Talk:An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope 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. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Short story task force. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
For some reason I get a message that suggests that this is an article page, and not the talk page. Anyway: I think that both Mulholland drive and Brazil are films with strong connections to this story.
Contents |
[edit] Mr. Arcularis?
Conrad Aiken has a short story Mr. Arcularis which is very much like this. When I first saw the film Jacob's Ladder I thought it was a remake of Mr. Arcularis.
[edit] Popular Culture
The section about references in popular culture is yet another example of this kind of Wikipedia section. What is so valuable about popular culture that it is worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article? My conviction is that Wikipedia panders to the adolescent mind.Lestrade 14:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
-
- Because it's usually a reference of note, and gives the reader some further insight into the significance of the piece--the fact that it was mentioned on Lost, for instance, tells the reader that it's important enough to be mentioned on one of the highest-rated shows on television at the time. Wikipedia shouldn't be so stuffy about what belongs in the article and just put useful information that a large number of people will want to read. -Mance 22:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of the works listed in the article are only very tangentially related to this story -- does that Scrubs episode really belong here? Perhaps only works that specifically reference this story or whose authors have stated a specific connection should be listed. Djkuula (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion: A special spoilers protocol for mega-twist endings
Ouch!! That's a heck of a spoiler! There are certain narrative works (films, novels, stories) where the surprise ending is so essential to the work, I think either the spoiler protocol as a whole should be altered to make it near impossible to inadvertently stumble upon a spoiler, or at least a special class of spoiler protocol should be created for such works.
As it is, the spoiler warning is only a few lines above the spoiler itself, making it much too likely that in the typical web-reading style of rapid skimming that one uses to get a quick idea of what one is looking at, the spoiler will be perceived at about the same time one realizes there is a spoiler warning.
I don't feel familiar enough with Wikipedia editing conventions to start rearranging this article to put the spoiler at the end or some other quick and dirty solution like that. It seems better to adopt a consistent method to hide spoilers better, at least for stories like this where the concluding jaw-dropping revelation is the heart of the reader-writer interaction.
A simple solution would be to have a link to the spoiler-containing plot synopsis as part of a spoiler warning sentence on the first screen or two of the article. The synopsis could be at or near the bottom of the article, and the link takes you there. I'm assuming it would complicate Wikipedia's structure to put the plot on a separate page, thus my suggestion to have it on the same page. Those wise and experienced in the wiki way would have a better idea than I do about the most practical and efficient solution.
Two other examples of narratives needing similar surprise-ending protection are the ghost film "Sixth Sense" and any O. Henry story. --Delysid 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Delysid
[edit] YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
