Talk:A Reader's Manifesto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Way too long and incredibly NPOV[edit]

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

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)

Slight bias?[edit]

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 03:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

Moby-Dick is clear and concise writing?[edit]

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)

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 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Most Obvious Criticism Of All...?[edit]

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 (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Too much information[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)