Talk:Eaters of the Dead

message: “It was meant as a dare and has become one of the most intriguing novels of our time.[citation needed]”
Regardless of the factual accuracy of the first half, the second half is clearly POV? -Ahruman 12:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that the entire novel is a fictitious and the sources Crichton cites are made up? From IMDB's trivia section on the film: "Since Michael Crichton published his novel "Eaters of the Dead" in 1976, the basis of this film, it has become regarded as one of the most notorious hoaxes in Librarianship Circles. The Ahmad Tusi Manuscript that Crichton referenced in his bibliography as being the source of this story, is completely made up. The name of the translator Fraus Dolus is in fact two Latin words meaning both 'hoax' and 'fraud'. The University of Oslo, where this manuscript is supposed to be kept, have (since the book was published), on an annual basis had to send out letters telling enquirers that they have been the victim of a hoax."
''
:If I recall correctly Crichton admits making it all up in an afterword? In that case its not really a hoax I guess, and the Ibn Fadlan account really exists (right?). But this is all no problem. Do you have a source for the university of Oslo claim? In that case it easy, and you can include it, no problem. Sander123 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax 

message: The Rus' were NOT early RUSSIANS.  The meaning of the word is debated in scholarship (mainly along a division between Russian and Western scholars).  To some it means Norsemen (Rhos referring to the color of their "ruddy" hair) and to others it is the early EAST SLAVS (not Russians!) who were ruled by the Norsemen and came to be known by their masters' name (Rhos->Rus').  In any event, in the movie The 13th Warrior it clearly refers to Norsemen...I haven't read this book but one would think that it's the same thing.  If by chance the author got it wrong, it doesn't mean we have to repeat his mistake.  I don't change articles myself but someone else should.  -Matthew Herrington
No they weren't early russians, However the Rus tribe is historically credited with founding Novgorod. So there is an integral bit of information to be shared. Or at least members of... There is probably some article to link to for them perhaps?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.166.93 (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true.I agree with the last comment.  Russia is named after the Rus or Varangians, that were Swedish traders, soldiers of fortune, settlers and raiders, a sort of Eastern Vikings. Eventually they became a Slavic people (the jarls became tsars, so to speak). At first the term for referring to the original Slavic population was Wendish. In Finnish and Estonian Russia still means Sweden. Same thing for the Bulgars that appear in the novel. They were a Turkish tribe from current Russia. Their kinsmen that encroached upon the Balkans became Slavs after some generations (the khans became tsars), and are known as Bulgarians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rus'

message: Somebody removed the line: "In a seemingly offhand reference, H. P. Lovecraft's Necronomicon is quoted in the in-character bibliography." Does anybody know why? Is it not true? Sander123 08:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they referred to a newer edition?  I've seen later editions that omit the HPL in-joke, which is a shame. --108.171.130.166 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree, I added your link. Sander123 08:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Necronomicon