Talk:The End (novel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases from the Bad Beginning[edit]

I am removing this section, along with quite a bit of other original research. Unless this is mentioned by Lemony Snicket/Daniel Handler in an interview or other statement, I am saying this original research. Clamster5 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book the last[edit]

An editor thinks that the book should be described at Book the thirteenth and book the last. I like the way Snicket numbers his books, but in Wikipedia we use standard English syntax. These articles are not onl for fans of the books, so we must use language appropriate to curious outsiders. Ronstew 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Clamster5 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But do you really think that anyone who doesn't know that it comes from the author will be confused by it? --Chitomcgee 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? If you want to fix the title headings the way you want, do it on some Snicket-pedia, not Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity (and I'm not trying to be condescending or anything either), where does it say that we have to use standard English syntax? Isn't Wikipedia, in a sense, a Snicket-pedia? It's the -pedia for anything, because it's the -pedia for everything. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the current title headings (the first book, the second book, etc.), all I'm saying that it would raise the curiousity level of this particular article, the series as a whole, and Wikipedia as a whole. A curious outsider would come across the page, see "book the thirteenth," and think, "That's a interesting way to write it, and it sure caught my attention. I think I'll read some more," which they would then do. Then, they'd think, "Wow, that article was interesting! I'll read a few different articles," but before they'd do that, they'd purchase The End from amazon.com. Now, I understand how extremely far-fetched that scenario was, but since putting "book the thirteenth," at least in my opinion, isn't hurting anything, why not leave it and have the afore mentioned scenario be a possibilty? --Chitomcgee 04:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other wikis are more lenient on bending the rules and fancruft...for example, on a Star Wars wikipedia you might find a page on a very minor EU character who wouldn't be notable enough for their own here.
Wikipedia discusses all different types of fiction, but that doesn't mean we should change our grammar to suit that.
And I really don't think grammar either way is to going to sway a new reader.--CyberGhostface 11:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you still haven't told me where it says that "book the last" is improper grammar for Wikipedia, or how that'd be "chaning our grammar." That's like saying "the first of September" is more proper than "September the first." They're both proper, just as "book the last" and "the last book" are both equally proper, and since "book the last" has more relevance to the article, since it comes directly from the book, I believe we should use that format. --Chitomcgee 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is "September the first" even grammatically accurate to begin with? I don't know. Nothing came up with that prhase on the google search. And even if it was accurate, out of the two, "the first of September" is the most familar and is the one I would use. So I wouldn't say they are equally proper.--CyberGhostface 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that one is more common and familiar is irrelevant to the fact that they are both correct usage. --Chitomcgee 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its very relevant. Its why we say Empire Strikes Back is the second film in the Star Wars trilogy, not 'film the second'.--CyberGhostface 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we call it "the second film" is because the producers told us it was "the second film." Had they said "film the second," we'd know it as film the second. That argument was pretty week. Yo u'rebasing it off of how it was introduced to the world. The books were introduced as "book the 1st, 2nd, etc.", and you've verified my point. --Chitomcgee 03:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing it off on the common usage of the english language. This is supposed to be a nuetral encyclopedia on various works of fiction (among other topics of course), not some place to modify the text to make it more like Snicket's writing style. These articles should be about Snicket's works, but that doesn't mean they should be written in his style. If you want that, read the books and not an encyclopedia.--CyberGhostface 18:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that was a good point, and you've changed my mind. 'Twas fun engaging in this argument! --Chitomcgee 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly opinion has Cyberghostface my summarised. Ronstew 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not funny. --Chitomcgee 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough comment. I should know better than to choose Vice Principal Nero as a role model. I am glad that you changed your mind. Ronstew 06:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of inversion is very old. Just as we read "Henry II" as "Henry the second", it was usual practice in the nineteenth century to read "chapter the second", "book the second", "volume the second". To cite just one example, Watson refers to "chapter the second" when they're deciphering the code message in The Valley of Fear. Lewis Carroll uses "Fit the First", "Fit the Second" and so on in The Hunting of the Snark. Lemony Snicket was just being old-fashioned in his usage, not ungrammatical as you repeatedly claim. (As for "September the first", that is a perfectly normal way of saying the date, in British English at least -- I don't know as much about American usage.) 62.136.206.128 22:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is not whether the phrase is strictly grammatical so much as whether it is "standard." In standard, modern English, regardless of where in the English-speaking world, the only use of the "Elizabeth the Second" construction is for people. The date example you cite does not hold, as September the second refers to the second day of September, not the second month called September. Ronstew 01:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]




THIS IS A STUPID ARGUMENT I'M SURE PEOPLE WILL GET IT JUST LEAVE IT AS IT IS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.158.40 (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 points[edit]

if you look on the side view of the book there are 13 points - like this ^^^^^^^--58.105.170.27 04:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay?--CyberGhostface 04:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was just pointing out a little bit of interesting info. Mrmoocow 08:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs massive clean-up[edit]

The 'summary' is ridiculously long. I've started to just scrap off some sentences, so it might end up a bit mangled. Get your healing kits out and be on the ready to use them. Mrmoocow 08:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and the structure of each book summary changes between wikipedia pages. it makes it difficult to read them all through at once. I intend to go through and polish each summary as well as make them more cohesive as a group. [[User:Aearlim|Aearlim] 13:55, (Aearlim (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Why "The End"?[edit]

Ummmmmmm... I cant figure out how to start my own catagory so i hope you don't mind if i post onto yours until i figure it out... Soo Here i go

There kid I did it for you. 69.248.92.4 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why did Lemony Snicket Call It Just The End? why not the enormous end or the enliphting end or the enourmus end like the other book??~htes

Handler stated somewhere that no adjective could adequately describe the events in the book. It could also be to throw readers off, and it could also have been because no other title was suitable (I've yet to hear a better title). Plus, by not including an adjective, pedantic fans can argue that it technically doesn't repeat the title initials of TEE because it uses a separate naming system.

He called it The End because it's the end there's no more. I didn't even think that the last one was that good anyway.HarryFan101 16:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)HarryFan101[reply]

There are a few references online to a subtitle, thus: "The End: Too Dreadful To Picture". This was the title printed on the receipt when we bought a copy. User:Omassey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.209.84 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was just before the cover art was released. Its not an official title.--CyberGhostface 21:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it filled in the blank space for the central cover picture using the "Too Dreadful To Picture" caption. TPP, TGG, and I think TSS did the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.123.70 (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apples[edit]

i thought the apples ("...the heroine of a book much more suitable to read that this one [who] spends an entire afternoon eating the first bite of a bushel of apples." This is a reference to the character Ramona Quimby in the book Beezus and Ramona by Beverly Cleary. The scene in question has Ramona taking one bite out of each apple before putting them back because to her the first bite tastes best.) came from Anne of Green Gables, i can't remember, can someone check? Istillcandream 06:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't actually assist in the editing process, but a Ramona Quimby allusion is pretty likely; Handler's said he likes Cleary's books, and he's alluded to Ramona before. 217.44.118.112 18:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Uktheend.jpg[edit]

Image:Uktheend.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 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) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lemonysnickettheend.jpg[edit]

Image:Lemonysnickettheend.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) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question mark[edit]

The article said (I've removed it) that the question-mark-shaped object being called "The Great Unknown" was a euphemism for what comes after death. Original research, and I have to say I don't agree anyway. But perhaps all that was meant is that the phrase "The Great Unknown" is (in general, in other contexts) used as a euphemism for what comes after death. If so, it could perhaps be re-inserted, but the sentence would need to be written more clearly. 91.105.17.144 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


book & movie[edit]

i am sooooo confused the movie was made in 2004 and the last book was wirtten in 2006 how could they make the movie? one more thing all the books r in one movie

Only the first three books were in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.238.34 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me Ish[edit]

Is Ishmael's constant request for everyone else to "Call [him] Ish" a reference to the first line in Herman Melville's Moby Dick "Call me Ishmael"?

[1]Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

References

  1. ^ Snicket, Lemony (2006). The End. Egmont. pp. 55, . ISBN 978 1 4052 2673 8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_End_(novel)&oldid=1206237352"