Talk:The Door into Summer

message: The plot summary here seems more concerned with literary criticism of Heinlein's "bungles" than with actually summarizing the novel's plot. Perhaps the critical analysis of the book could be given its own section (and scrutinized for NPOV) and an actual plot summary could be written? 66.17.118.195 16:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

message: :Moreover, "the hero's love for his cat is little more than a funny hat that he wears; were Dan Davis to speak with a stutter, or collect postcards, the effect upon the structure of the novel would be the same. (I don't deny that it would deprive the novel of its title gimmick, but this would not be a major loss.)"
I'm sure this is an accurate quote from Blish's commentary, but I have to say, he's dead wrong on this point.  Pete is a major character in the book, especially in the confrontation with Miles and Belle.  While Blish is entitled to his opinion, I think this particular comment misrepresents the book.  If there are no objections, I'm taking it out. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
I understand that it's hard to find multiple citation-worthy critical commentaries of Heinlein's work.  But Blish's opinion on this is dead wrong; he must be in a vanishingly small minority on this particular point.  If we can find other opinions to balance it out, then fine, leave it in.  If we can't, then I think it violates the "undue weight" policy. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say that the character's devotion to his cat is a reaction to the fact that his human friends have all deserted him.  You could not say the same about a funny hat.  On that basis, I would say that Blish is wrong. 50.180.19.238 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary significance & criticism 

message: This is an old debate, but an important one.
Hayford Peirce's objection that "Blish's opinion is both interesting and informative" is not a sufficient reason to include the quote, and his accusation that Jim Douglas wants to let the article "degenerate into just a fannish bunch of praise" is inappropriate.
Everyone here agrees that Wikipedia should describe all significant views — but Blish's very assertion is that Petronius is not significant. Absent a contrarian view, Blish's statement is not significant.
As Peirce concedes, three editors (now six) agree that Blish is simply wrong about this. Pete is at least the second, if not the most developed character in the entire book. The threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth", but this must be balanced with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". In other words, we have a degree of editorial freedom. We cannot and should not include every quote from a critic: the issue is the significance of this quote, and I, frankly, do not see it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that the character's devotion to his cat is a reaction to the fact that his human friends have all deserted him.  You could not say the same about a funny hat.  On that basis, I would say that Blish is wrong. 50.180.19.238 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued from above

message: I'm not sure it's possible to say that a novel that has been consistently rated in the top 50 novels of all time has no Cultural, or in this case, technological, impact. He's already credited with the water bed, it looks like he possibly should get credit for the Rhoomba and the mechanical drafting plotter as well?68.153.102.141 (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Impact