Talk:Dreamcatcher (novel)

message: Do we not have any information on how well this book sold or was received by critics?  This entire article is just a giant plot summary jlechem@gmail.com 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Critical Reception 

message: Isn't byrus a fungus? PrometheusX303 04:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byrus 

message: 65.120.37.26 added the following:
The book has many connections within it that tie it in with many other of King's books, including the famed Dark Tower series. The majority, though, connect to King's novel It.
The first major connection involves the name of the monster from It and the name of the alien possesing Jonesy's body. In It, the monster, when talking to George Denbrough, says "My name is Mr. Bob Gray also known as Pennywise, the dancing clown." While in "Dreamcatcher", the alien calls himself "Mr. Gay" which could be translated, and is also identified by Henry, as "Mr. Gray." 
Second connections involves the fact that Mr. Gray from Dreamcatcher is an alien. In "It" in the chapter "The Smoke Hole", Richie and Mike both get a vision of a meteor coming down to Derry in ancient times from the sky. This is a clear reference that the aliens in "Dreamcatcher" are the same type of alien represented by Pennywise in "It."
Finally, while Henry goes to Derry to pick up Duddits, he finds a statue dedicated to "Bill, Richie, Mike, Ben, Beverly, Eddie, and Stan" who helped stop Pennywise in 1958. Written across the statue in blood is the words "Pennywise Lives!" This is a very interesting twist done by King, because it simply states that the seven kids never actually killed Pennywise in "It". Also remember that in "It", Pennywise states that "I am eternal, child. I am the eater of worlds and of children," meaning that he could never actually die. Another reference in "It" invovles the Turtle, who like Pennywise is "immortal" per se.
1> Mr. Gray is IT?  No proof yet shown.  Bob is a common and somewhat generic name (sorry, Bob).  Pennywise was in Derry before Mr.Gray landed with his buddies.  The novel hints that Mr. Gray was actually a facet of Jonsey's persona.
2> A "clear refrence that the aliens in "Dreamcatcher" are the same type of alien represented by Pennywise in "It."  Not according to IT.  The discriptions of Mr. Gray et al and Pennywise are different.
3> "Pennywise Lives!" It doesn't actually say or imply that Pennywise was still alive.
PrometheusX303 12:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Connections

message: I'm not sure where we get the notion that the Byrus are "clearly" attempting to colonize other worlds by spreading their infection, as someone says in the trivia section. The impression I got from the book was that the Byrus had crash-landed on Earth by accident, not intending to come there. The "thoughts" of Mr. Gray himself are no indication of how the Byrus actually think, since it was revealed in the end that Mr. Gray's thoughts were caused by Jonesy projecting his own thoughts and ideas onto Mr. Gray ("a case of intergalactic schizophrenia" was the exact phrase King used). The movie oversimplified this and turned it into just another alien plague horror story, but King's original idea was more complex. Sylocat 22:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonization intentions 

message: "the book is set in the fictional town of derry maine"
i disagree. the book is mainly set on their hunting trip, at hole in the wall.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.1 (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: derry

message: :Image:Dreamcatchernovel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dreamcatchernovel.jpg

message: I've never seen such a poorly written article on Wiki. Can someone rewrite this, such that the horrible mistakes are removed and everything actually flows together?--173.12.6.100 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit of cleanup work on it, but having neither read the book nor seen the film I could only work with what was already in the article!  Hopefully it reads a little more fluidly now.  Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I altered the infobox to say that the illustration of the book shown is the first edition, rather than the "first edition cover." I would have hoped that the reason for this is self-evident - anyone, simply by looking at the illustration, can see that it is the cover. No one is going to think that it is the side of the book, or its back. Sundayclose has twice reverted me, most recently with the edit summary, "It doesn't show the entire book. Look at all other articles on King books." Sorry, but I can't make out from that what your point is, Sundayclose. I understand what the words of your edit summary mean, but the issue you raise seems incredibly pedantic and trivial. I see no reason to take it seriously. Your reverts seem unjustified. Would you mind properly explaining yourself? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If my point is "pedantic and trivial", then pendantry and triviality is rampant on Wikipedia. Look at all of the articles on King's books. For that matter, look at most articles throughout Wikipedia that show book covers. The vast, vast majority state "First edition cover" (if it is the first edition). Precision is not the same as "pendantic and trivial". It is possible to take a photo of a book for the infobox, but the images in such infoboxes usually are taken from a publisher's or seller's image of the cover. Is the issue here following the widespread norm on Wikipedia and precise description, or is the issue winning this argument? Sundayclose (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So your point is that because something is often done a certain way, that therefore it must be right? Is that really your only argument? I'm sorry, but again, the rationale your reverts escapes me. Please explain yourself properly, and I might be willing to reconsider. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are customs on Wikipedia, and one includes how book covers are described. Are you seriously saying that every  article on a Stephen King book (and most other books) is wrong, that it is "pedantic and trivial". Geez, your goal does appear to be winning the argument. I give up. Have at it. Sundayclose (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, here we go again. You are appealing to "customs." Look, I would have reconsidered if you had given me some kind of reasonable argument. If there actually were a guideline dealing with this issue, I would at least consider what it says. I might have changed my mind completely if you at least tried to explain how "first edition cover" is more helpful to readers than "the first edition." Yet all you can give me, is "this is the way we do it." Not good enough. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I give up and you achieve your goal of winning the argument. Change the article as you wish, regardless of how most other book articles are written. I won't take the bait anymore by continuing to argue. Sundayclose (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to consult with the members of WikiProject Books regarding this issue, you're quite free to do so. It might be a reasonable thing to do. I am happy to wait at least a short period before repeating my edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't care to continue falling into the trap of arguing with you because you have already achieved your goal of winning the argument. But so that I don't have to cross paths with you again, if you revert my edit, please let me know if you plan to do so with your current identity or one of your sockpuppets. Sundayclose (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I made it clear that I was interested in discussing the issue in an open minded way, not in "winning" anything. My sockpuppets have been blocked, so I cannot use them to revert you. Enough said. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on a hard fought victory and for your "open mindedness". When the stakes are so low, you really dig in your heels and go at it. And you amazingly won this argument without resorting to anything "pedantic and trivial". You "properly explained" yourself. Now on to bigger and better things: changing the infoboxes in all the King articles. What the heck, go for it! Change the infoboxes for every book article on Wikipedia. How could Wikipedia survive without your constructive and meaningful battles?! Sundayclose (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments and general behavior here have been undignified. I remain open to discussion with anyone who wants to discuss issues rationally. Jmj713 should explain his recent revert at the article; I note that making reverts without explanation is rude. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits were reverted because they went against common practice, and that's self-evident. I mainly have Stephen King's books on my Watchlist, but many if not most articles carry "First edition cover" caption, if applicable. It's succinct and appealing. While "The first edition" may appear similar, it goes against long-standing format, and has a needless article "The". If need be, the caption can be modified to read simply "First edition" (if the word "cover" is deemed extraneous - which I don't believe it is, it's just describing what the image is and that's perfectly fine), but in that case there would need to be wholesale changes made. Therefore, "First edition cover" is fine and there's no need to change. P.S.: Not that it matters much, but this applies to any infobox. You have to describe what an image is, if you have one. For example, for a movie we have a poster, so just pulling up a random film: 21 (2008 film) - the poster is captioned "Promotional poster". Makes sense. Same here. Jmj713 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your reply, Jmj713. I do understand that it is usually better to follow common practice; I would have thought, however, that if common practice were really correct, it should be simple to give a good reason for it. No one has as yet suggested one in this case. Sure, the infobox should describe the image - but how much description is really required? Many facts could be listed about any given image and the infobox cannot include all of them. Why spell out explicitly that it is a cover when this is generally self-evident? In most cases there seems no possible reason to do that. Probably the only cases where an infobox image in a book article would be something other than a cover would be when it is a title-page, and in such cases it makes sense to specifically identify it as a title-page, to avoid confusion with a cover. I don't consider it important whether the infobox should use the words "the first edition" or simply "first edition." I will be asking WikiProject Books to consider this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  One very valuable reason for having the word "cover" in the caption, is for accessability reasons: if someone is using a screen reader, and we haven't done alt-text for the image (which most illustrations that haven't gone through FA don't have), then the description of a "cover" is not self evident, because they will never be seeing the image. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Images for the best practices on image accessability. Sadads (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. This is, I suppose, the most obscure reason that could possibly be found for including the word "cover", although I grant that it is a reason. Personally, I would have thought that if someone hears the words "first edition" spoken, they will assume that the cover is being shown, for exactly the same reason that a sighted person would assume that an image is a cover unless there is some indication otherwise. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox