Talk:The Secret History

message: :Image:The Secret History, front cover.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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Secret History, front cover.jpg

message: Shouldn't this unsourced speculative comment be dropped? If Julian knew, then what is evidence of that in the plot? If he knew, he could simply destroy the letter and continue teaching. If he knew, then such undercuts the entire point of the moment when he sees the letterhead.  Pepso2 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I deleted those two sentences, as per my comment above: unsourced, speculative and no internal evidence in the narrative. Pepso2 22:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Julian knew?

message: An IP editor has reinserted the trivia section twice. There are several reasons why this section is unnecessary/redundant/pointless/insignificant etc:
* Per WP:TRIVIA, trivia sections should be avoided and the content integrated into the text. It is not possible to integrate this content into the text because there is no logical place for it.
* Julian Morrow from The Chaser was born with the name "Julian Morrow". He didn't choose it based on the book, but even if he had, that would belong in his article, not the book's article.
* That The Hampdens chose their band name based on the book is mentioned in their article. It is not necessary to duplicate this information here because it's irrelevant -- 99.99% of the people reading this article will not know who The Hampdens are, and therefore will not find the information interesting. (And this is coming from an Australian who has heard of The Hampdens.)
If you still believe the information belongs in this article, please obtain consensus for it here rather than reverting. Thanks, Somno (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section reinsertion

message: The Bret Easton Ellis book The Rules of Attraction (published 1987) refers explicitly to The Secret History, which is perhaps appropriate to include within Trivia/Popular Culture. As I don't own the book I am unable to quote the page number but this is easily overcome. Thoughts on re-insertion of Trivia.. or another heading..? greatly appreciated. Many thanks, VerySplendid (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added. Thanks. Pepso2 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, how could a novel published in 1987 refer a book published in 1992? Ifnkovhg (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ellis and Tartt knew each other during the early 1980s when she began writing her novel. Pepso2 (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I thought it might be something like that, but maybe the article should be explicit? I'm going to bed. Ifnkovhg (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-references

message: Is this a correct interpretation?  Is it anything other than an interpretation?  I'm hesitant to inject my own take (as I fear original research), but it might be just as valid to say that Henry's comments about being "liberated" by the murder are possibly a return to the earlier Dionysian-bacchanalia theme.  Henry is certainly presented as an atypical (and possibly sociopathic) personality, but I'm not certain that he is any more (or less) 'crazy' after the murder than he was beforehand.  Would welcome others' opinions before I go on a cowboy-edit crusade. Sskoog (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry Breaks Down?

message: I don't know anything about the book, but thought it would be prudent for me to link to an interesting article on this book's equally interesting cover. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f26dc6fc-2fe3-11e0-a7c6-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1DI8nxqYR – if anyone's looking to improve this article to any degree, this should be an essential resource. Seegoon (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on the cover 

message: The following info, removed from the article:
::On a deeper level, highlighted by many literary references and allusions, the novel undertakes a complex analysis of truth versus beauty, aesthetics versus justice, social constraints compared to the desire for liberation, and an examination of the relationships that exist behind social structure, particularly relationships of power and control.    Early on, the question arises: "Does such a thing as 'the fatal flaw,' that showy dark crack running down the middle of a life, exist outside literature? I used to think it didn't. Now I think it does. And I think that mine is this: a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs." This theme continues throughout the novel as Richard is repeatedly confronted with the separation of literary and artistic beauty as he would capture and report it, compared to reality as it unfolds.
cannot return to the article without citation, as it seems composed of entirely Original Research. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme statements need a source 

message: That's what I read.  Anyone else agree? Hannaschott (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles came to the hotel room to kill Richard not Henry. 

message: It is nowhere stated explicitly that Henry (or another member of the group) indeed killed the farmer. Noone really remembers the event. The traces hint to an animal: Charles suffered a non-human bite on his arm. The wounds of the farmer were to severe to be done by humans. Henry hit at something he did not recognize, but thought was the farmer. Later in the book it is mentioned that there are mountain lions living nearby. 
Reading the book again once being aware of this possibility, I find it hard to avoid the idea that a mountain lion killed the farmer. In particular this gives the story an entire new twist.
Maybe one should change "Henry ... killed" to "Henry ... assumed to have killed"?
Frettloe (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Henry inadvertently killed a local farmer", hm... 

message: — Assignment last updated by Rayaxj (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: LIT 3319 Contexts