Talk:Only Revolutions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! This WikiProject now includes "Novels", "Novellas", "Novelettes" and "Short Stories" of narrative form! Critique (Featured Article): None current - "7 achieved / 2 removed" Review: Erast Fandorin Improve: Nineteen Eighty-Five • Vathek • Enderby Outside • The Runes of the Earth • The Giver • Crown of Shadows • More... Create: Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • The Fatal Eggs • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too A new policy proposal has been started and this is to be seen at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, please take a look at these and comment. This is a vital subject and all editors should consider the implications. These are NOT active yet, but could have wide reaching consequences. Please contribute your views. Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title Waverley (novel) for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

Contents 1 Layout and Typography 2 Colors in the title 3 Note About Dust Cover and Other Minutia 4 Upside-down Dustjacket 5 Text particulars 6 plot 7 Author's comments

[edit] Layout and Typography

I started to write a section explaining the layout of the pages, but I quickly got overwhelmed.

this book has that effect. --Travlr23 04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colors in the title

Like House of Leaves, Mark Z. Danielewski has once again used color in the book's title. I edited in the colors, using the 'font color' html code, and used the exact color codes as published on Danielewski's forum for Only Revolutions. Alanlastufka 16:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note About Dust Cover and Other Minutia

I fully understand that I have added MUCH more detail here than is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and I plan to continue to do so in describing the layout of the book. As the original author notes, this is a large job requiring a huge amount of attention to detail.

My hope is that this article can be a help to all of us who aspire to create a useful Wikipedia article about this book. At this early date, it is impossible to distinguish trivia from salience. Thus I would ask for restraint from the editors for a period of time long enough to make some degree of sense of this very strange and intriguing work. RaulGroom 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upside-down Dustjacket

Although the article says that the dustjacket is upside-down or reveresed, so that the green eye opens to Hailey's story and the gold to Sam's, I found that my copy opened green to Sam's and gold to Hailey's. I imagine that this is just a mistake in this particular author's copy, and unless quite a few people find that theirs are assembeled this way, this part of the article should be deleted. 199.126.16.224 15:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dustjacket orientation certainly doesn't seem like a fundamental aspect of the printing. Even so, I intend to have a look at the bookstore. It certainly seems like the contributer here is probably mistaken. Jes5199 08:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no one else has replied and the author doesn't offer evidence of the "clues in the design of the cover itself" that would suggest it is not upside down, I'm going to delete the reference.SadMarvin 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text particulars

While I only got the book today, and am about 57-57 pages in, I've noticed a few rules that seem to pop up, and seem to be corroborated by what this page says MZD asked the readers about.

For Sam's perspective, every animal name is bolded. From Hailey's perspective, every plant name is bolded.

And a note to link to HOL. In the beginging of HOL, you have the words "This is not for you," while Only Revolutions begins with "You were there"

As well, both are "a novel" Dead Horse 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm only at 112-112, but I've noticed that the bolding is getting lighter and becoming more of a grey than a black. Looking down at the bolding on the further ahead sections, this seems to go on.

Also, most novels published these days are "a novel."SadMarvin 13:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When I first started reading it, I noticed that there was a 1864 history gutter note (Sam's side) re: General Order 9. If it's just one of the standing orders, that's fine. But if it's Lee's General Order 9, which disbanded the Confederate Army, it's about a year or so off. That order was given 10 April 1865.

Any ideas why?--kat

[edit] plot

Hi,

I don't have this book yet, so I'm unable to help anyhow, but I find it a little strange that there is only two sentences are devoted to the plot, while the rest of the article is about technical issues. I realize how important they are, since I'm acquainted with "House of Leaves" pretty well, but shouldn't proportions be a little more balanced?

agnus 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, once you got this book in your hands (I have a library copy, but I will get my own as soon as I return this to the Library), you will read the story, but the story is overshadowed by all the other strange things you notice about the book itself. Like, when you get the book, check out the large letters that are every 8 pages. There is a plot, but it might take people several readings before it is unravelled. So, I'm sure the plot of the book will show up on this page soon. --Travlr23 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that those large letters spell out, from Sam's side: "Hailey and Sam and..." and from Hailey's side: "Sam and Hailey and..." In addition, every third large letter is slightly larger, and every ninth is very large. I haven't quite figured that part out yet, although the much larger text seems to bracket off discrete sections of the plot (New Orleans, St. Louis, etc.) I won't add this to the article yet, since I'm not actually finished reading the book. I'd like to have a clearer grasp before actually throwing it all in. Pico2 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also mildly concerned that the two-sentence plot summary doesn't really seem to relate to the plot. It repeats the explanation given in the book's jacket, but I'm not sure the book's actual plot corresponds to that: the whole "never grow old" and "outrun history" lines aren't really supported by the actual story. Again, I have to finish reading the novel, but it seems more likely to me that Danielewski is giving us different ways of reading a relatively simple story of two teenagers in love who travel cross-country. Pico2 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Author's comments

Is there any viable way to include comments made by the author in response to questions asked during a book signing, but not printed anywhere? Or documented anywhere for that matter...? Danielewski had some choice words about how the Concordance contains words found nowhere in the book, and that the parallel-line icon for the book is an INTENTIONAL resemblance to the double-pipe Inclusive OR symbol in computer programming. He then emphasized that the word "Choice" is in the center of the Concordance page... and then said that was probably a more specific answer than he'd ever given in response to reader questions. I have notes on this conversation that I could fill in more specifically, but if it's just unusable hearsay it's probably not worth it. Ain't polite to throw rumor into an encyclopedia, after all. Thoughts? --Speaker59 199.103.21.225 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That might be considered "Original Research" which is frowned upon in Wikipedia (ooh, Original Research, OR, Only Revolutions!), unless the notes were corroborated on a newspaper's website, the author's website, or had some other way of citing it. Rihk 04:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)