Talk:Lost Girls (graphic novel)

message: What is to be added and what is to be left out?--Brown Shoes22 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add to the synopsis

message: Has any reliable source made the connection between Lost Girls and the Tom Lehrer song "Smut", which contains the lyrics
:"When correctly viewed,
:Everything is lewd.
:I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
:And the Wizard of Oz — there's a dirty old man!"
The coincidence seems notable to me, but has any reviewer mentioned it, or asked Moore about it in an interview?  (Translation: I'd like to put it in the article, but realize it's original research unless someone else has noted the connection.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom Lehrer connection?

message: *Charles Dodgson (though it is only extremely strongly suggested and never stated) even appears in "Looking-Glass House". However, the Charles Dodgson we all now was genuinely in love with Alice, but never got involved with her romantically, let alone sexually. Sadly and shockingly, the "suggested Charles Dodgson" who appears in Lost Girls is depicted as a child raper !
*Astonishingly, the Cheshire Cat is never mentionned in Lost Girls! (Only one picture of it can be found - with no line of text and no dialogue that hints to it throughout the three books). This is hard to understand, considering most characters are depicted and/or mentioned - even "minor" ones (such as the dormoouse and the dutchesse's son or even Toto - while Tinkerbell, though never called that way, is clearly suggested to be Annabelle).
I removed these two paragraphs from the Style and references to the "original" girls section due to POV and them verging on being a review, but there's possibly something salvageable from them so I've posted them here.Peteashton 11:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense - the abundance of exclamation marks is a clear sign it has overstepped the mark. The "Style and references to the "original" girls" section seems OK now although it could be bordering on original research if not too careful. Would it be wise to move controversy to below this section? (Emperor 16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed POV

message: Can anyone tell me why the section was removed that explained that 'the work was more than mere porn: it was about the girls reclaiming their sexuality,' removed. No one mentioned why they were removing it as it is the only section in the article explaining what the book is really about.  If no one can explain this I'm going to re-add it. The "porn" thing is imo just marketing and explaining that this particular description is only partly true is certainly within the scope of an encylcopedia entry.
:The paragraph was original research. —Ashley Y 07:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was at the time, I doubt you'd consider it that any longer, since many reviewers such as Gaiman reflect this idea that it is more than porn and explain this exact concept very indepthly. Tyciol (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why remove the section about it being more than porn?

message: While it's important to note that the first part of the work was published in serial form, I don't think it's correct to identify the work as a "series" "published by Taboo" "in 1991" as the infobox now states.  Both attempts at serializing it in the 1990s were cut short, with very little of it released (or even created at the time), and - by the creators' choice - the work was not published as a whole until 2006, when it was done in the form of a graphic novel. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stood it was misleading as it is closer to a trade paperback than a graphic novel. Granted they finished the series and included it all in the final volume but the key is that it was started in 1991 as a series (Oddly Alan Moore seems to be the victim of this a lot). However, it is a complex situation, which is why we have a publication history, and there is nothing against being more specific in the infobox. In fact there are extra bit to  that allow for more information - I'll give it a tweak as it might be a step in the direction of making everyone happy. (Emperor (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A slipcased hardcover is not a "paperback", at least not how the term is understood in common English.  Calling Lost Girls a "series" is rather misleading, since most of it was never published serially and the creators deliberately withheld the bulk of it from publication until it could be published in total, which was their ultimate intention for the work, even in 1991.  A "series" is something like Detective Comics, which is intended for regular serial publication, and any collected edition is an afterthought.  This work is a graphic novel, a small part of which was previously published in chapters.  (Does anyone consider Oliver Twist something other than a novel just because it was once serialized?)  The most accurate way to describe it is as a GN published in 2006, with the previous publication of the opening chapters mentioned as a historical note.  And the publisher is a small art-comics publisher known as Top Shelf, not the lowbrow tits-and-muscles studio of Top Cow. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trades can come in softcover and hardcover editions. Also yes I think it is important that serialised stories are mentioned as such in the infobox - see e.g. The Hound of the Baskervilles and A Study in Scarlet (we should obviously take our precedents from examples that get it right after all). The fact that most people think of some older serialised stories as novels doesn't mean they shouldn't be noted as having been serialised - part of the point of an encyclopaedia: presenting the reality and not the general public perception. ;) :::The best way to present it is as what it is: originally serialised with the story being completed in the collected volume. (Emperor (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Format/publisher/date

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: The article has no connection with Oz or the real story of Alice and should therefore be removed from wikipedia. --Fancy.kira (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That conclusion seems to fly in the face of the source material and all relevant discussion and knowledge surrounding Lost Girls, including the first sentence of the Wikipedia article.  The notion that this is a version of "Alice" is supported throughout numerous interviews already cited in the article, including the Suicide Girls interview where Alan Moore states "... we’re talking about a pornographic book that involves Dorothy, Alice and Wendy".   Even if one were to ignore this and conclude that there is "no connection with Oz or the real story of Alice", the work by noted author Alan Moore would still exist and be of potential interest. In fact, Fancy.kira's objection makes the article potentially more notable, as Lost Girls stands as an example that popular characters that enter the public domain may be written or characterized in ways that sticklers for the original work may find unsettling or undesirable. Preppy (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Fancy.kira, this is not a legitimate reason for removing an article.  This is a notable book that exists in the real world, and that's the standard that Wikipedia uses.  Please read WP:CENSOR. Furthermore, you are misusing these templates.  If you really want to pursue this campaign to censor Wikipedia (despite the assurance that it will not be successful), I suggest you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to learn the proper procedure. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: This person obviously does not understand the criteria for inclusion and exclusion in Wikipedia. Anybody who tries to delete this article's going to have a tough time of it. Tyciol (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to remove this article

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project

message: One thing this article does not address is just how graphic this graphic novel is. Does it contain the kind of explicit pictures that would warrant an X-rating were this a film? Or is it more in the words and topics discussed that it is a "pornography"? LordAmeth (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sexually explicit, and I've added that phrase to the lead. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much. I ended up reading it a few days ago, and while it was definitely much more graphic than I might have preferred, the fact that it's drawn makes it a very different thing. An interesting read. LordAmeth (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic? 

message: * www.salon.com/2006/08/30/moore_26/
: “Lost Girls” Aug 30, 2006; by Douglas Wolk
: Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie's shocking X-rated masterpiece takes three childhood heroines and plunges them into sex-soaked adulthood.
: "The curious — or curiousest — thing about “Lost Girls” is that while it’s enormously powerful and gorgeously executed, it’s not actually all that sexy ... though, it’s a victory as art, which is not a bad condolence prize. Like any number of boundary-pushing, button-pushing works before it, it may well require some kind of scandal, or at least a high-placed moralist’s denunciation, to find the audience it deserves. It’s spoiling for a fight, and it’s worth fighting for."
* www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v3_1/reviews/sandifer.shtml
: Review of Lost Girls by Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie
: 2006 Philip Sandifer, Interdisciplinary Comics Studies
: "If I've one fear on the subject, then, it is that, despite the controversy and ensuing conversation that Lost Girls is going to engender, it will be rendered to the same dust pedestal to which we exile Maus and Sandman – works so self-evidently great that we seem never to get around to discussing them."
-71.174.175.150 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  reviews 

message: Substituted at 22:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lost Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151004081524/http://comicsalliance.com/lost-girls-britain-alan-moore/ to http://comicsalliance.com/lost-girls-britain-alan-moore/
*Added  tag to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/6/2006_6_24.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/sfw/interviews/sfw13282.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lost Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810173422/http://www.avclub.com/content/node/51180 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/51180
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070108025403/http://villagevoice.com/books/0634%2Csinger%2C74261%2C10.html to http://villagevoice.com/books/0634%2Csinger%2C74261%2C10.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070122171859/http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertainment/dotcomversation/alan-moore/index.html to http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertainment/dotcomversation/alan-moore/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114074500/http://www.nerve.com/screeningroom/books/interview_alanmoore/ to http://www.nerve.com/screeningroom/books/interview_alanmoore
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lost Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001160418/http://www.blogto.com/tno/2006/11/sexy_fantasy_heroines_not_welcome_here/ to http://www.blogto.com/tno/2006/11/sexy_fantasy_heroines_not_welcome_here/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified