Talk:Steppenwolf (novel)

message: "American novelist Jack Kerouac dismissed it in On the Road (1951)" - can anyone give page/piece reference for this statement? I have read 'On the road' a couple of times and can absolutely not recall that Kerouac dismisses 'Steppenwolf' in it, though I might be wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.141.233 (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference from On the Road please 

message: :Image:Steppenwolf Cover(novel).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) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have brought in a new image, under fair use as a book cover, per wikipedia rules, book covers are considered fair use with the articles they relate too.--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Steppenwolf Cover(novel).jpg

message: Why is there in the article two different release dates: 
*Released in 1927 and The novel itself was published in 1927.
*Publication date 1928 and Category:1928 novels
Iffcool 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: Does anyone have a reference for Mullholland Drive being an allusion to Steppenwolfe? I can't think of any definitive sign in the movie that it is. Dozenthey (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mulholland Drive Reference

message: The following looks like original research:
*The symbol of the Steppenwolf itself can be traced to Nietzsche's "differentiated loner", whom he also termed a "beast" and a "genius".
*A consistent motif in the book is the excellent simplicity of Mozart, particularly in comparison with more weighty, "complex, dense" German composers such as Johannes Brahms.
Can anyone confirm that a commentator has noted this? If so, can they provide a source? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible OR? 

message: Let's try to get an image in, try google books, there is a free ussuage policy. Two, from editing and reading the article it seems like it was written by some one who was a native speaker of German, and, though proficient in german and writing a very good basis to work on, still does quite have a mastery of the langauage, at least in making a piece more easily readable and worded. a lotta of grammer and spacing errors two that I fixed. I think I did my part to get the improvement of the collaboration off to a good start, let's see who else jumps in to lend a hand. What it primarily needs is a picture of the novel, more sources and independent varifications of research, (i have access to several databases and may be able to provide that), and it needs a longer and more detailed plot layout, we need to add significant information and length to it, as well as some more length and clearing up of the criticial analysis. The background and history of it needs some major clearing and additions, as well as sources. Perhaps this could be a guide to our goals to getting this to FA status, additional, valid, sources are especially needed. I'll get some when I have time, perhaps tommorrow.--Robert Waalk (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Things 

message: :I added an image from the novel's first edition, which is from the commons and is therefore (presumably) free of copyright.  I'm in the process of doing preliminary research, which I agree the article definitely needs.  Much of what exists will likely have to be rewritten in accordance with the sources.  I believe the plot summary should be simplified rather than expanded; it's far too complicated for me, having not read the novel in ten years, to grasp basic concepts.  The "in pop culture" section should be removed per WP:TRIVIA, although a "Legacy" section or something similar may help explain what impact the novel has had on popular culture without being full of trivial references.  Lots of work to be done... María (habla conmigo) 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dounno, most of them are not trivial references though, and I really think we should clarify the plot sumamry through expansion, not cutting back. Most of the information looks on base, just needs to be sourced. This article needs a lot more length and detail if its going to be a FA rated article.--Robert Waalk (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be thinking too big for our collab time constraint: let's shoot for B first, then maybe GA. :)  Length and detail would be great, but only in encyclopedic terms.  Listing every band/song/film that mentions or alludes to Steppenwolf is not encyclopedic, and neither is an overly detailed/lengthy plot (per WP:TRIVIA and WP:PLOT, respectively).  Rather, I think concentration should first be put on finding info based on reliable sources in regards to publication history and critical reception/analysis.  I've found a few possible sources already, but I'll look to see if I can find anything of use in my library later this week. María (habla conmigo) 01:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On an unrelated note I was glad to see you won the battle with conservatives who were trying to devote an entire section of Doris Lessing's page to her 9/11 statements, put in out of context and made to portray her and the [Nobel Prize]] in a critical light. Looking forward to this year's noble prize winner. It should be announced within the coming weeks. So exciting to think that its almost here again. I hope it will be an American author. We haven't won one in a long time, since 1990 and for some ridiculous reason that was given to Toni Morrison, who was a one-trick pony and not even that major a literary figure in the US. I have a bet going that its going to be Thomas Pynchon this year.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Waalk (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the spirit of WP:TALK, I suggest the above comment be moved to my talk page.  Article talk pages are for discussing the article in question, so let's not let this discussion (the collaboration and its goals) stray off topic. María (habla conmigo) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Several Things

message: My past picture was removed. I know first editions are preferable in some instances, but I found the photo bad, and outview, and not particularly pleasing. The new image is a copy of the book, but fits the article much better and it far more aesthetically pleasing, which, is, I think the most important thing.--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First editions are preferable in all instances.  Besides, the first edition cover is in the public domain, which makes it a more secure image choice.  Why not return the first edition to the infobox (as per novel style guidelines) and add the more recent cover elsewhere in the article?  María (habla conmigo) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, because its ugly and a bad picture for one, and it makes no sense why a first edition is preferable. An edition is an edition in my mind. Secondly the other picture looks much better while the first does absolutely nothing for the article. The article looks better with the second. And that policy is just so utterly ridiculous. We should have a vote on it.--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text: And there is no copyright with promotional images such as book covers, they are perfectly safe. I have used brand new ones with in the site guidelines, and so is this one perfectly within its guidelines.--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's incorrect: book covers are copyrighted, but they can be uploaded under fair use (WP:NFC).  The first edition cover of Steppenwolf is in the public domain, which is why that particular image is no longer under copyright.  As for the importance of first edition images, they have historical weight and notability that any-old-edition copies simply do not have, regardless of how aesthetically pleasing the image or scan is.  There's a reason why first edition copies are valued over later editions, after all.  If you want to retain the image you uploaded, the rationale needs to be written properly and completely, and you could always add it further in the article, as I suggested above.  I hope this helps clear things up.  María (habla conmigo) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I had fair use, and I completely fail to see this "historic weight" or what particular notability it has. If anything it doesn't represent the book and is an empty dead picture to me. The other one though, with pleasing intrinsic look to it and a radical color close up of a man's face displays the soul of the book while looking good, and looks are important, an article looks much better with a good picture heading it up than it does with an eyesore being the first thing you look on the page. Technically, I'd rather have no picture at all than that picture, and I think, that of the two of you, I have done the most to make this article look like it does now, to be petty about it.--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no clue as to what your last point has to do with the capability to understand copyright policy and/or the importance of first editions, but I've already given you a detailed explanation for both.  What I meant to say was that the fair use rationale on the image you uploaded does not satisfy guidelines.  See :Image:Rye catcher.jpg for an example of a well written rationale.  María (habla conmigo) 01:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: God, if that is the case then I will just not download any more pictures or put any more effort into it. There's too much dang red tape and trouble to go through for it, more than its worth, much more really, but that's the way it is with most of wikipedia; writing some information is only one 10th of the work, and you wonder why so many articles are weak and empty. Huh. I'm really getting fed up with this process again, I already left the site for two years once because of all this kind of...stuff. I would be much more productive but with wikipedia's guidelines its not worth it and you end losing what you work on half the time.--Robert Waalk (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's silly to be this fatalistic because of an image.  Guidelines are in place to help things run smoother, but there are a lot of other areas one can contribute apart from image uploading/reviewing.  That's why I prefer to concentrate on content.  Try it sometime. :) María (habla conmigo) 01:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I'm sorry but I get really sick and tired of this stuff. I hate sourcing papers in college too! It's not the way my mind works. I read anything, anything, and I remember and its much more exciting and easier, and better writing when I merely paraphrase other information. I'm a terrible essayist when I quote other writers because it throws the entire format and rhythme of my writing off.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Waalk (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text: And it isn't even this so much as a group of things taken as a whole that has me so upset. Mostly this document based question essay I had to write tonight. But also just an overall exhaustion with some of the wiki policies which no matter how I try, I never seem to fill, but thanks for being so polite.--Robert Waalk (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Should we keep this? I mean come on, there is a fairly small pool of characters, but more than that it doesn't look very god, doesn't fit good, and is a little blocky. Most importantly, the descriptions on it, are, themselves, rather wordy and poorly written. I just think the article looks better without it.--Robert Waalk (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous reader here, I actually laughed out loud so hard when I saw the "character diagram" that I came to this talk page to see if anyone else had pointed out how ridiculous it is. It's either a good joke or a very misguided attempt to contribute. In either case it should be removed, but don't be hasty--consider the delight that it brings. 174.86.215.7 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the diagram.  It is of poor quality, and largely based on opinion.  DoctorMatt (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Character Diagram

message: The article states that "the novel was named after the lonesome wolf of the steppes." However the disambiguation page for steppenwolf says that "Steppenwolf" is a German name for the coyote, which is relevant because Hesse was German. The disambiguation page also says it can refer to the steppe wolf which is however a subspecies of gray wolf (which is also known as wolf) and as such is, I assume, not "lonesome."
Therefore I'm quite sure the article is wrong and the novel was named after the coyote, but I don't have a source to cite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.71.145 (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lonesome wolf of the steppes OR coyote? 

message: So how is this book so misunderstood? The emphasis is on the fact that initially, we are all ourselves wolves in a pack called "the crowd". This determines our moral basis, our lowest common denominator concerning behavior etc. etc. But as people, at some point in our lives, we should transgress being defined by external sources and recognize being defined by them has merely limited our perceptions, experiences, and progress by mere association with others, after all, we become what we consume. We should transgress the tools (social media) which combine and tie the collective mentality, allowing it to be easily swayed as we fear not being a part of events and collective decisions if we ever want to be free of the limiting factors of "the crowd". Carl Jung called this "Individuation". Buddha called it "Enlightenment".2A00:23C7:5998:C701:DD1D:EC54:A064:B5C9 (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstood - We are meant to be that wolf.