Talk:The Silence of the Lambs (novel)

Unnecessary Links

Is there a reason why there are multiple links to "elephant," "ivory," and "anthrax," instead of "elephant ivory anthrax?" If such a disease actually exists, why not link to it? If it does not, why not put "a fictional disease" instead of linking the reader to a bunch of links that have no real meaning? As I've said before—we all know an article's author CAN insert a hyperlink. The real question is: SHOULD they? 174.99.62.175 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to note: elephant ivory snthrax is a real disease; the name merely indicates that the pathogen was borne in the elephant's tusk.

See "Elephant care manual for mahouts and camp managers" - FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary repair?

The summary makes little sense toward the end. It looks like someone took bits and pieces and cut them out. I haven't read the book in a couple years, but I know there is an ending other than "she keeps tracking down Buffalo Bill". Maybe someone more familiar with the work can repair things. Defunctzombie (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

redirect

Better to redirect this to the film rather than create more and more articles. Skinnyweed 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The film is based on the book, so it would be incorrect to forward references to the book over to the film. Also, moths do not become butterflies, they become moths. -FoxMajik (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary is too long and detailed. ChKa 19:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: There are two entries for The Silence of the Lambs, film and novel. The film's article is better written than this one. This article is basically a duplicate of the other, and why do we need two similar articles? One should complement the other or provide different set of facts based on "book" and "film" differences. I think this article would improve greatly if the "summary" is actually a summary of the plot (clear and concisive). The plot is so finely described that one doesn't need to read the book or see the film, every detail is pretty much given away. Even secondary actions are provided such as "Miggs flings semen at her"...Starling takes the chrysalis to the Smithsonian"...last paragraph Hannibal says to Starling "The world being more interesting with you in it" giving a way even the last finale comment. There is so much in this article that should be cut down, because right now reading it loses the reader in the process or gives the full book away for free. The point of the article is to provide information not write a book on Wiki. My suggestion is to summarize the book's story, add elements that distinguish book from film, (which differences are noted already in the film's article), maybe a few facts about the author. Shorten this, and link to "see also" to the film article for more info. Breathe200 16:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of the plot details reflect the film rather than the novel, as per above. For example, while Starling does flee her relative's ranch due to an emotional reaction to the business of preparing animals for slaughter, she flees with an old nearly blind horse (Hannah) who eventually lives out her days at the Lutheran's Children's Home. Other issues are similar. 71.219.152.175 (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

s

census taker

When Hannibal kills his census taker and dines on his liver, what else did he dine on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.80.227 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This entry is too long, and gives far too much information. A "Plot Summary" shouldn't give away the story of the book, which this one does. This reads more like a book report, and has no place on Wikipedia. Somebody please edit this. My head hurts from so many sub-par Wiki entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.69.161 (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

MO or not MO?

"...whose modus operandi involves kidnapping overweight women, starving them for about three or four days..."

"...indicate that Bill had killed her within four days of her capture, much faster than his earlier victims."

Which is it? Arcanicus (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Puffery

There is no need to oversell the success of the film adaptation. The use of colourful adjectives like "major" is entirely unnecessary. DarkKnight2149 15:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Silence of the Lambs (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/02/02/david_foster_wallace_s_favorite_books_the_sum_of_all_fears_the_stand_and_red_dragon_.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)