- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
||This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
I agree that this novel is one of the great American novels. As such, shouldn't more be written here about it? At least as much as is on "Cuckoo's Nest."
I consider it the greatest American novel, though you'll never get a hint of that in my writing about it. I started expanding the section with a description of the multiple-first-person narrative technique used. The technique was presumably not invented by Kesey, but I don't know of any other major instances, so some help there would be welcome. Stephen Foster 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is definitely one of the great American novels. I removed, but should have brought it here for discussion first, the line about lack of real female characters. I always read this book as being primarily about the relations of fathers and sons, so the lack of female characters is mostly just a consequence of the subject material, IMO. I think we should look for some literary criticism / contemporary reviews of the book to improve the article. If the criticism raises the point about weak female characters, we should definitely add it back in.
- As for the multiple-first-person narrative, epistolary novels are often an example. So is Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. Seems like we ought to be able to find some published academic thought on multiple first-person narrators. --JayHenry 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you should have done exactly what you did by removing the female character comment. It was weak, didn't lead to anything, and was (cardinal sin) opinionated. It needs to be readdressed, probably in a longer section in the Ken Kesey section, about his inability to paint women characters, if that argument can be honestly made (I think it can). I just stumbled on this section on a random whim, and I am busy right now (keyboard for hire, me), but I'll get back to it, you bet: the Greatest American Novel needs to be perhaps understood as such. I don't see it as just fathers 'n sons: it's about fathers and sons and wives and husbands and brothers to brothers and the utter misunderstandings that can arise, all laid out for everyone except the characters themselves to see. I've gushed over it and thrown it to women, where it falls flat, which is a shame.
And it's also about how strong Levi's leather patches are, and those gloves Hank loans him, with cotton padding for the missing finger, and the pair of intruders caught on the dock, locked in an embrace of fear at the dogs, and Hank saying: "And this is your ... date?" And Willard Eggleston surprising his castrating wife with an actual love, and the ridiculously-funny story about the foxhound bitch in heat and the farmer saying: "Yup, your dog was running a close second, right ahead of the fox." I'm sure we could quote that story in full without running afoul of copyright. And about those desperate birds on the beach, frantically running back and forward in their little ecological niche between the range of the surf, and sometimes losing.
I haven't read it in twenty years; I have no idea where "Willard Eggleston" crawled up out of my brain. I'll shortly read it again, and get to work here. Thank you for the edit, anyway. Stephen Foster 06:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Split Into Novel and Movie Sections?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The question has been raised that this section should be split into separate sections for the novel and the movie. Well, given that the two are barely related to each other (not even by name: in Britain the movie is more commonly known by its original release title: Never Give an Inch), of course it should. The novel is inarguably great; the movie sank without a ripple, for good reason. Stephen Foster 21:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, I agree with you, and since we seem to be the only two people particularly interested, let's just Be Bold and go for it. I'll start breaking them out. --JayHenry 22:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I did the basic split:
- More to come... I'll leave this page here for now until we're sure we're happy with it, then we can turn this page into a disambiguation? --JayHenry 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Two people, in all of the world, interested in this topic: what a crying shame. Go for it. I'm a rookie, not yet up to speed on disambiguation pages and suchlike. I can add words, though. Stephen Foster 07:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I just did a Wikipedia search for Never Give an Inch, and it came up with the Japanese battleship Yamato (another interest of mine: I hope Wikipedia isn't customizing searches by contributer). Could you add whatever-it-is-that-is-needed to direct a search for Never Give an Inch to the movie of the book? Thank you. Stephen Foster 07:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the above decision to split the article, but don't think that a disambiguation is called for in this case as there are only two articles. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was split apart into Sometimes a Great Notion (novel) and Sometimes a Great Notion (1971 film) on 13 March 2007. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
||This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.