Talk:The Lovely Bones

Comment

This is a lovely article! Kudos to all those who are working on it. — Catherine\^talk 00:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The summary is very long compared with most book articles on Wikipedia. A summary should give a brief overview. Anyone who wants the whole story can read the book! Fionah 10:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote that when I was relatively newer to Wikipedia than I am now. You're not the only one to call me on that (see the above commentator, Catherine Munro, here on my talk page. It could do with some shortening up. However, I still prefer this kind of summary to some of the perfunctory ones out there (If you put the spoiler tag on something, there should be spoilers underneath). It's a complex tale with several different narrative threads and demands be treated fairly.

Perhaps I should start a Wikibooks study guide and move most of this over there. As if I had time ... Daniel Case 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sky High

There are quite a few similarities between the plot of the book and the plot of the Japanese movie, Sky High, by Ryuhei Kitamura. I wonder if it was one of the author's influences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.69.198.244 (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read the article on Sky High, I don't think their plots are too similar, but even so the novel was published in 2002 (and Sebold began writing it years earlier) and the movie came out the next year. So it couldn't have been. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up

As per the recent tagging of the article for lack of references and length-issues, I've begun a mass clean-up of the article. I will most probably concentrate on cutting down the plot section from unnecessary detail, though there are definite problem areas (trivia) that will most probably find their way here if they cannot be properly incorporated/referenced. I will be closely following Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate as a guide. Hopefully I'll have some help in this endeavor.  :) María: (habla conmigo) 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

More in-depth

I want more info. Where do we download the free ebook? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.133.163 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Try a Google search. This isn't the place for that type of request. momoricks 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Page number discrepancy?

The book quote in the "Title" section is cited to page 363; however, the infobox lists the number of pages as 328. Perhaps it's a typo or cited to a later edition of the book? If so, that should probably be clarified, as it is a bit confusing. Thanks, momoricks 01:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Title

Unusual as the title is (even odd, some might think, except for osteologists or radiologists?) it obviously has its attractions. I am about to edit the main article to note that Sebold was not the first to use the phrase "the lovely bones." It occurred three times in Allan Sherman's song "I See Bones" (in one additional instance it was modified to "your lovely bones"). The song (which described what could be seen on an X-ray) was released in 1963, the year of Sebold's birth.

Some would doubtless find this a simple coincidence, and in one sense it obviously is: the words used by Sherman and by Sebold coincide in their arrangement. But there may be three different explanations for the coincidence:

1. Sebold knowingly borrowed the phrase from Sherman but decided, for whatever reason, not to acknowledge the source. And that would not necessarily be an act of plagiarism (let alone copyright violation!). Each author has to decide what context may be taken for granted. We certainly don't need to credit Shakespeare anytime we say or write "a rose by any other name."

2. The phrase from Sherman's song was buried deep in Sebold's memory, its origin forgotten. When the need for it came, it emerged as fresh as if newly coined and she was unaware of having borrowed it.

3. There was a true coincidence of inspiration, i.e., Sherman and Sebold each came up with the phrase independently --and they obviously used it in very different ways.

In any event, the situation has its ironical aspect. "I See Bones" was a parody of the popular song C'est si bon, and Allan Sherman , known for his numerous parodies of traditional and popular songs, frequently ran afoul of copyright law.Paleodoc (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad you put all this effort into this, because without some reliable source discussing this, it's original research with no relevance to this article, and I reverted it as such. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I'm not sure what part you think was inadequately sourced. I had provided internal links to the existing Wikipedia articles on the song C'est Si Bon and on Allan Sherman, which document the fact that Sherman issued his parody in 1963. The only other fact to be verified would be the use of the phrase "the lovely bones" in Sherman's parody. I actually considered providing external links to the lyrics but was uncertain as to whether linking to the sites I found would be permissible, i.e., whether it would be considered fair use. Here are a couple of sites that provide the lyrics:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/a/allan+sherman/i+see+bones_20158416.html

http://www.lyrics007.com/Sherman%20Allan%20Lyrics/I%20See%20Bones%20Lyrics.html

Would adding either or both of these constitute providing a reliable source for the facts I added? If not, I'd appreciate further guidance. I'm still fairly new at this.Paleodoc (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's yet another site confirming the same information. Once again, not sure about copyright issue. This site's home page just states that "in general" authors of lyrics hold the copyrights. One way or another the basic fact is pretty clear and is widely available. Hard to see that one would need original research to establish it. Anyhow, here's the other site:

http://dmdb.org/lyrics/sherman.nut.html

Again, Daniel, I look forward to any guidance you can provide.Paleodoc (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Found typos ("Allan" misspelled a couple of times), corrected. I believe spelling was correct in my edit of the main article.Paleodoc (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem isn't the factual basis for the lyrics, it's the inclusion of this in the first place. It's just a trivial observation, that's all (on top of being presented as an improper synthesis). The English language isn't short on the potential for striking phrases that have come up at different times in history — someone else, during the Jacksonian era, used "government of the people, by the people and for the people" before Lincoln made it famous, for example. Unless there's some evidence of a direct relation, like Sebold saying in an interview that she got the phrase from an old Allan Sherman song, it's just one person's clever passing thought, not really something that necessarily belongs in an online encyclopedia article.

Years ago, when I was new to Wikipedia, one of my interests was (surprise!) Star Trek. We didn't have as clear guidelines for writing about fictional subjects at the time, and I added a whole section to "The Conscience of the King" discussing the episode's Holocaust allegories. Purely off the top of my head. Now maybe other people have noticed this as well, and it's probably a bit more relevant to the episode than an old song with the same title in its lyrics might be. But it's long gone from the article because, as I had presented it, it was original research. It might make for a lively online forum thread, but we usually don't use things from forum threads in articles. Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the thorough explanation, Daniel. Though I do not entirely agree with your analysis, I understand the rationale.

I read the Wikipedia's description of trivial observations, and I gather that a given comment may be classified as such if it's of little likely interest and/or it's one in a set of disjointed miscellaneous facts. So there's some subjectivity involved in classifying a comment as a trivial observation. I think the relationship between received cultural products and original creation is a complex and important one. Apparent examples of that complexity seem to me worth noting and not out of place in descriptions of a given work. I listed in the talk page three possible explanations for the identical phrases used by Sherman and Sebold --and that would also apply to Lincoln and his Jacksonian-era precursor. Even if we can't determine which explanation is correct, the observed coincidence is still of interest (especially as regards such a classic as the Gettysburg Address). You and I may disagree about how likely the figurative lightning is to strike twice. I think the more unusual or paradoxical the phrasing, the more likely it is that the explanation will be one of the first two I listed.

As for the improper synthesis, I agree that the Wikipedia definition leaves no room for doubt, though the adjective "improper" seems as redundant as it is pejorative. What it comes down to is that any synthesis offered must have been offered previously by some reliable source, i.e., this is just a restatement of the prohibition against "original research." And I do understand that an on-line encyclopedia is not the place for contributors to offer their own research, though I am bemused to see how rigorously this is applied. Sometimes "A and B, therefore C" is pretty evident. In the present case, of course, I did not draw a conclusion at all in the now deleted paragraph, and even on the talk page I simply listed possible alternatives, including that of independent invention.

Anyway, I think what I pointed out was relevant and might be of general interest, but you calls 'em as you sees 'em. Somebody has to, and the rest of us appreciate it.Paleodoc (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Depiction of heaven section should be removed

Apologies if I've blundered in in an incorrect fashion but the section seemed out of place, so I removed it.

Effectively, the implicit justification for its presence is that some un-named readers objected to the portrayal of a heaven which did not fit their belief system, which is followed by quotes from the author of the book. If the unnamed readers and their objection to the wrong sort of heaven are removed, then the section does not actually stand up on its own. Also, it is effectively out of place. As an article on a novel it is perfectly correct to have sections on Title, Plot, Characters, Adaptations and Reception. Articles on other novels include sections on Themes, LitCrit, sometimes Controversy. Here however, the only such section was a whole paragraph about what sort of heaven was depicted. In the absence of any discussion at all on rape, paedophilia, the behaviour of obsessive criminals, or way victims families are affected by violent crime, the paragraph on Heaven becomes the only discussion of content in the whole article, and as such, makes the article seriously unbalanced.

That is why I removed the section, summed up in a few words about unsubstantiated opinions and agenda setting. I'm not sure what is supposed to happen next. To begin with, I'm about to remove the un-named objectors again, but will not remove the section unless a sensible case can be made for its inclusion as part of a balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.255.103 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When I was writing the article and recalling when the book was published, the depiction of heaven was a significant aspect of the reception of the book. As I tried to note, it was criticized from both sides. What matters for Wikipedia purposes is not what one might think of the criticism, but whether such criticism is a notable aspect of the reception of the book. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a separate article on religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

fundamentalist christian describes where the opposition came from more accurately than christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.255.103 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, think we could find some good examples of notable fundamentalist criticism of the novel before we put that in? Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Should'nt be too hard to find. Should we find some actual examples of christians complaining before leaving it in? (-: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.255.103 (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You can post the links here; we can decide which of them constitute reliable sources (usually those will be in prominent, notable fundamentalist websites or publications ... if we have an article on the publication, or the person doing the complaining, I'd say their criticism would count as notable). Daniel Case (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The cornfield was based on Norristown Farm Park

I believe that the cornfield mentioned in the book, The Lovely Bones, where Susie Salmon was murdered, is based on Norristown Farm Park. Kids attending Norristown Area High School use the farm park as a short cut. Fictional Susie Salmon was murdered at the end of her first semester of 9th grade (age 14 puts her in 9th grade). Real world Norristown Area High School (grades 9-12) was established in 1870 in the Borough of Norristown and relocated to West Norriton Township in 1972, one year prior to the December 6, 1973 fictional murder. The book mentions Junior High, but 9th grade normally is high school. Still looking for a cite. (Corn growing during winter snow in Pennsylvania is odd). -- Utmoatr (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I always thought the corn referred to was leftover stalks, which sometimes remain standing after the harvest (note that December 6 is not yet calendar wintertime, either, even though it has often started to snow by then). Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref edit

The first reference incorrectly states the line is on page 363. In my copy, there are only 328 pages of story, and the quote mentioned is on page 320. Is the reference incorrect or am I? 58.178.34.73 (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I used the page numbering for the original hardcover, which is what I had when I wrote the article. Subsequent versions, such as the movie tie-in, may have used different page numerations. What's the ISBN of your copy? Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Film rights

Why is it noted that Peter Jackson "personally purchased the rights"? What does that add to the introduction? Ownership of film rights is not a major issue.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's sort of unusual for film people to purchase the rights personally ... usually their production companies do it. That implies a very serious desire to be the one making the movie. Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Christian criticism

It may be true that "readers with a Fundamentalist Christian perspective faulted Susie's heaven for being utterly devoid of any apparent religious aspect". But the absence of any religious aspect from "Heaven" was criticized by Christians of all degrees of commitment, not merely fundamentalists.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That was how I characterized the one I found in the source I cited (I wrote so much of this years ago). Do you have more sources from more liberal Christians, perhaps? Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)