This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The article's lede includes the unquestionably notable facts that the novel has been named by two highly-regarded organizations as one of the best novels of a century of English-language writing. What the article does not convey is why. Understand: I am not at all asking for original research of some editor(s)'s opinions, but rather, some quotations or paraphrases of what existing reliable sources have said about what makes the novel so good. As it stands, the synopsis — though likely done well — leaves me more with the impression of a "hot mess" than anything else. It seems like a credible and well-organized synopsis of a perfectly dreadful novel (mind you, I'm not saying it IS, only that in the absence of critical opinions, the virtues are hard to intuit), and so outside references describing what makes the novel influential and/or admired would be of great value to those of us who never have read it. Lawikitejana (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)