Talk:Tender Is the Night

Novels B‑class High‑importance

	Novels portal 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tender is the Night/Sparknotes

I have noticed that the plot summary for the Wiki entry is word for word the same as the Sparknotes summary198.183.167.2 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've removed the plot summary section, but if someone could write a new one, that'd be very helpful. --JayHenry (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2008!(UTC)

This is an out of date discussion. A new plot summary has since been added. Motmit (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article terribly over-simplifies the plot and Fitzgerald's aim in writing Tender. "The underlying theme is then how one person has become strong by destroying another," it says, anonymously. Perhaps someone who has read The Crack Up could have another go, or rather keep this as a 'plot summary' and not a half-baked analysis that could ruin the experience of would-be readers or mislead those who want to understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.168.163 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reaction

In the last sentence of the plot summary someone described what they thought the underlying theme of the novel was. The point of American literature is to be interpreted by the reader, and I think that the underlying theme is debatable, and therefore an opinion based comment. Any reader could look at the book through a number of different lenses and come up with a different conclusion as to what the theme of the book is.

I noticed that in the references there is a [1] as the fourth reference. That should be looked at. I am assuming that it is a technical error. I also feel that for a novel made by one of the more commonly known authors, should have more references and be just as specific in the reference section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckayla.griesbaum (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say 'The book was received with mixed reviews and sales, much to the consternation of the author. It has since grown in sales and reputation.'

I feel that this statement deserves a good deal of fleshing-out. It would be most interesting to know how such a poorly-received novel has since acquired such high status. What did the early critics say? What caused the public to start buying the book eventually in such quantity? 109.154.26.148 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]