Talk:Thinks ...

Is this encyclopedic? G-Man 20:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Can't see any reason why it shouldn't be: David Lodge certainly is an eminent English novelist; the discussion of his novel Thinks ... is NPOV. What else would make the article un-encyclopaedic?  21:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It needs to be edited WAY down, however. It's practically a blow-by-blow synopsis of the whole novel. The articles on Lodge's other novels seem on the right track. I'd do the editing but I haven't read the book and this article exhausts me just to look at it. - DavidWBrooks 21:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look very NPOV to me. -- 19 Jun 2005

Hey, it's July 2008!

 * (and nothing has changed...)

I have put the plot template in the section. I will not be reading the book, since the detailed synopsis bored me rigid, so also cannot perform the pruning - but I hope the template will attract the attention of some literary type. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary definitely wrong
Not only is the summary too long, it also completely distorts the novel's central theme. The novel is centered on Ralph and Helen's relationship. Perhaps more on Ralph btw. Even more important, through their relationships, and discussions we are confronted with their opposing views of the mind, its functioning and purpose. It offers a starck contrast between the humanities and sciences approach to the mysteries of the mind in addition to being well, a fiction. This is what makes the novel's real contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.91 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

About the summary plot
Hello.

Yesterday I introduced a structuration of this part, without changing anything else, so that it can be slightly approximative sometimes.

I think that the summary is really a little too long. I, having read the book, can follow the summary, but a non reader could be disturbed. In fact there are too many explanations : for instance, it's not neccessary to write "we know from her diary that she is attracted, etc." : it's enough to write : "she is attracted, etc." (we could know as well from "conscience stream" or "indirect free style", etc., as I know from The Art of Fiction.)

I know that in English Wikipedia, you are not very fond of structuration, contrary to German and French Wikipedias. I think that nevertheless a good structure facilitates understanding : on the French page I use a standard structure (without numbers and letters of course) : 1) Summary a) general sight b) place and time c) characters (not only the main ones) d) detailed summary 2) Analysis a) narrative techniques b) themes

Helen's diary appears in 2a as well as Ralph's recording ; Ludmilla Lisk can appear in 1c, but not necessarily in 1d. In 2b I could write about Jean-Dominique Bauby, theme which does not interfere in the plot, but is relatively important in the cognitive sciences background of the novel.

I hope this can be useful.

Cordially

--LODGESEARCH (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)