On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Ender's Game is from 1985. > Doing a google reality check I get six hundred thousand hits for > "Ender's > Game" (enquoted). > So (even though I've never heard of it), it seems to have gotten a > substantial appreciation base. > For interpretive claims, we, as expert editors, shouldn't need to > rely on > our own words or interpretation or analysis with that level of > interest. > There should be several published book reviews that could be cited > for that > sort of claim. > Right?
Maybe. It's possible that, if someone wanted to go digging for book reviews of a 23 year old novel that one of them would mention the Stilson situation in enough detail that we could cite it as an explanation for the overall situation (which is that it is steadily revealed throughout the novel to both the reader and to Ender that Ender killed Stilson). However, I question why an obvious aspect of the novel that any reader of the novel will see (even if it is not there on the level of description, but rather by implication) requires such a snipe hunt to get an incidental mention of something that nobody who has actually read the novel would dispute is true, even if it is not on the level of obvious description. -Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
