Talk:Jack Reacher

message: I read Killing Floors six years ago now and I became a real Jack Reacher addict. I enjoy both Lee Child’s writing and his imaginative stories. I think he’s a remarkable man and I’ve found some really interesting interviews on this new web-site: www.jackreacher.co.uk.
Bradleyjohn 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview SOURCES

message: I think that the sentence at the end of the biography shouldn't read "in Bad Luck and Trouble he is revealed to have a fascination with mathematics," due to the fact that his fascination is truly showed the first time in Die Trying, the second book in the series.  He goes off on a wild tanget for three pages in a paperback book.  How should that be phrased? --Suriyawong 5:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematics fascination

message: The plot outline states "Unhappily for the authorities, the accused is a friend of Jack Reacher, who is convinced that the wrong person has been arrested.". This is completely wrong. The accused is NOT a friend of Reacher's. In fact, Reacher vowed that he would personally take down the accused if he ever did it again. And, for a long time in the novel, Reacher is there to help convict, not help free, the accused. 97.103.81.29 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the article, and this has been fixed sometime in the last 2 years.--Stroller (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One Shot" plot is wrong 

message: Additionally he uses the technique of not answering when people make statements or ask questions preferring the other party to fill the silence. A recurring line in the books is "Reacher said nothing."
I am not sure about this, but does this not generate a little humour? Maybe adding, that with Jack Reacher's silence it is normally accompanied by peculiar shrugging, would give more details into his action. Also, it will be nice to mention/quote Reacher's learnt tactic: "When in doubt, just keep your mouth shut" (Page 215 of Die Trying) and the theory behind remaining quiet, giving more information behind why he is quiet. (Lord Shivan (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this does generate a little humour, but, unfortunately, I think Lee takes it a bit too far. After 5 or 6 Reacher novels, it seems to me that half of his Reacher novels are just filled with what he established in the earlier novels. So that means he only has to write HALF a novel. In addition, Child has MANY more of those statements. Like "you've got the look". Like "back in the day". And so on. In addition, Child contradicts himself many times. Such as that Reacher doesn't need a watch. But at the times Reacher actually OWNS a watch, he (Reacher) seems to have NONE of the UNCANNY talent to tell what time it is. Things like "That is for damn sure.", "You've still got the look.". "... in the day." to me, seem worn out. In addition, Child has now made Reacher a "super hero". No one can beat Reacher. Despite the fact that Reacher has been "out of the service" for a "while". For example, the story that hinged on the one phrase "Find [or "Get"] Reacher for me. Reacher was out of practice too. The guy who lived in the same building as Yoko? His guys were out of practice too. So how come Reacher himself (having been out for a long time, not keeping up his shooting, just digging pools in Miami) was exempt? I loved the first few Reacher novels, but they became just more and more of a contradiction as time went on. Lee Child: You are a GREAT writer. But your series making Reacher a god have become incredible. 97.103.80.222 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical Information 

message: Given Reacher's physical description and his life as a rootless drifter he appears to be a latter day Cheyenne Bodie. I believe that  Lee Child is old enough to have watched the TV Western series Cheyenne  featuring Clint Walker who,if he were fifty years younger, would be perfect to play Reacher on film. Plot lines are very similar from Cheyenne Bodie to Jack Reacher as well as character development.  94.196.186.196 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drifter 

message: FYI, the Wimbledon Cup is NOT a USMC competition. Marines have won it, most notably Carlos Hathcock, but it is a civilian competition held at Camp Perry, Ohio during the National Matches. I'm not going to rewrite the article to reflect this though, as it's just an error in Child's background research and is correct in his fictional universe. - Once again, Anonymous, and rightfully so.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.234.233 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wimbledon Cup

message: What is the source that Lee Child will write the next Bond novel in 2012? This has NOT been announced by Ian Fleming Publications. No author or next book has been announced. --Zencato (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 Bond novel source? 

message: I just finished "The Hard Way" and I'm very fortunate I didn't read this article before hand.  "The Hard Way"'s description spoils the surprise that the mother and child intentionally ran away and weren't kidnapped, which is what the reader believes 80% of the novel (unless they somehow figured it out).  This needs to be rewritten to exclude the spoiler and leave in the comment that they were kidnapped, especially since that drives the story.  Goatcheese4me (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hard Way spoiler

message: Since I'm new to the world of Reacher (just bought and enjoyed the movie), I feel strongly compelled to now get and read as many of the novels as I can find. Since The Affair sounds, from the plot summaries, to be essentially a prequel to the series, would you folks recommend that as my starting point rather than Killing Floor? Many thanks. MikeB-Cda (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a forum for general discussion (WP:NOTAFORUM), you might find a better response at a book related sight like librarything. However, you can read them in pretty much any order really. (Hohum @) 16:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New to the series, question about chronology 

message: I've just heard a BBC 'Book Club' interview and Q&A with Lee Child, in which he gives some interesting answers to questions on how Reacher's character came to be how it is.  Is this material better on this page, or on a section on Lee Child's? (Fulleraaron @) 00:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: , this -- as a rare source -- would be a brilliant addition. Can you find it, at add it to the Further reading section? Le Prof  71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this the right page for author's comments on the character?

message: See headline.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.165.153 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have begun to call attention to the original research by editors that can, absent sources, lead to such personal feelings about the subject, rather than the objective restatement of sourced opinions of others. Le Prof  71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summaries sound like advertising blurbs 

message: This is a very nice editorial essay, drawn in largest part from editor opinion and research, rather than sources. 
It is my understanding that this is to an extent allowed in such descriptions of artistic productions.
However, the editors here have taken the liberty given in cases of articles on artistic/fictional works to an extreme, drawing nearly all descriptive information on this character from their own experiences rather than from reliable published descriptions (reviews, other articles, etc.).
It is for this reason that the OR and refimprove tags appear at the opening of the article, and they should remain until the article takes significant steps toward being encyclopedic, rather than editor OR.
It is, even so, a well done original essay. The editors involved are talented enough that they should perhaps consider publishing descriptive pieces on this in online venues (which can then form the published basis for this encyclopedia article).
71.201.62.200 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very nice editorial essay 

message: I think this article is far too big and goes into too much detail for a made-up person in a series of thrillers.  The more books there are the more (made-up) "facts" there are, but the detail is too much for an encyclopedia.  I know you folks are enthusiasts, but this should not be a fan page.  I do not think we need long summaries of all the novels,  I am doubtful that they all deserve their own web pages.  The series may be notable, but is each and every single book? Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Much 

message: The consensus was split.
----
Should this article be renamed or split off to cover the book series? The first half of the article reads like a character article, however, the second half is more suitable for the series as it has a list of supporting characters, a table for the book series and a bunch of summaries of the short stories. Some of the individual novels are being redirected to this page. It's very confusing. Is the character independently notable? What about the series? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jack Reacher. 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/20130928132638/http://www.leechild.com/stories/deep-down/ to http://www.leechild.com/stories/deep-down/
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 20:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section under consideration was renamed during WP:SPLIT
----
The Reacher book series have out for mass consumption for quite some time now; in fact it's been out since 1997. 
Which means that in the last 19 years, Jack Reacher has been referenced to in other media (especially other books) and has served as inspiration for other people's works ( case in point Diane Capri's Hunt For Reacher series). 
Thus I feel that this article would be better served by renaming the "Other Author's Works" section to  "Legacy" and adding further subsections based on the type of media in which the Reacher series has been referred to/ has inspired work. In other words I an implying that the proposed "Legacy" section have further subsections such as :
i) " In books " ii)  " In music " etc.
Furthermore I feel that the relevant information in each subsection be given in point format. Kindly note that this will not change the preexisting information on  Diane Capri or Stephen King's Under The Dome  but would just reorganise them into points for easier reading.
Koustav Halder (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming "Other Author's Works" section to "Legacy" Proposed. 

message: Is the image of Tom Cruise really necessary or rather authentic, since the author's description of Reacher heavily differs from Cruise's look?
:I'm in agreement with the anonymous contributor (above).
:In his books about Jack Reacher, Lee Child frequently describes Reacher as 6'4 to 6'5", and 240 to 250 lbs. Jack Reacher is a BIG man. Tom Cruise may have played a character called Jack Reacher in one movie, but Cruise is NOT Jack Reacher and IMO Cruise's only mention on a Wiki page about Jack Reacher should be with respect to that one movie. And let's not get into the fact that the movie has almost nothing to do with the book it's based on, either.
:IMO if there is to be a picture on the page about Jack Reacher it should be either a picture of Lee Child, the creator of Jack Reacher, or the cover picture on the wiki page for The Killing Floor, being the first Jack Reacher novel.
:Does anyone else have any other suggestions or recommendations? Would anyone like to weigh in on this conversation and tell me why I should not replace the picture of Tom Cruise with one that is more appropriate, in my opinion, to a page on Jack Reacher?
::Kwazimoto69 (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Steve Rapaport (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do remove them.  The article would be better with no picture, than the ones of Cruise.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

text:  I would relegate it to portrayal in film section. Unless there's an illustration from the book series, this isn't needed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  I went ahead and moved the photo to the Adaptation section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character's photograph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jack Reacher. 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/20160303232851/http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/arts/offthepage/blog/2007/09/characters_welcomed_and_you_can_be_one_too.html to http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/arts/offthepage/blog/2007/09/characters_welcomed_and_you_can_be_one_too.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) 23:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified