Talk:Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
Tasks you can do:
|
|||
[edit] Bad Entry
"By adding this dimension to the narrative, Foer layers an entirely different point of view on top of the of the first. An intriguing thought to ponder while reading this is why the father, upon reading his own father's horrific account of the events at Dresden (which included lines describing dismembered body parts lying in the streets and a horse engulfed in flames stampeding by) would still feel inclined to focus more on spotting flaws in the continuity of the writing rather than the personal meaning attached to the words themselves. It is a strange insight to the father's character.
This perhaps might seem a stretch, but through the father's red markings over the words, one can almost sense a shift in perspective towards Oskar's point of view as well. Since the total theme of this novel is Oskar's search for meaning through the tracking of clues left by his father, one can almost derive a feeling that when reading this passage, they are holding the pages in Oskar's hands. This "third" point of view, however, relies solely on the degree of imagination employed by the reader and is vastly open to interpretation."
This is prehaps the most pathetic entry I have ever read in Wikipedia. I simply removed it but, presto!, it is back. Why would the father correct the spelling mistakes rather than feel the emotion of the letter? The hack who wrote this seems to assume the father read the letter once, corrected the spelling mistakes, and never read it again. Since the letter is in the book some 20 years since the father recieved it it is perhaps possible he has read it more than once. Since it is the only contact his missing father ever made, perhaps he has read it many many times. And since we know when he skims over the newspaper, in particular the world news and war news, he corrects spelling mistakes, it obviously is a reflex action, one could easily say provides him some comfort. So, for pete's sake, the father corrected the spelling mistakes when he read it for the 50th time. Is this still a "strange insight" into the father? No, it was Foer's way of telling us, unlike all the other letters the grandfather writes that don't get mailed, THIS ONE DID.
And what on earth is the second paragraph I have quoted about? You really want wikipedia to have the words "One can almost derive a feeling that when reading this passage, they are holding the pages in Oskar's hands." If this was sourced, fine, as they saying goes Wikipedia is about citation, not truth. But a reader has written a, at best, bizarre interpretation of this book and it does not belong.
The book itself includes an ampersand ("&") instead of the word "and" in the title. Shouldn't the article be moved there? Tomsintown 19:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Now you mention it, yes it should.DrDisco
There is no end to the spoiler section
-
- I agree that this article completely fails the test for objectivity. It reads like a Sparknotes guide to the novel. Did Foer himself write this or just a passionate young devotee? Rewrite rewrite rewrite somebody please! I would do it myself but would rather not waste my time reading this book. Inoculatedcities 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please separate spoiler and non-spoiler elements
Please separate spoiler and non-spoiler elements! I love the fact that Wikipedia warns the reader of "giving away" the endings of movies, etc. It is possible to review any movie without doing so. Also it's good to have the endings described for those who have seen it or don't mind knowing the ending before they see it. My friend says I must see this movie. However, not having seen it, I don't want to read this article until the spoiler elements are separated and I can read the non-spoiler parts. Could someone who has seen it please take all the non-spoiler parts and put them above the spoiler warning? Korky Day 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
