Talk:Saving the Appearances

Synopsis structure won't work as initiated- Proposing more compressed summaries

For this article to be completed in the style it was started, there will have to be 25 sections one for each chapter. The complexity of ideas rises with each progressive chapter, so each section would have to be at least as long as those in the current article. To be completed, the article would have to be voluminous. For this reason, I am proposing a synopsis of each chapter more along the lines of other articles in wikipedia. This will, I realize will result in a distortion of their meaning due to compression, but I am optimistic that eventually the collaboration on the article will result in progressively closer condensations of this important work. If no one voices objections to this in the next week, I will revamp the synopsis, possibly using key quotes from summary paragraphs where there is inadequate coverage from commentaries on the chapter or ideas discussed. J JMesserly (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The lengthy paragraph on each of even the first 4 chapters fairly badly overbalanced what is otherwise a very short article. I would therefore agree that this treatment for all 25 chapters would be ludicrously unbalanced. Probably what is therefore needed is a brief overview of the book (and its themes) as a whole, rather than attempting to summarise it at a chapter level. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

This section leaves me with absolutely no idea as to what those praising the books liked about it, or why they like it, only the bare fact that they liked it. As such it is probably rather less informative than the average dustcover blurb (itself a much maligned genre of 'literature'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have removed much of the content from this article. Do not remove the well-referenced content. — goethean ॐ 14:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What you in fact should see is that I removed an way-overly-lengthy and uncited precis of the first four chapters, that was overbalancing the article. I do not intend removing what little third-party material is here, even if it is monumentally uninformative (unless of course you happen to be so massively well-informed as to be able to intuit what the book is like from the identities of who likes it -- in which case you'd be better off writing this article than reading it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit premier spook material ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.181.4 (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Style

Shorter sentences would make the article easier to understand. If I get bold enough, I'll take a crack at changes. Bfroelich (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)