Jump to content

Talk:Whitley Strieber

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old comments

[edit]

Is he a nut or is he just aware that there is a sucker born every minute?

Both. But he's still cool (and by cool I mean totally sweet). Pterodactyler 05:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or... is he the sanest, most honest person you know? (cue sinister music)

Have you seen the Robertson Panel protocol ? It ridicules those who have had bizarre experiences, interested in forbidden matters. Martial Law 06:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Radio host

[edit]

He hosts the radio show called Dreamland. Martial Law 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well... I don't believe it's actually a radio show anymore, and hasn't been for a number of years. I believe it's strictly an internet broadcast now. 74.104.100.186 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. The Wikipedia page for the show from which it was derived, Coast to Coast AM, says as much. I'm just surpirsed it's not mentioned in this article, and I'm not sure logically where it would best be put. Joe 20:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a "Current works" section to mention the Dreamland podcast, and to give a brief list of his more recent fictional novels. Kt'Hyla (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... And I've just added a new article for the Dreamland webcast. Kt'Hyla (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

[edit]

Strieber is often accused of being a government disinformation agent by conspiracy theorists.[citation needed]

I want to add this to the article but I don't want to malign the guy (without a source) Puddytang 05:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another theory with regarding Whitley is that in his early life he stumbled onto some knowledge or witnessed something genuine. All his subsequent often chaotic experiences have simply been arranged or staged to discredit him as a potential witness. As for who has been playing cat and mouse with him all his life, 'the world is your oyster' as the saying goes.Johnwrd (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it also be that he's just a pathological liar? I have a hard time believing all this and more has happened to one person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.204.204 (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary claims

[edit]

He has repeatedly expressed his frustration with what he feels are fantastic claims incorrectly attributed to him. --Like the claims on the right side of the page? I thought there were other witnessess to some of his abductions? Puddytang 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unbelievable that someone can be so proud to be raped, like he is. In his last Coast to Coast interview he again had to mention his anal probe experience (and his semen 'removed' during it). He simply feels not just that it shouldn't be publicly mentioned, but that it is actually very important to be mentioned (without being asked about it at all), even in a short interview like this one was. Something is definitely not right with this person to desperately crave for so much attention that it would even act as a total (super-egocentric) retard for sake of it. He simply didn't mature to a level of knowing what to tell publicly and what to keep to himself, that any decent kid even knows. Who cares if they probed him or not (or if he experienced pleasure and ejaculated)? But everyone cares about his unbelievable/pathological amount of self-importance that he as a grown up person cannot grasp that it is simply disgustingly immature to trouble a listener with unnecessarily bringing up such a thing, like there is nothing more important in the world to be told.69.172.92.143 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a side note (if you will), people who have been through extraodinary experiences in many cases do tend to share details; some of them graphic, even "shocking" to some who do not share those same experiences. Whitley is pretty straightforward about this stuff, he feels it is important to share exactly what happened to him. He attempts to bring perhaps some level of comfort to others with similar experiences who are afraid to speak of them. Regardless of each individual's opinions, what happened up at his cabin was witnessed, by people who for the most part wished they'd never seen (or heard) any such things - none of whom have denied Whitley's claims. To give another example - thsoe of us who have had various types of injuries and corrective surguries, tend to be rather detailed in describing exactly how we were injured, and what has been done medically, surgically, etc. This is very common, I have been thru that a number of times myself, due to significant and multiple serious injuries. It's human nature. Whitley is doing nothing more than the same thing in his detailed descriptions. Now, of course some may not understand those things, simply because they have mno experience thus do not relate to them - but we have to allow for the fact that they DO relate to many others. There's nothing wrong in Whitley's descriptions. HendixVibrato (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, there were witnesses to his experiences, including his wife, son, and two close friends. His son has had similar experiences, as well as corroborating experiences. As far as his recounting what happened to him in candid detail; he is being frank and honest because he believes the information is useful, and because it has been reported by other people as well. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares who witnessed it? "Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie?" as Thomas Paine said. This guy is most notable for launching a thousand alien anal probe jokes, although you get no indication of this from reading the article. Kauffner (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article

[edit]

Please consider changing the very last sentence. "Hershey highway"??? Really?? Also, the actor does not have something inserted, it is the character. Dvnobles (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC) dvnobles[reply]

Non-fiction?

[edit]

I notice that "Communion" etc. are cited as "non-fiction". This really ought to be amended to say "published as non-fiction", as it's beyond sanity to suppose that the events in it are actually true. Or is this one of those cases where suggesting that it's a complete fabrication leads yourself into ludicrous "libel" lawsuits where you'll get milked for every penny you will ever own? --Matt Westwood 06:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"published as" would imply that the status has changed since the time of publication. Absent such a change, that would be editorializing. (184.96.228.107 (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

"perceived as" would be my suggestion. A parallell book "perception" is that of The Story of San Michele (Highly recommended!) which is presented here on WP as "a book of memoirs", but which is actually a very clever novel, where the name of the author coincides with that of the main character. Can such a qualification be added? --81.229.102.134 (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is really lousy on this matter, quote:

On December 26, 1985, Strieber reportedly was abducted from his cabin in upstate New York by non-human beings. He wrote about these experiences in his first non-fiction book, Communion (1987).

To get the horse in front of the carriage at least the section would need to start with the publishing of Communion, and then describe the contents of the book. The main character, by the name of Whitley Strieber, is abducted on December 26, 1985, Communion time and age, but as a point in time in the fictional story line, this date must of course not be mistaken for the day after Christmas day the year of our Lord 1985, in the common (real) calender. To start the section with this fictional event is in deed very misleading.

It is also a complete mistake to use "he" when refering to the author after the mentioning of the fictional character by the same name. The publishing of the book by the flesh and blood (and potentially not so amused) Strieber has no connection to the abduction of the fictional Strieber.

A good editor should be able to blend together the story told in the book, and the factual history of its publication in a way that allows anyone who thinks it's non-fiction to read the result with satisfaction, and at the same time allows people, like myself who consider it a piece of fiction, to read it with the same satisfaction. I am not that good an editor myself, so please, HELP! --81.229.102.134 (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author asserts Communion (and the follow-up books) is non-fiction, and the publisher published it as non-fiction, and it was on the NY Times best-seller list in the non-fiction category. Your suggestion of identifying the "character in the book" as a different Whitley Strieber than the real Whitley Strieber would be an opinion. If you can find criticism that agrees with your opinion that the book must be about a "fictional Strieber", then you could reference it in a sentence that clearly indicates that this is a dissenting opinion. I believe the article that would best serve your intent is from Newsday, Inside NY, October 10, 1988, p.11, an article called "This Transformation Makes Author Blue", in which the Los Angeles Times book editor Jack Miles pronounced the sequel to Communion (called Transformation) to be fiction, and removed it from the Non-Fiction Best-Sellers page of the LA Times (though it still made the top 10 over in the Fiction category). Relevant excerpt: “As I looked at this book, I concluded it had to be fiction,” said Los Angeles Times book editor Jack Miles...“The real question, I think, is for those other book reviews who've put it on their nonfiction lists. Do they believe these dark blue fellows actually exist in the world?” Strieber, naturally, is none too pleased to have what he says are accounts of real-life experiences interpreted as make-believe. “It's a reprehensible thing,” he told us. “My book is a true story. The fact that the visitors are real is very difficult for certain people to face . . . Placing this book on the fiction list is an ugly example of exactly the kind of blind prejudice that has hurt human progress for many generations.” 98.245.119.71 (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK I think I managed to incorporate your intent in some minor changes to the phrasing of that section. 98.245.119.71 (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Key" is fiction

[edit]

I thought this article used have Strieber's admission that the visit from "The Master" may not have happened? What's going on?67.190.86.13 (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove

[edit]

General cleanup and reference improvements completed. Kyle(talk) 07:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Whitley Strieber. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strieber editing this entry

[edit]

Just a note to point out some suspicious recent edits to this page. On Mar 7-9, someone editing from a Santa Monica, CA, IP address made improper edits to the content of the 'Master of the Key' section. These edits not only introduce the first-person singular 'I', going against style policy on Wikipedia, but erroneously claim that a writer named Heinrich Moltke is '(AKA) Jasun Horsley'.

First, it appears that the edits have been done by Strieber himself, who is known to live in Santa Monica. Second, it's worth pointing out that Moltke is not, in fact, Horsley. Strieber is confusing two different critics of his work. I can vouch for the fact the two are not the same individual, so can others. Moltke and Horsley have even gotten into online debates about Strieber's work.

The way these edits have been done sort of amount to vandalism. It might be a good idea to revert that section only to a version prior to those edits. Hochichi667 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism paragraphs in The Master of the Key Section

[edit]

I'm deleting the last two paragraphs in this section: with the exception of the citation linked to Strieber's site itself, none of the sources cited there meet Wikipedia's standards as acceptable sources: Problems with Strieber and The Key is a self-published piece simply aimed at debunking the validity of the events within the book, and the accompanying Mother podcast is an (extremely profane) interview of PwtMotK's author. I'm not even sure why the claim that the early-morning conversation in The Key took place would require debunking to begin with, as it's not exactly a fantastical concept to begin with.

Kt'Hyla (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Reference

[edit]

Here is a new article on Mr. Strieber that could be used as a reference for the article. https://medium.com/s/reasonable-doubt/he-was-supposed-to-be-the-next-stephen-king-then-the-aliens-came-afd7195e0b49?fbclid=IwAR3M7GDTsItc5pESVdG9ZQTeW4f0DYqVVzjCDfhYJoOQGSBF1xP-ABaNFm8

165.91.106.30 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbidden Zone

[edit]

Strieber's 1993 novel "The Forbidden Zone" is in no way a novelization of the 1980 Richard Elfman movie. Look it up on Amazon, Good Reads, etc.; it's an unrelated book with the same title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasroche (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whitley_Strieber&oldid=1210570639"