Talk:Nicholson Baker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Checkpoint controversy
We read that Checkpoint "is unquestionably the most controversial work Baker has yet written." Presumably the controversy is over its subject matter (story, or non-story) rather than quality. Still, this surprises me. I haven't gone looking for controversy about it, and I'm sure that the more brain-damaged and right-wing of pundits are appalled, but I haven't seen any controversy at all. There was much more controversy, I think, over The Fermata. The latter has probably died down because most controversies do. Oh, and more controversy over Double Fold, and the pieces (and activities) leading up to it. There's a book about Double Fold. Have there been books, or even mere TV programs, about Checkpoint? Is there really no question that Checkpoint is the most controversial work Baker has ever written? (Incidentally, it struck me as extraordinarily mild.) -- Hoary 09:11, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
Gotta agree with this. No doubt Checkpoint should have caused more controversy than it did. But Vox and Double Fold caused a hell of a lot of controversy, and we can point to acres of newsprint as evidence. Is there similar evidence for Checkpoint? Gamaliel 15:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't remember much controversy about Vox, and I'm not surprised. There was mild interest when the world heard that Lewinsky had given a copy to Clinton. (Well, so?) The Fermata, yes. -- Hoary 08:32, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
- I recall quite a few op-ed columns about the contents of Vox, which is pretty rare for a new work of fiction, and they pre-dated Clinton. Gamaliel 09:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- All right then, I concede. We were probably reading different papers at the time. I have to say, though, I can't think what could be controversial about Vox. -- Hoary 09:59, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
Since both 'Fermata' and 'Checkpoint' aroused significant controversy, I've removed the 'most controversial' line.Saagpaneer (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Box of Matches
The article says that "A Box of Matches is in many ways a continuation of Room Temperature," but the reader has not been told what Room Temperature is. Richard K. Carson 04:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Room Temperature is listed below in his bibliography, though the note on Box of Matches is a bit underwhelming: I thought the book was awesome, having an extremely unique feel for little observations and miniscule moments of humor, but I'd have to read Room Temperature before I would rewrite the paragraph too much. --Tarnas 06:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've written up RT just now; I hope I've done a decent job of this. -- Hoary 06:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "A novel"
It's pedantry time! Question: do the title pages of the novels announce "A Novel"? Below, I'll represent certain line breaks as colons, and ignore capitalization, but look at the title pages of all the hardback editions that come to hand.
- The Mezzanine: A Novel (Weidenfeld & Nicolson)
- Room Temperature: A Novel (Grove Weidenfeld)
- Room Temperature (Granta)
- Vox: A Novel (Random House)
- The Everlasting Story of Nory: A Novel (Random House)
- A Book of Matches: A Novel (Chatto & Windus)
- Checkpoint (Knopf)
A bit confusing. Even where they do announce "A Novel", should this be regarded as part of the title?
(ot that I mind either way myself.)-- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC) A bit confusing.
- Library cataloguing practice (MARC) seems to include "a novel" in the title: The everlasting story of Nory : a novel, etc. Also, consider the works of Graham Greene: The Ministry of Fear: an entertainment, similarly treated. Pinkville (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because it's the way libraries catalogue books doesn't mean it's the way an encyclopedia should treat their titles. It would be very unusual to include "a novel" in the title in a work for general readership such as Wikipedia. Saagpaneer (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Human Smoke
Is it just me or does the description of Human Smoke read like a straw man attack? I haven't read the book, but I'm sure that its argument isn't just that WWII was immoral because Britain was the first to use bombers. Brad the Raven (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

