Talk:The Murder on the Links

message: Golf court?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.184.199 (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Translations back to English now say course, not court, a change unsigned might have made, after a quick check with an on line translator.  --Prairieplant (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: I've put the UK image in the IB because, as far as I am aware, the UK edition was the first publication. That is certainly what the article says in the lead (. If you think the US edition was first, please provide a reliable reference (the Marcum ref isn't reliable at all, so please don't rely on that) and ensure the lead, IB and the publication history sections are rewritten accordingly. – SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As you have set yourself up as the one who knows, then you should read and revise the text in Publication history so it makes sense. Part of it was written to match the UK cover by some past editor, so your change makes the text confusing, as it stands.  --Prairieplant (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well feel free to make the change. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I am not editing to clean up half done efforts, sorry. Perhaps someone else will help you out.  --Prairieplant (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How petulant – perhaps you should try and appreciate that this is supposedly a collegiate project, not somewhere you throw your toys out of your pram). (And the text shouldn't refer to images, that's a no-no). – SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: I just replaced the plot summary in whole with a shorter version of what was there before your rewrite. The old plot summary was too long, and the one you wrote was even longer, over 1,100 words. I do not claim either is better, as both tell the plot accurately, but shorter is better. What is there now is about 935 words, still a bit long. If you can work on your summary in your sandbox until it is a lot shorter, closer to 800 words, that is fine with me. It is a challenge to write a short summary of the complex plots of Agatha Christie, in my view, having to write without repeating all her ways of deceiving the reader as the story unfolds, yet still presenting a clear summary of the main action. It was easier for me to shorten the older plot summary, probably from having read it many times now. So I did what was easier for me, shorten that one a bit from its original length. I did the editing in my sandbox and moved it here. I hope you do not mind too much. So many of the Agatha Christie novels have editors improve the plot summary by lengthening it, so this happens often in my experience.  --Prairieplant (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary changes 

message: I haven't got a copy of the book to check for this, but does the novel state if Poirot and Giruad held a bet to see who could solve the crime first? I know the TV adaptation features this, but I don't want to mention it in that section of information, until I can determine if the novel didn't feature this. GUtt01 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No bet was made in the novel.  --Prairieplant (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you confirm, 100%, that this is the case? Because if this is true, then the TV adaptation's inclusion of a bet can be stated as being designed to provide further emphasis on the hostile competitiveness of Giruad. GUtt01 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

text: There was no bet in the novel, simply not a good relationship as the one French inspector was not a cooperative sort of guy, had no use for the private detective or his help, even when that private detective was right. A bet sounds like a way to show that on television, to me.  --Prairieplant (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

text:  I agree - I believe the bet between them was an invention designed to further enhance the distrust of Giruad toward Poirot's involvement in the case. In the words of Poirot, "Bon!" - I shall amend the adaptation to make mention of this, since it is a notable plot detail addition. GUtt01 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, another question - in the adaptation, Poirot notes in his denouement that Renauld had fashioned three knives: one for his son, one for his former lover, and one for Marthe. In the novel, was there a similar detail in that? GUtt01 (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

text:  There WAS a bet introduced late in the novel when Poirot grew impatient with Giruad's rudeness; he bet 500 francs that he could discover the killer first. In the last pages of the story he shows Hasting a statue of a foxhound he has bought for 500 francs and says he will call it Giruad, recalling his earlier mockery of Giruad's methods as thorough but thoughtless.144.121.218.114 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Adaptation - Poirot's bet with Giruad 

message: I was reverted in my change to the novel's first place of publication. Since this was the lead it should be summarising the article which seems to me suggest first publication by Bodley Head in the UK. "The novel received its first true publication as a four-part serialisation in the Grand Magazine from December 1922 to March 1923 (Issues 214–217) under the title of The Girl with the Anxious Eyes before it was issued in book form by The Bodley Head in May 1923." and the order in the publication history. However I could not check any of the print references. Also, the wording of the claim in the lead is written very oddly in a way that made it look dubious. Marcum certainly indicates it was first published in the US and that may be right. In doing this I really should have removed the cites from the lead but I didn't want to lose them from the article. I couldn't move them into the body because I couldn't refer to them. With hindsight I regret my edit and should have raised the matter first here on talk.
Evidence? Not much. In Abebooks (.com and .co.uk) for Dodd Mead, sellers in both countries refer fairly equally to both "first edition" and "first US edition". For Bodley Head, sellers in both countries say "first edition" without any qualification. Maybe this is the last squeak of British Imperialism. I'm interested that the asking price (in both countries) of the Bodley Head first edition (even in its second 1923 printing) is far higher than for Dodd Mead but that may merely reflect availability. However, and importantly, the dates of the newspaper reviews suggest US publication was indeed first. Does anyone have access to the printed works cited? Thincat (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to look at Marcum. I think that is a reliable source for first publication in the US. I am not positive, but I think the serialization in a newspaper or magazine is not usually counted as first publication -- it is the first publication of the novel that seems to matter, perhaps because the serialization might not be exactly what is published in the hardback novel. I do not have access to those printed works cited at the start of every article on a novel by Agatha Christie, but someone, some editor, must have that access. Certainly some editor had the access when all these Agatha Christie articles were started. I think it is best to leave it as a first publication in the US, with the US first edition cover in the infobox, .  --Prairieplant (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'll accept that. I see that  added the publication sequence with careful referencing in 2008 (remarkably careful for 2008!) so I think it is very reasonable to stick with that. Thincat (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I've just found the book was registered for US copyright in March 1923 (ref 957). That fits in well. It was first serialised in a magazine (under a different title) in Britain and at the end of that immediately published for the first time in book form in the US followed, two months later, by book publication in Britain. Thincat (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good source! It argues for putting the US edition first in the list in the Publication history, and perhaps adding the month of March, which is earlier than May, to the text? I wonder why Jtomlinuk removed the month for the US publication but somehow the month of May sticks around in the text for the UK publication.  --Prairieplant (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of first publication