Talk:We Need to Talk About Kevin

message: this bit:
"The book details Eva's new life away from her estranged husband, who is with his daughter, and Kevin, who is incarcerated. Visits to prison and her difficulties to lead her life on her own are interspersed with what she regards as the key events of her relationship with Kevin. The massacre is saved until the end, and is more of a "whydunnit" that a "whodunnit"."
strikes me as misdirection.  i propose to remove it if no one objects.--s_oteric 00:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  misdirection? 

message: "Kevin uses a different type of weapon to kill his classmates" is a 'spoiler'.  Ok to remove it?
:: In the Major Themes section is it necessary to state, "Shriver deliberately avoids arguments about media violence and gun control...(Kevin does not, in fact, use a gun to commit the killings.)" If a gun was not used, it's only logical that Shriver would <B>not</B> touch on the issue of gun control because it's irrelevant with respect to the story, so why is media violence and gun control even mentioned in this article? Because it's conspicuous in its absence? Conspicuous or not it's still irrelevant. It's like saying, "In Goldilocks and the three bears, the author deliberately avoids discussing the issue of underage drinking (even though Goldilocks was sober when she broke into the bears' house and has no history of alcohol abuse.)" In fact, now that I mention it, does Shriver discuss underage drinking and recreational drug use in her book? If not, shouldn't it be mentioned that she doesn't discuss them either? They're also issues faced by today's troubled youth, so isn't it relevant that they deserve a mention for their conspicuous absence as well?
:: It might only be my opinion, but I feel this article, and in particular the Major Themes section, should cover what <B>is</B> discussed in the book "We Need to talk about Kevin", not what isn't in the book.Kwazimoto69 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that no Reference is used to support the Point Of View that Shriver "deliberately avoids arguments about media violence and gun control" I'm going to remove that sentence along with the statement about Kevin not using a gun to commit the killings. Again, this article should stick to discussing what <B>is</B> in the book, not what isn’t. Kwazimoto69 (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove? 

message: I wondered why no-one has drawn the parallel between her book and "The Omen". If you take out religion and substitute Kevin for Damien the stories are almost identical. There's nothing wrong with that - The Omen is a great story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.63.146 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 January 2007
:I don't know if the parallel is that obvious... maybe relevant in the themes section?Ams627 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, unless a critic has written such in a verifiable source, it would be original research for us to state that in the Wikipedia article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Omen

message: The article needs a plot outline section... unfortunately I've currently loaned out my copy of the book.  When I get it back, I'll attempt to create the outline, unless someone else does it first. Ams627 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot outline

message: Why Country 	United Kingdom ?--JBellis 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country? 

message: :Image:Weneedtotalkaboutkevin.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 insure 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) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Weneedtotalkaboutkevin.jpg

message: My understanding is that we usually use the original book cover (if we can find it), not the film promotional release cover. Shouldn't this be changed back to the image that used to be here? --TEHodson 04:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cover (film-related printing) 

message: "Kevin's sister Celia is conceived largely because of Eva's need to bond with another member of her family."
The use of "is conceived... because of" makes this a statement about the author's intentions in creating the character, which we cannot possibly know unless the author has spoken directly about them. 
"The novel dramatically explores the nature versus nurture debate but leaves enough ambiguity to ensure that the debate will continue."
The way this is worded implies that had the novel come down firmly on one side, this would have ended the debate, which is absurd. 213.249.135.36 (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going way too far 

message: Why is about no preposition?--Radh (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  About 

message: Disappoiknted in wikipeaida
I came here expecting links to reviews. None  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.61.161 (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reviews