Talk:Gödel, Escher, Bach/Comments
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Book Contents?
This article discusses a lot of meta-book (ha ha..:), talkign about structure, yet there's not ,much there about content or even a general overview..this article is seriously lacking.--Procrastinating@talk2me 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article has been cleaned up a bit now. What else do you think it needs to be better than a "start" class? --Culix 03:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would first start by rewriting the lead. The date of publication can be moved in front and the name of the publisher can be removed: an infobox should suffice. The lead is too loose and doesn't draw the reader in; tightening up the prose with active tense should solve that problem. —Viriditas | Talk 04:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good ideas Viriditas. I have tried to improve the lead section and summarize the subject matter of the book more completely. I was also looking at Animal_Farm, which is listed as an example of an [A-class article]. Animal Farm is a work of fiction, so the sections are slightly different, but it talks about the plot and characters, and then the significance, how the book relates to events and people in the real world, and effects the book has had on the world. Perhaps the GEB article should be structured in a similar manner? It could discuss the subjects covered by the book, the fields of study related to or explained by those subjects, and then the significance of the book and the effect it has had (if any) on the real world or philosophical thought.
- Phew! I guess that might take a bit of research, and we (obviously) don't want to just include the whole book in this article, but I'm just trying to get a feel for what the goal is. Perhaps we should also have a section on Hofstadter's motivations for writing the book? That would let us include quotations such as "I realized that to me, Gödel and Escher and Bach were only shadows cast in different directions by some central solid essence. I tried to reconstruct the central object, and came up with this book." It might also be steering in the wrong direction. --Culix 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest sticking with Category:Philosophy books. Are there any FA-Class articles in this category? I'll look. —Viriditas | Talk 04:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, here's five, non-fiction FA-Class articles to look at: Encyclopædia Britannica; Federalist No. 10; Peterborough Chronicle; Some Thoughts Concerning Education; A Vindication of the Rights of Woman —Viriditas | Talk 06:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest sticking with Category:Philosophy books. Are there any FA-Class articles in this category? I'll look. —Viriditas | Talk 04:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would first start by rewriting the lead. The date of publication can be moved in front and the name of the publisher can be removed: an infobox should suffice. The lead is too loose and doesn't draw the reader in; tightening up the prose with active tense should solve that problem. —Viriditas | Talk 04:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
