Talk:Gadsby (novel)

once again

Another lipogrammatical rewrite was just tried - the first in a while! - and immediateyl undone. Hope springs eternal - or, rather, "wanting good stuff springs always." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Would there be any sense in having a lipogram version of the article in the Wikipedia (or Draft?) namespace, tagged to keep for Department of Fun? If it sticks, we could then discuss hat-noting or See also-ing it from this article. –&nbsp Reidgreg (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I see no point to this. Should we have an article about Hamlet written in Elizabethan English? An article about e.e. cummings's works written in lower case with idiosyncratic punctuation? An article about The Odyssey written in Homeric Greek? There's no rational reason for an article about a literary work to attempt to copy the style of that work. If someone wants to do so for fun, that's fine, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. CodeTalker (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - go ahead and do it outside wikipedia! Have a blast. (I just did a cursory search and despite the fact that people have been arguing for years that it would be cool and fun to write about Gadsby in e-less form, nobody has actually done that anywhere, so far as I can tell.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

that cumming-s thought sounds good; CitationsFreak (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there a Talk Page header we can use to signify "This has been discussed and rejected and please stop doing it"? I had to check the timestamps because I thought this was from 8 years ago when I was arguing for people to stop doing it. Padillah (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

But if we didn't have arguments about writing the article lipogramatically, the Talk page would be empty - and what fun would that be? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not the full page, but how about a plot rewrite to not include 'E'? The plot is not very long so shouldn't be too difficult, it would fit within the idea of an approrpiate plot for this book, and seems a good compromise for things of this sort. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would most vehemently oppose this. Articles should be written to clearly convey information to the reader, not to creatively mimic an idiosyncratic writing style. We already have some quotes from the book in the article, which is sufficient to demonstrate what lipogrammatic writing is. There's no need to hobble the article with text that might be hard for a reader (especially a non-native English speaker) to understand, just for the amusement of the editor. CodeTalker (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be imagining that it can't be done well and readable. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Not "imagining" but "reporting." It has been tried and it fails. Aside from being a pointless gimmick that goes against wikipedia policy, it's an obstacle to reader comprehension. But feel free to write your own user page without E's if you think it would be cool. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Padillah -- Sorry I didn't see your comment before, but some article talk pages have FAQs, as you can see at Talk:0.999... -- 04:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think the "Warning" box would be a better tool. It's right there, on the page, so there's no need to want to read the extra FAQ page (which is a navigation choice). I'll see what I can slap together and you guys can fix it if needs be. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

What four words?

@Randy_Kryn, you say in your edit summary (thank you for that, by the way) that there are four words that contain the letter 'e' in the novel. Can you please list them? I've not seen any reference to this failing at all and I believe it stems from a misunderstanding. Padillah (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Padillah. I'm just going by the last paragraph of the lead which includes this information and its source which (below in 'References') details the four instances. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Well... crap! If the author is going to contradict me, what am I left with? :) Feel free to revert my changes. I simply didn't see these. Well caught. Padillah (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for keeping good track of edits on this page. Still thinking a good plot summary can be written without an 'e'. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a gifted writer could write a good plot summary without 'e', but would it be better than it would without such a restriction? If not, why would we do it? Is there any precedent for this -- any other Wikipedia article about a book in which the style of the article attempts to mimic the style of the book?

And what would happen going forward as miscellaneous future editors made edits to the plot? Would they maintain the lipogrammatic quality, or would they allow some 'e's to slip in, making the whole exercise pointless? And if they did keep the 'e's out, would the prose remain "good", or would it degrade to the horrendous quality we've seen here in the past when miscellaneous editors attempt to write lipogrammatic prose without experience in doing so? CodeTalker (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Who knows? That's all WP:CRYSTAL. Does a rule say that something like that couldn't be tried and published? I don't know all the rules by a longshot, so one may say "no mimicking the article topic". Another exercise of value: the wording of E-prime. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Besides, something like an 'e'-less plot would be a collab and not a single editor's work, which would make it's success assured given time (the open-ended Wikipedia dictate). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

accidental "e"

An editor has removed reference to the accidental uses of "e" without a secondary source - that is, somebody else pointing it out. Their comment: "I have to disagree that a primary source is sufficient. What if, for example, the Internet Archive scan used on Wikisource is a pressing that was corrected later on?"

I believe a primary source - linking to a printed example - is sufficient. We could mention that it involves "at least one printing" or something like that, since it's possible the words were removed in other printings. But it's worthy of inclusion even without a secondary source, I think.

Anybody else have thought? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@DavidWBrooks Eh, should be easy enough to reinsert this factoid with proper sourcing. Surely the existence of the "e's" has been noticed before. Mach61 20:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably the best approach. Primary sources can establish a fact, but a secondary source is required to indicate that it is a notable fact. Consider "he is the only batter in history to finish every season with an RBI that is a prime number": verifiable, but notable? Or "despite being the focal point of the play, Godot never actually appears as a character": arguably notable even without secondary comment. And the accidental 'e' even more so, I think. But finding the secondary sourcing would let us stay true to the means of establishing notability in Wikipedia. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't find anybody else taking note of the non-missing e's; lots of people talk about this book but apparently few actually read it! (Including all of us, I bet.) I think that it's notable within the context of this article that a couple of e's were overlooked, at least in the first printing. We are allowed editorial discretion in wikipedia, we're not tied absolutely to the rules. Not mentioning it because we can't find a secondary source seems a small but real omission. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Beisdes which, if the notibility is based on the fact that there are no 'e's then the fact that there appear to be accidental 'e's that slipped past ( even if for a single printing ) is notable for it's very contradiction. Padillah (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The info in the article now does satisfy the requirements at WP:PRIMARY (we aren't interpreting and we are using "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts"), but the paragraph suffers from not having the information a secondary source would possible be able to offer with the use of any documentary evidence Wright left behind. E.g. how did this happen? How fast was it corrected? Did Wright correct it himself? Etc. And it's fair to wonder why we are including this self-researched information when secondary sources have never covered it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)