Talk:The Clan of the Cave Bear

message: Sorry for the anonymous post, but I noticed that this article lists "Clan of the Cavebear" as a historical fiction novel. Technically this isn't correct, because there are no written records extending back to the books setting 20-30,000 years ago, thus there is no written history. A more accurate term for this book would be "prehistoric fiction". Someone should change this small error.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.32.109 (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: I am currently reading the novels again ( I proceded to The Mammoth Hunters so far) and I think Ms. Auel might have exaggerated the difference between Homo sapiens sapiens and the Neanderthals. I wrote a bit about it in this article. However, it spans all the 5 existing novels of the Earth's Children series. Please do not delete my paragraph on the alleged exaggeration of the differences right away. Maybe it should be moved to the Earth's Children article. But whatever - I feel it should be discussed. --Maxl 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neanderthals (Clan people) in the novel

message: One of the main elements of this story is Ayla's development of a way to throw two stones in rapid succession from a sling.  Unfortunately, the method as described is impossible, because when one launches a stone from a sling one does so by letting go of one end.  Thus, tossing up another stone and catching it in the pouch of the sling, even if possible, would not allow one to fire again rapidly because one would only have hold of one end of the sling.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a reason our local used bookstore put these books in the Fantasy section. --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sling 

message: As it stands this is almost a stub article. With many Round Tuits it could be expanded greatly to give a much more detailed summary of the story. The current text might be used in an article such as Earth's Children. In the meantime I've removed one particular edit which went into greater detail about the relationship between Ayla and Broud since that simply made no sense in the context of the very limited scope of this article as it stands (although it would be appropriate in a fulls scale article).
--John Stumbles 22:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size and scope of the article 

message: http://www.edge.org/conversation/rethinking-out-of-africa
--Pawyilee (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-thinking "Out of Africa" 

message: I added :Category:Fictional bears and it was reverted. Reasons given: "1. What is fictional about Cave bear? 2. None actually play a major role in the books". 
1. This book, Clan of the Cave Bear, is fiction. All the human characters in it are fictional. All the animals in it are fictional. All the mythologies, legends, social structures, clan emblems, etc. are fictional.
2. This book is the first in the Earth's Children series, and the rest of the novels make, if I remember correctly, very little mention of bears. This one, however, does. The people this novel is about, a group of Neanderthals, base their whole sense of themselves around their relationship with the cave bear.
Any reader of our encyclopedia who is following links to bears in fiction may well be interested in finding out about this novel. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, no cave bears play an actual role in the book series, a few minor episodes excluded. The category is not for "bears" as a group, as a totem lending its name to a clan of people, but about individual bears (albeit fictional), and such do not play a role in the book. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, I am not arguing for including the series in the category, only this one novel. There are, as you say, minor encounters, but in addition, one cave bear plays a significant role (from page 382 onwards here; I can't see the chapter number) - indeed the focal role - in the largest gathering of the people. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Come on, that is not a major role. There were 381 pages out of 512 before that without the bear, and you want to point to this one chapter to justify inclusion? It is not Winnie-the-Pooh! Debresser (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The encounter is, as I say, a focal role. The novel builds towards it; its characters spend years preparing for the gathering, of which the bear is the focus. I could come up with all sorts of parallels (in Bend It Like Beckham, the glimpse of the eponymous footballer is so brief that it might as well be a body double, but there's no question that the film belongs in :Category:David Beckham) but ultimately my justification is the user of the encyclopedia: what serves a curious reader? I maintain that someone reading about another bear, and thus led to browse our :Category:Fictional bears, would be intrigued to learn of this novel and the imaginative world created by its author. I think that helps to build an encyclopedia.  Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You say it: "would be intrigued". Categorization is not to build intrigues, but to allow for easy browsing among related articles. This book is not related in a significant way to any bears. In any case, I think we both explained our positions. Now we need some outside input. Would you care to post at WP:Categorization or WP:WikiProject Literature about this? Debresser (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  A productive suggestion - done. (By the way, "to be intrigued" and "to build intrigues" have rather different meanings. The former is synonymous with interest or curiosity; the latter, "A plot to accomplish a purpose by tortuous or underhand influence" according to the OED. Not my intention!) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Fictional bears 

message: The Setting-section of the article seems to have the BP and BCE years mixed up. If you are referring to the same year the BP number should always be higher, but here BCE is bigger. The standard way to get BP from BCE is to add 1950 to it, here the author of the article seems to have done the opposite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:70:8E85:C880:1AF2:AA04:B78 (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right, so I swapped them. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong years in the Setting section