Talk:Picnic at Hanging Rock (novel)

message: the synopsis refers to a "far more detailed synopsis" on the film entry, however the film entry currently has no synopsis at all..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.182.39 (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to film synopsis

message: Whadderyameen the article doesn't site a reference? The book is a reference, innit? Captainbeefart 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whadderyameen

message: please englighten me,
does the trivia on this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemony_Snicket%27s_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events#Trivia
follow your justification (rvt: trivia sections aren't encyclopædic). NeoDeGenero 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why they would have removed that, I think it's a great bit of trivia. Don't bits of trivia usually have a Trivia sub-heading though, rather than an Interesting Fact subheading?Dw290 14:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It was removed because trivia sections are un-encyclopædic and should be removed. It is folly to cite a similarly underdeveloped article as reason to retain an un-necessary section.--cj | talk 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to expand your views on what is and isn't encyclopedic in this newly evolving online media.  Speaking of folly in citing other articles, your own hyperlinked article is an essay, not a policy; that is yours or some person's opinion.  personaly, if there is interest, and somebody wants a trivia section, what's the big deal?  please don't sit there and lecture me or others on what you think is or isn't encyclopedic.  you're acting like a trivia-nazi. --Joe_Volcano71.198.147.17 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect. It is a guideline with wide approval, not an essay as you falsely purport. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, and has set ideas about what it is not. And that you are resorting to ad hominen indicates to me that your argument is already lost.--cj | talk 13:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then if you be so kind, please incorporate that little piece of information into the article somehow. I mean, what is the use of that information not available on Wikipedia, if everyone who studied the book were told that the author mucked up the date [/sarcasm] Ps. Dw290, i had it as a Trivia subheading, until it was removed. (NeoDeGenero 15:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Trivia/Fact 

message: This article is written as if the book/film were a work of fiction.  As I understand it however, it's based (I don't know how closely) upon a true event.  Can anyone confirm this?  jmd 07:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Inspiration? 

message: I removed the following paragraph because it's unclear whether the details refer only to the film or to the book and the film. Someone familiar with both should clarify this. The Singing Badger 03:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clocks

message: I pretty sure there should be some sort of symbolism section, which there normally is in many book articles. Hillhead15 14:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbolism

message: This article should be about the novel only since it's a separate thing from the film, so I'm changing the article accordingly, tell me if you disagree.
There, changed the article around a little, added a few things and removed some others, but most importantly I separated this book article from the already existing one about the film (left the film paragraph in though). The article still needs fixing up and sources though. --Hst20 06:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film/Novel 

message: I also added a spoiler warning about the plot. Now I know this might be the wrong thing to do, but in this case I felt that one was necessary since the plot section is so short. It goes from the beginning to revealing the entire end in two sentences. Now since there are sources on the plot that's at least an easy edit, if I'm up for it soon or for anyone else, but until then I feel the spoiler warning is justified, anyone agree? --Hst20 06:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Spoiler Warning 

message: :Image:Picnic at Haning Rock (book).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Picnic at Haning Rock (book).jpg

message: I've deleted references to musical adaptations of the novel: none of the the writers are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages, and at least one of the references is a Wordpress blog, which isn't a credible source. The details of the British adaptation were pretty spammy, and I suspect they were copied and pasted from a press release, possibly in an attempt at free advertising (they were also very out of date)  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with this deletion but for the record I think the reasoning given here is shaky. The fact that the writers don't have Wikipedia pages isn't particularly relevant. And as to the second adaptation (by Zaitchik) there are quite a few more credible recent sources that can be found easily through Google search. However, it appears that that adaptation still hasn't had a full professional production so it's still of doubtful notability. Mrhsj (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical adaptations

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Picnic at Hanging Rock (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The two citations (25, 26) don't relate to critics' opinions or importance of the novel at all- they only relate to the book's inclusion on lists of popular books as voted by readers, from MammaMia and from Tuesday BookClub viewers. This sentence is also in the first section of the article too, so it's worth fixing both.  I've checked several of the other references for this article and can't find any of them supporting the claim for critical importance for the novel either. (There is evidence for critical importance of the film though.)
As it stands, the sentence could be reworded to something like 'Picnic at Hanging Rock has been listed as one of the Top 10 most popular Australian novels, as voted by readers' with citations 25, 26 then providing evidence. However, It won't make sense to have that as the first sentence in the 'Critical Analysis' section.  
I see that the reviewer who provided feedback on the failed 'good article' nomination has suggested combining the Critical Analysis and Publication History sections into one new Release and Reception section. The correction of this sentence would make sense in that context. I don't know how to combine sections, but I can fix just this sentence and move it to end of section, if no one else gets onto it in the meantime. Jbo9995 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  '... considered by many critics to be one of the most important Australian novels of all time.[25][26]'- citations do not support this claim. 

message: Mrs. Appleyard had threatened Sara with removal to an orphanage because of her guardian's failure to pay Sara's tuition and school fees. When school staff and students returned from church one Sunday, Mrs. Appleyard lied and said that Sara's guardian had come for Sara that morning. When the gardener finds Sara's body on the ground next to the school's gardens, directly beneath a tower, days later, not only is Sara in a nightdress "soaked with dried blood" but her "head was crushed beyond recognition." The latter seems strongly indicative of Sara's having committed suicide by having jumped from the school's tower. (There is a scene in which Mrs. Appleyard, searching in Miranda's and Sara's room, recalls Sara saying to her "No, no! Not that! Not the orphanage!") But it does seem odd that Mrs. Appleyard, apparently aware that Sara had jumped that Sunday morning, and knowing then full well that the body would soon be discovered, would be silent for days about the death. I found myself wondering whether Sara had instead been spirited off the premises that Sunday morning, and somehow murdered and placed in the garden. But I think the evidence is strong for suicide. For example, there is an earlier scene in which Dora Lumley finds Sara curled up behind the door of the staircase leading to the tower, "wretched" and "snivelling," having been threatened not long before by Mrs. Appleyard with "other arrangements" because of Mr. Cosgrove's failure to pay. And Mrs. Appleyard had found and destroyed a "note" (presumably a suicide note) in Sara's and Miranda's room.
DonaldMWright (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sara a suicide?  

message: I find it extraordinary that some text, published several years after Joan Lindsay's death, is easily attributed to her literary heritage without due scrutiny. I am talking about this 'secret chapter' that several sources attribute to Lindsay without the slightest evidence. Yes, a little booklet was published in 1987, and the publisher - with his clear financial interest - claimed that it was originally written by Lindsay. But why would Wikipedia accept this as 'fact'? There is NO material evidence. There is NO manuscript, NO annotated typoscript, NO diary entry, NO correspondence with the publisher, NO copyright transfer, NO notary document, NO last will stipulating what should be done with that chapter - there's NOTHING. Let alone a credible source.
In the mean time, we KNOW that Lindsay was a fierce advocate of her novel being open-ended. There's a tangible revulsion at the idea that her novel would have some 'logical' ending. Lindsay claims to have written 'Picnic' as en open-ended story, much like 'The Turning of the Screw'. A 'final chapter' with a resolution of the mystery would blow Lindsay's architecture of her most beloved novel.
I suggest that the wording in the Wikipedia lemma be adapted, so that it reflects the present uncertainty of the origin of 'The Secret of Hanging Rock'. Any decision on this, pro or contra, will affect the literary heritage of one of Australia's greatest literary authors. I propose that we tread carefully here.Mcouzijn (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the authenticity of the "secret final chapter" been debated in WP:RELIABLE sources? Muzilon (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it hasn't. Mcouzijn (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'final chapter' - a fake chapter? 

message: Consider please this passage from the article:
In 1987, literary scholar Donald Bartlett drew comparisons between Lindsay's treatment of the rock and that of the fictitious Marabar Caves in E. M. Forster's A Passage to India, which has been interpreted as a metaphor for Pan, the Greek god of the wild: "There is more, of course, to A Passage to India than Pan motifs, for example symbols such as the snake, the wasp and the undying worm, not to mention the vast panorama of India's religions. But I believe it probable that Joan Lindsay consciously borrowed the elements [from A Passage to India]."Barrett, Donald (1987). "Picnicking with E.M. Forster, Joan Lindsay et al". Linq. James Cook University. 5 (1): 79–86. closed access
Does anyone know anything about the literary author Donald Barrett (who is misidentified as Donald Bartlett)?  It evidently isn't the same as this one Donald Bartlett2603:6010:4E42:500:B037:9083:307B:5B18 (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Barrett, not Donald Bartlett