Talk:The Doorbell Rang

Untitled

I'm hoping that others will provide more information on Stout's conflict with Hoover. Modus Vivendi 09:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping that others will be cautious not to use Wikipedia to editorialize about Mr. Hoover or the FBI, or on the virtues of Mr. Cook's book on the subject. This is an encyclopedia, not a soap box.

Conflicting reviews

I disagree with RRRRowcliff's deletion of the material concerning conflicting reviews, but I'm not inclined to revert it willy-nilly. I think that it goes too far to state that reviews as disparate as the ones mentioned are " . . . true of any book." Of course different reviewers often have different attitudes toward specific books. But when the reviewers are as well known and respected as Boucher and Symons were, and are writing in such august publications, it's unusual to find them, as with 3FTC, in such marked disagreement. Symons: " ... a sad comment on past glories." Boucher: "The situations and solutions are unusually good ones; and the stories are rich in unexpected Wolfiana."

As to relevance, sure -- 3FTC itself has no particular business in an article on TDR. But I would contend that the disparity of opinion regarding the book is relevant, mirroring the disagreements regarding TDR.

And I rrrrespectfully rrrrequest that RRRRowcliff rrrreconsider his rrrremoval of the rrrreviews. TurnerHodges (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the general comment because, in my experience it isn’t at all unusual for major critics to have different takes on a book or for one critic to have different opinions about different books – whether a series or not -- by the same author. It would take an obscene amount of research and documentation for either of us to prove our point, which is why the point shouldn’t be made one way or the other in the text of the article.

As to the specific, I think reviews for “Three for the Chair” belong on “Three for the Chair” because I see no connection between reactions to the stories in that book and “Doorbell,” which is in a class by itself as by far the bestselling and most controversial NW, the former occasioned by the latter. There’s a lot about this in Stout interviews in various McAleer publications, some of which -- including more reviews (Dilys Winn was not alone in deeming it "overrated") -- I hope to add when I get to a real computer in a couple of weeks. [I once mentioned being stuck having to post from a Blackberry because my regular computer Bluescreens me when I try to contribute; since all of the geeks who have examined my computer can only scratch their heads about why this happens on Wiki and nowhere else and can’t figure out to fix it, it’s probably a permanent condition. It's very difficult and time-consuming for me to post from the Blackberry and sheer torture to try to do things requiring references, tags, or any kind of Wiki markup/formatting. And I hereby excuse myself from all spelling and minor grammatical word errors on the Talk pages. :-)]RRRRowcliff (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

PS -- RRRRowcliff rrrresents your implication that she is a he.RRRRowcliff (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Does he, now? Then perhaps he might have considered the inferences others would draw from his use of that character's name. After all, Rowcliff is Cramer's champion ass.TurnerHodges (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Interjecting, I agree that those comments belong on the Three for the Chair article rather than here. Rather than lose them altogether, I created a "Reviews and commentary" section and moved them. — WFinch (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)