Talk:Eliot Rosewater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I added a bunch of stuff about Rosewater in the novel God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, but I am not the greatest at writing this sort of things, so it may need a little work. Hope my contribution helps, though. Thomas Carson 21:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You are perfectly good at it, I'd say -- better than most. Thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is Kyle Boné? Why is he mentioned in this article? Please advise.

[edit] Huh?

Sorry but this sentence makes no sense to me: "While not explicitly stated, Eliot Rosewater could be the Swedish doctor in Galápagos. He is referred to as "the only person I ever met outside of Cohoes, New York, who had heard of my father," lending credence to the possibility of said identity."

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Rosewater"

How could this be Rosewater if the character is referred to as a doctor and Swedish, two things that I am certain Eliot is not? Ee60640 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slaughterhouse Five section

"He got a few paragraphs into it, and then he realized that he had read it before-years ago, in the veterans' hospital. It was about an Earthling man and woman who were kidnapped by extra-terrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo on a planet called Zircon-212." (Page 201, Dell 1981 paperback edition)

Due to the fact that the entire novel is about the lessons Billy Pilgrim learns after he is abducted by Tralfamadorians and placed in their zoo, Eliot Rosewater's introduction of Kilgore Trout during Billy's stay in the veteran hospital could be considered the second most important event during the novel, after the bombing of Dresden, of course. Obviously, Billy's travels are fabricated and based on science fiction he has read by Kilgore Trout.

In conclusion, there would be no story to tell about Billy Pilgrim had Eliot Rosewater not introduced him to Kilgore Trout.

This entire section, and particularly this concluding area, reads like a high-school essay. Particularly considering the citation style, it seems like someone just copied and pasted it from an essay of that sort. I would like to propose a rewrite of this section. I'll undertake it myself in a week or two if there are no objections, but if someone can get to it sooner, that would be awesome. 76.15.50.210 (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)