Talk:Absalom, Absalom!

message: Overall, for one of the most impressive and important novels of the twentieth century, this page is woefully lacking in fact and overfilled with speculative commentary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.221.188.166 (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: I have changed the summary to reflect Henry's MUCH more fraught motivations for favouring the match between Charles and Judith.  As the novel makes quite explicit (or at least, as explicit as this novel EVER is), his (romantic? intense?) feelings are not (just?) for Judith, but extend to Charles as well - their marriage thus "solves" the classic homoerotic triangle by allowing himself to at once marry charles to his opposite-gender familial stand-in, and through the proxy of charles, satisfy his potential psychosexual fascination for his sister.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.67.217 (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry 

message: Before I engage in a massive editing of this article, I thought it best to get feedback about the various issues, perhaps even from the original author, if the author is willing:
* The space created between the spoiler warning and the accuracy warning is very distracting. Perhaps the accuracy warning can be placed at the very top of the article.
* The article appears to follow too closely to the Spark Notes summary, and the modifications convolute the summary slightly. Is there an issue with copyright in this regard?
* Regarding the statement, "Although Faulkner published the novel, many scholars today believe Faulkner stole many of his ideas from Curtis Johnston, a philosophical writer of the 1800's." There is no credibility to this, evident in the "many scholars" reference. Even Curtis Johnston's article is not written properly. A quick perusal through my local library catalog, my university catalog, and even a basic Google search turned up absolutely nothing on this "Curtis Johnston" person. I'm not saying the information is false, but as it stands, it's currently not credible, and should perhaps be removed.
In actuality, I believe this entire article needs a total rewrite, mainly to break away from the structure and format of Spark Notes. What says ye?
--Caleb 22:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues: Credibility and Copyright 

message: I had previously put into the "Analysis" section a brief discussion of Quentin's role as the novel's protagonist, and how it invited the parallels between the Sutpens' story here and the Compsons' in The Sound and the Fury. Somebody took it out, though, and put Quentin's appearance in S&F as Trivia, which is absurd. The fact that Quentin is a major character in both books is anything but trivial! So I've put my previous edit back into the "Analysis" section and removed the bit in the "Trivia" section. Msclguru 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quentin Compson 

message: :Image:Absalom87.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) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Absalom87.jpg

message: Is "Wash" an excerpt, prequel, sequel or companion piece to this novel?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.177.55 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wash" 

message: The number of words for the longest sentence in this book doesn't match with the article Longest English sentence  --70.246.146.139 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Aside from the first paragraph, the entire Plot Summary section summarizes the "story within the story" of Absalom, Absalom.
This seems problematic, because it presumes that the various narrators are telling the truth.  Yet to assume this is to choose a point of view that a good Wikipedia article should not take.
Moreover, I think it should be noted that the first edition of this book did not have the chronology at the end.  Faulkner's editor asked him to add this, and he did in a later edition (the second, IIRC).  Some literary scholars have argued that adding the chronology significantly changes the nature of the book, as it reifies the story-within-the-story.
Thus there are three common literary interpretations:
# The reader should accept that the story-within-the-story in Absalom, Absalom is "true", and thus AA is a novel about family and race.
# The reader should be skeptical about the narrator's stories (especially Shreve, who has no actual knowledge of the events, and yet whose contribution to the story is treated by the Plot Summary and by the Chronology as if it were just as reliable as the other parts).  Thus AA is a novel about how stories are passed down and altered as they are retold.
# The first edition and second edition are radically different novels.  The first edition is about how stories are passed down, and the second edition is about family and race.
It seems that NPOV requires the Plot Summary section to be neutral with respect to this dispute!  That will require a major rewrite. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary:  a fundamental problem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Absalom, Absalom!. 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/20101031031550/http://www.oxfordamerican.org:80/articles/2009/aug/27/best-southern-novels-all-time/ to http://www.oxfordamerican.org/articles/2009/aug/27/best-southern-novels-all-time/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The plot summary as of Apr 2018 has been lifted in full from Scribd. Should this be removed in full Shalor (Wiki Ed)? Aschuet1 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot summary plagiarism