Talk:Myra Breckinridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal 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.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This 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 identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Cleanup

This article seems to need a cleanup. The content is both about the novel and the film. The layout is messy, and the "Read on" section doesn't seem quite relevant to the article. Either this should be broken up into Myra Breckinridge (novel) and Myra Breckinridge (film) or the article should be rewritten, more clearly separating the two. (Entheta 05:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

I can assure you that the article I wrote in 2003 was exclusively about the novel, as I have never seen the film. I have observed on several occasions here at Wikipedia that people who have never read the book tend to add things to the discussion of a novel which they remember (sometimes only vaguely) from the film adaptation, thus creating some sort of muddle where book and film are no longer clearly distinguished. (Well, obviously one of the inherent dangers of collaborative editing.)

But is that the case here? What exactly has been added/altered?

As to your other objection, what exactly is "messy" about the layout? The fact that the text contains images? (I can't think of anything else.) I'd gladly break up the article into two sections (first the novel, then the film), but that would leave the movie section with nothing but three screenshots and the author's comment that he has never liked the film. And the moment I remove a reference to the film from the top of the article someone else is bound to add it again.

Anyway, thanks for detailing your thoughts above. Recently I've come across numerous pages where one solitary user en passant adds the cleanup tag to an article, a bot changes it some time later to include a date, and that's all that ever happens. <KF> 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The layout of the pictures made the article look a bit messy, for instance the "Read on" header is placed to the left of the Mae West picture. I alo think a list of "Explicit depiction of sexuality in mainstream fiction" is too off topic to take up a large part of the article.

I've done some updates. Let me know what you think and edit or add what you like. (Entheta 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Seriously, wow

IMDB or something said that Gore Vidal abandoned work on the script "because it was going in a different direction". Reading this synopsis of the book, it seems like the entire thing is exactly the same, all the way up to the whole thing being a dream. Seriously, I'm confused. Obviously the novel has been in some circles acclaimed, even popular, while the film has had nary a positive review- I'm not saying it's a great film, or even a good film--but maybe we could source articles talking about the novel to better describe the style and what makes people like it. Anyway, the thing about Gore Vidal even being invited to work on the script isn't neccessarily true. I'm just saying: Confused. Also: as a satirical novel, what folly or type of person or thing is this a satire of? I think it was written before some of the most known "It was all a dream" endings, so is this a satire, a big mockery of plot, or humanity? In any of the varied definitions of satire, satire means debasing or attacking something, so what is Myra Breckinridge the novel attacking? I'm not saying that there's a definitive answer that belongs in the article, but hey, there might be some information on this? Right?

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Myrabookcover.jpg

Image:Myrabookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)