Talk:The Terror (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.

Untitled[edit]

Until secondary sources about this novel appear, there probably shouldn't be an article on it. This sounds like original research to me, and that is banned from wikipedia.

  • There have been dozens of reviews in major newspapers and magazines — secondary sources should not be hard to come by, if you'd like to source the article. --Jere7my (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuunbaq[edit]

I find this article terribly disappointing. In the end, what is that Tuunbaq the whole book is talking about? Is it really an element of Inuit mythology as the book seems to suggest? Is it related to Nanook? Or does it come out of Dan Simmons' mind?

I tried to search for more information, but I didn't find anything really interresting.

Thanks, Calimo (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • From what I remember in research I've done, the Tuunbaq in Inuit Mythology is a representation of the "devil" of sorts personified by a ordinary polar bear. Simmon's representation takes a little bit of literary freedom on the description and attributes of the Tuunbaq. [1] I've found more than that before but for the life of me I can't find it again. Here's what Simmons himself had to say about the Tuunbaq. [2] Lost Cosmonaut (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


actuality[edit]

My father and I read this book a while back, before he passed. He told me a few times it was based around a real ship.\ I think this article should be intresting: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100729/ap_on_re_ca/cn_canada_franklin_ship_found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.79.186 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is common knowledge. The book is a historical fiction, that is, it's real history that has been fictionalized in it's exact details. The true details surrounding the disappearance of the HMS Terror (1813) and HMS Erebus (1826) are mysterious, but it definitely happened. See: Franklin's lost expedition. Lost Cosmonaut (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Supernatural?[edit]

I've removed the statement that the beast in the book is "supernatural". The source cited doesn't seem to work (and I can't independently verify it), and concluding that it is supernatural seems to be speculation. A significant number of reviewers describe it simply as a huge polar bear; lacking a statement by Simmons to the contrary, there doesn't seem to be a reason to assume it is some magical monster. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The book definitely has some supernatural elements. The Tuunbaq is described as a "giant polar bear" but also carries some seemingly supernatural abilities. In the final chapters there are also some supernatural happenings. The way the book is written, they tend to seem more like the quaint observations of Victorian explorers, ascribing supernatural meanings to natural phenomenon, but on face value they are definitely supernatural in nature. Lost Cosmonaut (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Low Importance[edit]

This is a very well written historical/horror novel and it really disappoints me that it is only a 'stub'.

Surely somebody could flesh this article out to bring it up to the standard of other articles for much inferior novels!

I would do it myself, but I'm no expert on Wikipedia.

Cheers

Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richytps (talkcontribs) 18:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Rich,
You don't need to be an expert on Wikipedia to update the article. Just write some more text, point some good sources, and wikipedia experts will fix any issue with the syntax!
Don't wait until someone expert both on Wikipedia and The Terror come on this article!
Calimo (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary and Characters[edit]

I've added a Plot Summary and Character list and have edited them today to try to add Real World Context. I apologise if these are not up to the Wikipedia standard, but at least I tried. I think it's better than nothing and would encourage other, more experienced, writers to enhance what I have written.

Cheers

Rich

Richytps (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you are going somewhere! Way to Be Bold On Wikipedia articles related to fiction need more then just content on plot though. I recommend examining WP:MOS (novels), which will give you an idea on the other parts of the article could use some expansion. The best sources for novels articles are reviews of the novel in newspapers, Sadads (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Added 'Reception' section - I followed your tips Sadads. Hope I did it correctly? What do I need to do to get rid of the annoying 'Mostly Plot Summary' banner at the top of the page? Richytps (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. The plot section is long, but not inordinately so. Tag removed. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the tag, I appreciate it Richytps (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Great work on expanding the article on a good book (those reviewers who said it was too long need to put down their smartphones and learn to appreciate a book that takes its time!). The plot summary seems a little big, should we have every plot development/analysis listed out here? No complaints, it's well done, but would Richytps be ok with me editing some sections? The Cap'n (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Start Class?[edit]

I've put a lot of effort into this article and yet it is still 'Start Class'. I don't want to appear to be throwing my dummy out of the pram, but come on - is it really that bad?? Richytps (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's a good "B" (possibly an A). However, I'd also say its importance is "Low", both in the overall scope of historical fiction and in the body of Simmons's own work. No Hugo awards, no movie buzz, no big accolades, not part of a series... A cool story by one of my favorite authors, but a relatively little-known work.
By the way, for any class up to and including B, you can change the class of an article anytime you feel it meets the posted standards, even if you worked on it yourself. There's no need for the wikiproject to review it beforehand. If you think you've brought it up to the next level, feel free to make the change! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I feel a lot better about it now :-). I really don't understand how The Terror failed to win any awards - they just don't know class when they see it. The fact that there is a film in the pipeline for Drood and not The Terror is also very puzzling to me. Drood was ok, but it wasn't close to The Terror. A drastically cut down version of The Terror could be very cinematic. BTW - the 'Things that make me laugh' section on your User page is very funny! Cheers! Richytps (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel the ‘Tuunbaq’ is very similar to The Thing movie in flavor. Why is Tuunbaq not linked to Inuit Mythology? 02:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Avaghnn (talk)

Because it is not part of Inuit mythology. It was made up for this book. Clicking away to that page would not help a reader understand anything more about it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Kafziel is right. Dan Simmons has stated in interviews that the Tuunbaq is a creature of his own invention that he slotted into a background of existing Inuit mythology. As for the The Thing reference - apart from the all male, set in an isolated, 'arctic' environment, I do not see any real comparison. Kurt Russell et al would not stand a chance against the God-like Tuunbaq :-) Richytps (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)