Talk:Hogg (novel)

message: I believe this wikipedia article is inccorect when it states that the novel Hogg takes place in the 1960's.  At one point in the book, a news reporter mentions how Denny's murder spree might come to rival John Wayne Gacey's. Gacey committed his murders from 1972 and 1978.  Other cultural references included in the book point to the events taking place in the 1970's as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.231.17 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time frame 

message: As a reader of Wikipedia, I would really like to understand the literary value of this book. I have read it and it's pornographic literature all along. The graphic depictions of sexual acts do not serve a greater purpose, as far as I can tell, so I would really like to know what critics say about the book. External links to book reviews would be helpful.85.9.55.10 (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: As a reader of Wikipedia I take issue with this page identifying Hogg as pornography. It is an amazing book, and as a legal or vulgar term "pornography" falls short. When you click on the word pornography on this page it takes you to an article which defines pornography as "the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement." Hogg can hardly qualify. Myself, I found this book impossible to masturbate to, and I am usually pretty good about that sort of thing. I'm gonna change it and see what happens. Trst (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification as pornography 

message: I read the thread above, and feel that the version currently 'live' is far tighter, clearer, easier to read, and generally better than the version which includes unnecessary detail in my view. More eyes and opinions would probably be useful at this point :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. If a plot summary is returned to the article, it would have to be about 75% shorter than the one that was excised. --StaniStani  06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't really agree with your analogies - I really do think the article is much better in its current state. I'd go further, and say that we have a bit of a mini-consensus in that regard too (alison, Stan, and myself) - I just don't think the material you clearly value added much - in fact, it made the article worse in my view. To my mind, the correct analogy would be 'if I hired an editor to edit my article, and they cut it down to this, would that be cool?' - my answer is 'yes', and of course that's not so much of an analogy as description of what's happened ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  tighter, better version 

message: No, this would be like if you handed in an article to an editor and he deleted everything except the first paragraph. Someone obviously went to great lengths to write out a detailed plot summary and descriptions of the book's characters. You will find this in most Wikipedia entries for books of any consequence - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, to name just one example. If you look up Huck Finn you will not find one short paragraph saying, "This is a novel by Mark Twain about a boy and his adventures, etc etc" and then a little section with one sentence saying "Critics over the decades have hailed this as an important novel." Are you kidding me? You, or someone, deleted the entire body of the article leaving scarcely anything of value. Yes, the original summary may have gone a little too far. Big deal! Selectively pare it down then! It's better to have more information and not less.  
Looking at your user page I see you have been blocked four times and banned at one point for ninety days! What the hell kind of record is this, for you to be acting like you know anything about editing an article? Clearly your indiscriminate butchery has already had negative consequences for you in the past. Why don't you try to break that streak by actually doing something useful here?
98.223.176.40 (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, I'm quite proud of coming through my previous wiki shenanigans - though I don't think I've been accused of 'indiscriminate butchery' before! ;-) I don't agree that the big long thing before is better than the current version - in fact, I think the big long thing before had heaps of problems, and wasn't a good fit at all. I think a small plot summary para. could be useful, but for various reasons it's also possible that it might not work at this article. We'll see how it goes... ps. - please try and tone it down a bit - forthright is fine, but angry and pissed off probably aren't so cool / collegial.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

text: they don't want wikipedia readers to know what is in the book because they are trying to make the author into some great man when he is really just a perverted weirdo. 2806:106E:19:14EE:45A0:3260:4809:8F12 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Utterly Preposterous

message: Hello!  The description of the book cites Inventory by the A.V. Club, and credits it to Chuck Klosterman.  However, Klosterman only wrote the introduction to the book.  The passage quoted is by me.  I'm not sure, given Wikipedia's guidelines on entering your own work, if I should make the change, but I'd suggest that the credit line be altered to either credit me individually or the A.V. Club collectively, as Klosterman had no involvement.  Thanks!
Leonard Pierce (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit in description