Talk:The Fox and the Hound (novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

PLOT SPOILER - Comments

I had looked at the begining of the book back in the late 1980's at the second theatrical release of The Fox and the Hound Disney film. Started reading the begining and it sounded quite different, and skipped to the ending, and remember that was totally different and would not fit a Disney film. IF I remember correct Tod gets killed by the hunter with Copper at the end.

Actually that is common in books to movies that they are changed. Even versions of movies - I have seen all three versions of the Little Shop of Horrors. Three versions of the story, each had it's own ending. 1. A movie version of the play. 2. A musical version. 3. A movie of the musical version.Kidsheaven 03:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a better summary of the plot, please? There are a lot of people who are interested in the differences between the film and the book (they are vast and many). Anon. 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Need to find the book again, have not had the chance to find it in the Library recently..working on other stuff at present...I am not the person who read the book and started this page.Kidsheaven 23:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding the book?

I've been trying to find this book for a while. Is it pretty rare? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.137.145 (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is extremely rare and hard to find. I managed to get a copy, autographed even, but it cost me some $30 to acquire and I only found it when I stumbled on it in a used bookstore. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Error in last chapter summary

Per the Google books footnote, the fox and dog did not die together, and the fox only covered 50 miles, not 150 miles. I would've fixed this myself, but the page isn't editable - ??? 74.98.129.202 (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It says "at one point" they were 50 miles, not that it was the total distance. The author is the one who stated they died. I have corrected this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected?

As far as I can tell, this was protected because of one guy in an impressively pointless edit war over a year ago. Why is it still protected?

Anyway, a change I would have made if it weren't: "and in a odd way" should be "and in an odd way". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.176.188 (talk • contribs)

That's fixed now; thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Fox and the Hound which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That move request has now been closed, with no consensus to move the pages. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reader's Digest Condensed Books, not Reader's Digest Book-of-the-Month Club

Any source that states that The Fox and the Hound was a Reader's Digest Book-of-the-Month club selection is mistaken. As far as I am aware the Reader's Digest never had a book-of-the-month club. From 1950 to 1997 Reader's Digest published a series of hardcover volumes under the overall title of Reader's Digest Condensed Books. Until the end of 1973, these volumes were published at the rate of one volume every three months. Each volume contained shortened versions of several popular novels. Volume 71 in the series, published in the Autumn of 1967, contained abridged texts of the following books: Christy by Catherine Marshall; Life with Father by Clarence Day; The Fox and the Hound by Daniel P. Mannix; Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie; The Gabriel Hounds by Mary Stewart. It was in this volume that I first came across Mannix's story of The Fox and the Hound. For corroboration and further information please see the Wikipedia pages Reader's Digest Condensed Books and Reader's Digest. — Paulannis (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources which mention this have called it the "Book-of-the-Month Club". Please remember that you are not a reliable source, nor are other Wikipedia articles. Also, please refrain from removing actual reliable sources from this article just because they disagree with your view. The New York Times is obviously a reliable source, and it was published at the time the book was released. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times may be a reliable source in general terms, but it does make mistakes, as in this instance. You may not consider me a reliable source, but I read the Reader's Digest Condensed Book volume containing The Fox and the Hound within a few months of its publication. If you consider the Wikipedia article about Reader's Digest Condensed Books to be unreliable, are you planning to delete it? — Paulannis (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That is your view, but you have no actual sources to back that up. While a quick check finds many other reliable sources specifically discussing the Reader's Digest "Book-of-the-Month Club", which was different from the Condensed volumes (but stories from which were frequently reprinted in a Condensed volume". And please do not confuse the issue. Reliability is not the same as notability. Obviously the Reader's Digest Condensed Books topic is notable, but that does not make it "reliable". Per policy, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you will go to the Bookfinder website (which searches second-hand booksellers) and do a Title search for The Fox and the Hound, with "Reader's Digest" in the Keywords box, you will find listings of many copies of the American Reader's Digest Condensed Books edition to which I referred. (You will also, incidentally, find listings of copies of the British Reader's Digest Condensed Books edition which contained: Edge of Glass by Catherine Gaskin; The Fox and the Hound by Daniel P. Mannix; Airport by Arthur Hailey and The Men Who Marched Away by John Terraine.) However, you will find no listing for a Reader's Digest Book-of-the-Month Club edition, because there was none. I believe the NYT journalist simply chose the wrong term when referring to the forthcoming Reader's Digest publication containing the condensed version of Mannix's book. What more will it take to convince you? — Paulannis (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, what is your point? It shows the book was printed in a condensed form and that those editions are still available, it does NOT disprove the Book-of-the-Month Club award nor its existence. It is your view that the New York Times was wrong, but without an actual reliable source saying otherwise, or evidence to clearly show that there was no such thing as the "Book-of-the-Month Club" (despite the overwhelming evidence that there was), I see no reason to doubt the New York Times new exactly what it was talking about. Sorry, but I will believe the New York Times from that time frame over Internet searches decades later that will primarily produce current material, not historical. I have, however, expanded the sentence to note that it was published in condensed form, which matches what the available sources show. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have your absolute faith in the New York Times, or your distrust of other sources of information. Can we not include a mention of the Condensed Book edition in the article? Please note that I do not dispute the existence of the Book-of-the-Month Club; I simply maintain that it had nothing to do with Reader's Digest. Wikipedia has an article about the Book of the Month Club which shows no connection with Reader's Digest. I also do not believe that the Book of the Month Club published an edition of The Fox and the Hound. — Paulannis (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, I noted above that I added a note about the Condensed Book edition in the article already based on the sources. From what I saw in several reliable sources, Reader's Digest did have a "Book-of-the-Month Club", which put out some kind of newsletter/magazine. I don't distrust other reliable sources of information, but you haven't produced any disputing the New York Times statement. The existence of one does not preclude the other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your note in the article about the Condensed Books edition. Your sources that mention the Reader's Digest's "'Book-of-the-Month Club', which put out some kind of newsletter/magazine" don't tell us much. The monthly Reader's Digest used to contain an condensed book or excerpt of book in each issue (it was always the last, or virtually the last, feature in the issue). This was usually called the "Book Section", but it was just a feature in the monthly magazine, and not a separate publication. I don't know if that is confusing the issue. The whole point of the Raeder's Digest and its associated publications was that they provided shortened versions of books and articles for busy people who might not want, or have time, to read the full text. I think it very unlikely that they would have published the full text of The Fox and the Hound. The trouble is that it is next to impossible to prove that something that is rumoured to exist does not actually exist. — Paulannis (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm pretty sure they didn't publish the full text (nor does the article state they did - as the sources called the Book of the Month and award versus a publication). In an archive listing of some of his old papers are notes of shortened versions of the work used for magazine printings. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! That may explain all the confusion! Could you rephrase the Wikipeida article, in the second paragraph, and in the section headed Reception, to clarify that point? My problem is that the phrases "Book-of-the-Month club selection" and "Book-of-the-Month club choice" normally mean that the complete book was published in a separate edition (often with cheaper paper abd binding, and sometimes at a reduced size) by the Book of the Month Club. It could well be that the Reader's Digest magazine (or associated newsletter) may have picked the book (in its complete or condensed version) as a notable "Book of the Month". — Paulannis (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll recheck the source when I'm back at home computer to see if it will support a reword for that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just discovered that I do in fact have access to the NYT online at work. I have now read the article cited as source, and I see that it says, in reference to The Fox and the Hound: "It is a Reader's Digest Book Club selection for the fall." Note that the article says "Book Club", and not "Book-of-the-Month Club", which was the name of another, unrelated, company. I believe that the words "Book Club" should not have been capitalized, and they referred to the "Condensed Books" line, which was operated as a club by Reader's Digest, in that volumes were not sold individually, but were sent out to members who had subscribed for a set period. We have established from other sources that the Condensed Books volume in which The Fox and the Hound appeared was the one for Autumn 1967. The later sentence in the NYT article, "It appeared in the Reader's Digest, became a Book-of-the-Month Club selection, was published in 12 other countries and was sold to Walt Disney Productions for a film" refers to Rascal, by Sterling North, the recipient of the Dutton Animal Book Award for 1963. An abridged version of Rascal was published in Reader's Digest magazine in September, 1963; there was a book club edition not published by Reader's Digest; and the Disney film was released in 1969. — Paulannis (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Per your post, and as I have not been able to check it myself, I have changed the article to say "Book Club" - the same as the New York Times uses. The rest (saying they must have meant the condensed book line) is WP:OR without an explicit source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great; but could you make the same change to the second paragraph of the article, where it says "It was a 1967 Reader's Digest Book-of-the-Month club selection and a winner of the Athenaeum Literary Award"? I understand the WP:OR policy, and agree that it is indeed the best one for such an enterprise. Thanks for your time and trouble over this. — Paulannis (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Newbery Medal Honor Book

Was The Fox and the Hound a Newbery medal Honor Book? It does not appear on the American Library Association's web page listing all past Medal Winners and Honor Books. — Paulannis (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Two reliable sources say it was a Newbery Honor Book (which is differentiated from the Medal winners in the sources). I've corrected that statement (was changed in a CE) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the American Library Association's Children's Librarians' Section, which selects the Newbery Medal Winners and Honor Books, is the most authoritative source in this instance. — Paulannis (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Their website listings appear incomplete in areas, however it seems like emailing them to confirm it one was or another would be best (doing so). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks! — Paulannis (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have not heard one way or another from the ALA, I've hidden the Newbery bit with a hidden note explaining it. Will continue exploring the issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 14, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 14, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound is a 1967 novel written by Daniel P. Mannix and illustrated by John Schoenherr. It follows the lives of Tod, a red fox raised by a human for the first year of his life, and Copper, a half-bloodhound dog owned by a local hunter, referred to as the Master. After Tod causes the death of the man's favorite hound, man and dog relentlessly hunt the fox, against the dual backdrops of a changing human world and Tod's normal life in hunting for food, seeking a mate, and defending his territory. As preparation for writing the novel, Mannix studied foxes, both tame and wild, a wide variety of hunting techniques, and the ways hounds appear to track foxes, seeking to ensure his characters acted realistically. The novel won the Dutton Animal Book Award in 1967, which resulted in its publication on September 11 that year by E.P. Dutton. It was a 1967 Reader's Digest Book Club selection and a winner of the Athenaeum Literary Award. It was well received by critics, who praised its detail and Mannix's writing style. Walt Disney Productions purchased the film rights for the novel when it won the Dutton award, though did not begin production on an adaptation until 1977. Heavily modified from the source material, Disney's The Fox and the Hound was released to theaters in July 1981 and became a box office success. (more...)

The Goshawk by T. H. White

Similar book, about TH White's experiences in keeping and training a goshawk. (See Northern Goshawk). Non-fiction. Very well-written, recommended. Pity it does not have its own article. "....The Goshawk (1951), an account of White's attempt to train a hawk in the traditional art of falconry". 92.15.11.100 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

186.56.201.14 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

How to find this book?

I want this book which shop sold this book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiago200002 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Check out Amazon.com. No one store sells every book ever published, and Wikipedia is NOT a bookseller. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Fox and the Hound (novel). 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/20110719041442/http://www.hoffmann-und-campe.de/go/f326eb6c-508b-af43-91c723da11bf15a7 to http://www.hoffmann-und-campe.de/go/f326eb6c-508b-af43-91c723da11bf15a7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)