|WikiProject Novels||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Keep.|
Layout and Typography
I started to write a section explaining the layout of the pages, but I quickly got overwhelmed.
- this book has that effect. --Travlr23 04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Colors in the title
Like House of Leaves, Mark Z. Danielewski has once again used color in the book's title. I edited in the colors, using the 'font color' html code, and used the exact color codes as published on Danielewski's forum for Only Revolutions. Alanlastufka 16:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Note About Dust Cover and Other Minutia
I fully understand that I have added MUCH more detail here than is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and I plan to continue to do so in describing the layout of the book. As the original author notes, this is a large job requiring a huge amount of attention to detail.
My hope is that this article can be a help to all of us who aspire to create a useful Wikipedia article about this book. At this early date, it is impossible to distinguish trivia from salience. Thus I would ask for restraint from the editors for a period of time long enough to make some degree of sense of this very strange and intriguing work. RaulGroom 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that my copy of Only Revolutions has a different image on it. Mine has the binding, and two flaps, just like the eye cover. There's a road leading out to the vanishing point in the page, in the middle of a plain, with mountains up ahead, and a sky full of clouds. This side uses cool colors, and opens up to Sam's story. The other side, which opens up to Hailey's story, has a road as well, but is in a desert plain type of area with a cloudless sky. This side uses warm colors.
I think that we should include something about this binding of the book as well. I'll provide a link to a picture of both sides to show you what it looks like. I think that we should include something about this binding in the article:
Although the article says that the dustjacket is upside-down or reveresed, so that the green eye opens to Hailey's story and the gold to Sam's, I found that my copy opened green to Sam's and gold to Hailey's. I imagine that this is just a mistake in this particular author's copy, and unless quite a few people find that theirs are assembeled this way, this part of the article should be deleted. 18.104.22.168 15:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Dustjacket orientation certainly doesn't seem like a fundamental aspect of the printing. Even so, I intend to have a look at the bookstore. It certainly seems like the contributer here is probably mistaken. Jes5199 08:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, since no one else has replied and the author doesn't offer evidence of the "clues in the design of the cover itself" that would suggest it is not upside down, I'm going to delete the reference.SadMarvin 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
While I only got the book today, and am about 57-57 pages in, I've noticed a few rules that seem to pop up, and seem to be corroborated by what this page says MZD asked the readers about.
For Sam's perspective, every animal name is bolded. From Hailey's perspective, every plant name is bolded.
And a note to link to HOL. In the beginging of HOL, you have the words "This is not for you," while Only Revolutions begins with "You were there"
As well, both are "a novel" Dead Horse 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm only at 112-112, but I've noticed that the bolding is getting lighter and becoming more of a grey than a black. Looking down at the bolding on the further ahead sections, this seems to go on.
- Also, most novels published these days are "a novel."SadMarvin 13:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
When I first started reading it, I noticed that there was a 1864 history gutter note (Sam's side) re: General Order 9. If it's just one of the standing orders, that's fine. But if it's Lee's General Order 9, which disbanded the Confederate Army, it's about a year or so off. That order was given 10 April 1865.
Any ideas why?--kat
I don't have this book yet, so I'm unable to help anyhow, but I find it a little strange that there is only two sentences are devoted to the plot, while the rest of the article is about technical issues. I realize how important they are, since I'm acquainted with "House of Leaves" pretty well, but shouldn't proportions be a little more balanced?
agnus 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Trust me, once you got this book in your hands (I have a library copy, but I will get my own as soon as I return this to the Library), you will read the story, but the story is overshadowed by all the other strange things you notice about the book itself. Like, when you get the book, check out the large letters that are every 8 pages. There is a plot, but it might take people several readings before it is unravelled. So, I'm sure the plot of the book will show up on this page soon. --Travlr23 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- You'll notice that those large letters spell out, from Sam's side: "Hailey and Sam and..." and from Hailey's side: "Sam and Hailey and..." In addition, every third large letter is slightly larger, and every ninth is very large. I haven't quite figured that part out yet, although the much larger text seems to bracket off discrete sections of the plot (New Orleans, St. Louis, etc.) I won't add this to the article yet, since I'm not actually finished reading the book. I'd like to have a clearer grasp before actually throwing it all in. Pico2 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm also mildly concerned that the two-sentence plot summary doesn't really seem to relate to the plot. It repeats the explanation given in the book's jacket, but I'm not sure the book's actual plot corresponds to that: the whole "never grow old" and "outrun history" lines aren't really supported by the actual story. Again, I have to finish reading the novel, but it seems more likely to me that Danielewski is giving us different ways of reading a relatively simple story of two teenagers in love who travel cross-country. Pico2 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I really enjoyed House of Leaves, so when I started reading Only Revolutions I hoped to find some sort of commentary on the actual text of the book online. I knew I could visit the offical boards to find out info, but I decided to check Wikipedia first. Needless to say I was a bit suprised to find 10 paragraphs on the dust jacket and only one sentence on the text of the book (lifted directly from the dust jacket). Pretty disappointing, it is like going to the Wikipedia page for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and finding the entire article is about the elements in the movie poster with the plot summary "Two people fall in love and have their memories erased". 22.214.171.124 15:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any viable way to include comments made by the author in response to questions asked during a book signing, but not printed anywhere? Or documented anywhere for that matter...? Danielewski had some choice words about how the Concordance contains words found nowhere in the book, and that the parallel-line icon for the book is an INTENTIONAL resemblance to the double-pipe Inclusive OR symbol in computer programming. He then emphasized that the word "Choice" is in the center of the Concordance page... and then said that was probably a more specific answer than he'd ever given in response to reader questions. I have notes on this conversation that I could fill in more specifically, but if it's just unusable hearsay it's probably not worth it. Ain't polite to throw rumor into an encyclopedia, after all. Thoughts? --Speaker59 126.96.36.199 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- That might be considered "Original Research" which is frowned upon in Wikipedia (ooh, Original Research, OR, Only Revolutions!), unless the notes were corroborated on a newspaper's website, the author's website, or had some other way of citing it. Rihk 04:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of this is unnecessary. Yeah, yeah, it gives insights, offers clues, looks like Elvis etc. but do people really need to know every little detail about it? Can't we just edit this down so that it gets the basic point across? For example, we could begin with a much less detailed look at its layout, and then give the types of words in the lists without having to tell people where the lists are or which supersedes which. There could even be a "what it might mean" thing tagging along, but we don't need to tell people to imagine turning the book to the "In Orientation" or whatever.
It's just too long and complicated.
Fair use rationale for Image:Only Revolutions.jpg
Image:Only Revolutions.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.