Talk:A Simple Plan (novel)

message: The article says
:Hank frantically inquires about where she spent the money. He then goes to the store and kills the cashier who had served his wife.
This misses an element of the horror: a middle-aged female customer enters on business, and he has to kill her as well.--Jerzy•t 05:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that regard, I deleted the comment  about murder in a pre-meditated fashion. All of the deaths in  both book and movie were capital murder, including Lou and Nancy. Self-defense is not a defense against the death penalty if you kill co-conspirators to cover your own participation in a crime. From the moment Pederson/Dwight Stephenson was killed, they were all first degree murder--and most were pre-meditated. ANY forethought is pre-meditation, and killing the witness to a murder is even more despicable. Confusing "innocent" with "guilty" victims here--but they're all victims. Lou would have been just as guilty if he'd killed Hank--just not as "sympathetic". In the book the clerk and the customer were "innocents" with no connection whatsoever to the original crimes, and perhaps were left out of the movie because of that. Hank in the movie did not just "commit some crimes"--he is a murderer--and there are no gray areas.--Buckboard 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Store killings 

message: * The article needs some balance between plot and "out of universe" information.  There is currently too much of the former, not enough of the latter. I'm thinking shorter plot summary and adding some sourced info. --Sturm 23:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Break of the arbitrary kind

message: It's almost always unfortunate when a contributor chooses to vanish.  It was not my contention that a two sentence summary is sufficient, and I was completely willing to work towards a compliant version before walking away due to repeated personal attacks.  The most important (and apparently most overlooked) governing policy states:  Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.  I think that we should work on extending the encyclopedic treatment of the topic, and find a summary length that fits the real world context.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur: the development of the other important areas of this article seems to have been overlooked in favour of the development of reams of discussion about the nature of the plot summary. Happy‑melon 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, hope we can get a good article together about the book (and the film, come to that). Geoff B (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward

message: The anonymous user continues to restore the inordinately-long plot and has made no attempt to explain his actions.  At some point, an admin. will have to become involved. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  And again... 

message: In an effort to expand this beyond the painfully-too-long plot summary that the anonymous but dedicated editor tries to inject each month, I'm attempting to track down some out-of-universe ("real world") reviews of the book or other information to establish significance and reaction.  The only thing I've found so far in actual reliable sources is the first paragraph of this NYtimes review, which is actually of another book by Smith but does include info on this book in the first paragraph.  Can anyone else find reliably sourced information about ASP?  Thanks!  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will look around and see what I can find. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews