to scholarly material on the acquittal of miners in the West where McParland tried similar tactics on miners there. They were defended by Clarence Darrow; the Pennsylvania miners were not. Since this Wiki article is based on a book which purportedly relates the "real-life" exploits of McParland and the Molly Maguires, I fail to see how what I added is not germane. Cheers. St O' — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with the sources, the problem is that you misrepresented the sources. That was the opinion of all who looked into the matter and the RfC was unanimous. If you want to continue debating it, take it to WP:ANI or to dispute resolution. However, be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum and that your personal opinions and conclusions aren't relevant. This isn't the only article, other users have found your contributions in violation of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV in other articles as well. And please start signing your posts.Jeppiz (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In brief: I don't believe you or the other editors read the sources I referenced. You did not know the identity of John Kehoe, for example. How I misrepresented these sources you do not say. If you had looked into the references provided you would have learned that the history as Doyle relates it, according to this  Wiki article "the real- life exploits," is disputed. John Kehoe was pardoned for a crime (he always said he did not commit) because his trial was a sham according to a government investigation. If you are interested in truth are you not concerned with facts? Why, for example, are you and other editors not calling for at least a re-write of the lead sentence of this article? As for bias, I could claim the same when  people who have no scholarship in the history they are attempting to edit  strike references and information  they do not happen to agree with or do not understand. Instead of making such claims of bias against people,  I   would rather provide informative references to works that are  known to historians of the topics concerned. If scholarly references and books are not respected as sources then Wikipedia is really in danger of falling to "digital maoism" and "bullying of experts" as Jaron Lanier forecast. Wikipedia might be improved but not with unthoughtful censorship. Only the future will tell. Cheers. St. O' — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara (talk • contribs) 05:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to continue this discussion as you clearly do not understand how Wikipedia works. That is not a problem, but your refusal to learn is a problem. Nobody cares if what you're saying is right or not, Wikipedia is not about the WP:TRUTH, it about properly using reliable sources WP:RS. You may think you have done so but all experiences users who have looked at your edits think otherwise. All your pompous talk of "maoism", "bullying of experts" and "censorship" is quite frankly ridiculous. If you want to claim some intellectual high-ground, it might be a good idea to start with showing that you're able to read, in this case capable of reading Wikipedia's guidelines. You might start with the above-mentioned WP:RS and WP:TRUTH, then continue to WP:POV, WP:OR and preferable also take in WP:NOTAFORUM.Jeppiz (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Jeppiz. I will end our discussion with some observations. For the reasons I've already given above the Wiki Valley of Fear article as it stands now could be used as an example of why Wikipedia is disdained and mistrusted by scholars and others. That no one has bothered to correct a glaringly biased and unsupported statement purporting to be historically accurate after it was pointed it out months ago tells the story. You are right; it's not about being right or wrong but about what is true-- that is verifiable and factual-- that is the basis of encyclopedic writing and Wikipedia is no exception--unless it has abandoned all pretense of disinterested truth and  become a site of majority rules opinion (which is actually what critics of Wikipedia already claim). The guidelines of Wikipedia surely do not include allowing mistaken or unsupported historical information to stand as truthful and accurate. And I can't take credit for "digital maoism" and "bullying of experts" I was quoting from Jaron Lanier's critique of Wikipedia and the Web. You might find his work interesting. Cheers. St. O' — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara (talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What is not extraneous about the three sections?
please explain what's not extraneous about them? They repeat what's already in the plot section. Plus the previous paragraph before them ended with Douglas dead, yet suddenly these three paragraphs assume he's alive? Banedon (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot section needs a major rewrite
The writing style of the "Plot" section is awkward throughout, and omits important plot points in many instances. Additionally, the entire "flashback" story (the third-person narrative that begins after Douglas is revealed to be alive) is summarized in one sentence; in my opinion, the majority of the plot summary should in fact be devoted to the portion of the novel that takes place in Vermissa rather than to the introductory chapters which serve, to a large degree, as a vehicle for presenting the main narrative. If anyone would care to collaborate on this rewrite, please let me know either here or on my talk page. I intend to work towards improving both the style and substance of the plot summary here. Any comments are appreciated. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Priorities?
The thing we want, if we look a work of literature up in an encyclopedia, is to find out something about what place it occupies in the history of its author's writings and of literature in general. Is it one of the author's best or worst works, important or unimportant? What have literary critics said about it? I look for the Valley of Fear on wikipedia and find not a hint that anyone thought these questions worth answering. Instead, I find only an absurdly long synopsis of the plot--which is what small children imagine a book review to consist of. Sorry, but anyone who wants to know that much about the plot of a story should just read the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.220.61 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)