Talk:Schindler's Ark

message: Is there a Plot Summary for this book anywhere? What happens?
I don't feel too good about the plot summary in this article. It's less of a plot summary and more of a back-cover synopsis, flaunting and advertising the book. I think it should be rewritten.
Jake Sinnott (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary??????????? 

message: it says it inside the darn book that it is a work of fiction. so why is there even a question here? Statesboropow (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The question here relates to which edition you read.  It has been reported that the first edition listed the book as strictly fiction but that later editions moved away from this, hence the question, and the wording of the description in the article. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  fiction or non fiction? there is really a question here? 

message: Regarding the question of reviewers' reactions and the original sentence: "However, some reviewers thought it was more non-fiction than fiction."  This has been edited to: "However, some reviewers thought it was more fiction than non-fiction." 
The relevant section of the reference is as follows: "When it was published in Britain in 1982 as Schindler's Ark, Keneally's book was widely and prominently reviewed. Even before its publication, it had been short-listed for the Booker McConnell Prize, and there had been some mention in pre-publication reviews that the documentary style of the book made it an unusual contender for a fiction prize. The day after its official publication, Schindler's Ark won the Booker Prize, and a storm of controversy erupted. A number of critics felt that its deficiency in the fictional aspect undermined its quality."  
This last sentence refers to a "deficiency in the fictional aspect" which led me to the view that the reviewers considered it non-fictional.  
If the question is whether the book is fiction or non-fiction, then a deficiency on one side of the equation must lead to an increase in the other.
I'll be removing the most recent edit on the basis of this.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewers' Reactions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Schindler's Ark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080518112914/http://books.guardian.co.uk:80/bookclub/story/0,,2077629,00.html to http://books.guardian.co.uk/bookclub/story/0,,2077629,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed mentions that this book is "fictional". Does it have some invented dialogue/scenes? Yes, every piece of historical media does. Are the events/characters depicted fictional? Absolutely not. Classifying this as a work of fiction is grossly inappropriate, and especially with how many people routinely deny the historical reality of the Holocaust, this is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Work that fits into "historical fiction" would be The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas or Titanic, as the plots and characters of both are wholly fictional, but set in the context of real historical events. This is not the case in the story of Oskar Schindler. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 02:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same line of "Once upon a time in Hollywood" some characters were real but the film is FICTION. 79.117.227.252 (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fiction"