Talk:A Reader's Manifesto

Way too long and incredibly NPOV

This is one of the most incredibly NPOV articles I've read on Wikipedia in a very long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.161.176 (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since NPOV means "neutral point of view," it confuses me that so many Wikipedians use this acronym to refer to the lack of "npov." Even more opaque is your assumption that other human beings will know exactly why you assume that others will know what it is that you find so non-neutral in this account of opposing opinions, with no elucidation of the issue on your part. Bustter (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight bias?

I am not familiar with this book, but its coverage in the article looks quite biased in favour of Myers. All the "Critics' Rebuttals" are described in the form "some critics say... Myers responds...", giving Myers the last word and, in general, representing his position in a more favourable light. Could somebody conversant with the subject adjust this? Goochelaar (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry was a project I assigned to my students. I've been trying to clean up their work, but it's still pretty rough. In this case, they characterized a section as describing the debate about the book, when they should have characterized it as a chapter OF the book. (That is why it is from the author's point of view!) I have attempted to correct this by reframing that section of the entry. -- Amytown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amytown (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent editing. It is clearer now. And I find this kind of project (with the due supervision) a very good idea. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! Goochelaar (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems pretty biased to me. That's just my opinion though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.99.19 (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that it's been over three years since the issue was raised and the article retains substantially the same problems. The section on "Critics' rebuttals" really only focuses on Myers' rebuttals to the critics. None of said critics is either named or quoted. The article has glaring bias problems.Bjones (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just spitballing here but could it be that they're focused on his responses and he gets the last word because... it's an article about his responses in a book he wrote? lmfao 2604:2000:1281:45D1:ECA0:ED4D:CFAC:CF8B (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moby-Dick is clear and concise writing?

Though I generally agree with Myers' criticism (I've yet to figure out the connection between the events of The Half-Skinned Steer and the eponymous folk tale), I nevertheless find his supposed praise of Moby-Dick weird, to say the least.

I'm a technical writer; clarity & conciseness are my stock in trade. I have on several occasions been sorely tempted to rewrite the first few pages of Moby-Dick, which are more-poorly focused than a cheap box camera, and meander something awful. If Melville was trying to keep the reader from reading any farther, he very nearly achieved that goal.

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the fact that I have never met a technical writer who is actually clear and concise, Myers wasn't critiquing Melville against the backdrop of all writing ever, but against what he sees as the pretentious contemporary novels that are being written now. Myers is not clamoring for a switch to completely straightforward, boring writing, but rather that, for example, no one was as confused when they read Conrad or Melville or Hemingway as they are now reading Delillo and McCarthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.132.81 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Obvious Criticism Of All...?

I'm surprised that no critics have mentioned (read: I'm sure some critics mentioned this but the author "forgot to put it in") the most obvious criticism: namely, he is not a literature professor, his degrees are in things other than literature, he doesn't write literature, etc. From his Wiki page, he sounds like a fascinating and awesome guy (go vegans!) but at the same time...why are people taking him this seriously? Yeah, I think some of Delillo's work sucks, too, but I also think a lot of it's very good. But no one cares what I have to say about it, and rightly so: I don't have a degree in this field, nor do I write novels or review them for a living or do anything besides read them for personal enjoyment. Given that some of his "suggested works" commit some of the exact same flaws (but to an even greater degree!) as the stuff he trashes, it really just seems like the book is more of a compendium of stuff that Myers doesn't personally like. Which is fine, and he's certainly allowed to have his opinion, and I sometimes agree with him. But the question remains: why do people take it so seriously, especially given that his methodology is either nonexistent or self-contradictory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.75.242 (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the "Most Obvious Criticism Of All" should actually be titled the most common fallacy of all - the "appeal to authority". The strength of an argument/article/book lies in the content - not in the credentials of the author. Granted, I'm more likely to read your work if your past work is good (the best indicator of future performance is past performance) - but if we only read materials from well credentialed (or impeccably degree'd) writers, think of all the great writing that we would never see.

Skaal - Williamborg (Bill) 20:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much information

Just reading through here this article is too much of a summary/synopsis of the book to be an encyclopedia article. It needs reworking--Cailil ^talk 09:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Reader's Manifesto. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028172758/http://salon.com:80/books/feature/2001/08/16/novels/index.html to http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/08/16/novels/index.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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Commentary on "The Appendix"

I don't know how to do anything on Wikipedia, so I'll just drop this here...

Number 5 in this entry -- Appendix: Ten Rules for "Serious" Writers -- is fine to include, but the commentary about how it is, "ironic," and the writer of this entry taking it seriously is embarrassing.

It reads: "The Appendix: Ten Rules for "Serious" Writers at the end of the book is an ironic set of guidelines for writing, each of which refers to a previous violation of successful prose that he has criticized. Myers implies that following these rules will lead to literary success."

Um, no. The Appendix list is pure satire. How one could not realize that if they are familiar with the content of the book is beyond me. There is nothing ironic about it. There is nothing contrary to what the author wrote. There is no "implication" the rules will lead to literary success. It is pure satire!

(Be easy on me. I've never done anything like this while on Wikipedia.) - Mike in OKC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:AF00:750D:A4FB:D7FE:743D:B231 (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history

Article says

A Reader's Manifesto is a 2002 book by B. R. Myers expanded from his essay in the July/August 2001 issue of The Atlantic Monthly magazine.

But reviewer Jim Nelson's 20 year retrospective[1] says Myers originally self-published the manifesto in book form in 1999, under the title Gorgons in the Pool: The Trouble with Contemporary “Literary” Prose "after a particularly choice passage in a Cormac McCarthy novel". It was then condensed for publication in the Atlantic and after gaining some notoriety, it was republished by Melville House in 2002. "This full-length treatment gave Myers the opportunity to restore much of what was lost from Gorgons in the Pool when it was adapted for The Atlantic." 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:194C (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]