Talk:The Time Traveler's Wife/Archive 1

irrelevance

my only complaint about the book is when the author reverts from french to german to english in the written text. i understand that french was somewhat relavent, but i thought it was pedantic that the author had dialogue and narrations in french and german. At times, seemed somewhat condiscending that the author repeatdly reverted to french and german as if we should be able to understand it. highly irritating.

anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.157.162 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is for a discussion of the Wikipedia article rather than the book. I love discussing literature, but this is not the forum for that! Awadewit (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Clare a Mary Sue?

I took out the comment about Clare being a "classic Mary Sue". She doesn't have any unusual skills, apart from her artistic abilities. And as for her "notable flawlessness", she seems to have plenty of flaws e.g. her singlemindness in trying for a baby nearly ruins her marriage. In any case, the Mary Sue comment at the moment is only unreferenced opinion. If it can be backed up with a published reference, feel free to include it.

I removed the following sentence from the introduction: "A good deal of material is also spent on their sex life". The sexual content didn't seem excessive to me, considering it was a love story and compared with other books of the same genre.

I also removed the sentence: "Clare Abshire is a perfectly normal woman in most respects" since her "normality" could be seen as POV (not many women are from wealthy families or become artists).

Fionah 08:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll second all the removed material. (Let's face it, it's the talk pages on Wikipedia that contain all the useful material. The actual articles are bloody useless, because people keep taking out all the interesting stuff.) She IS a Mary Sue, there's a hell of a lot of crud about their sex life... and she's pretty dull, frankly. - 88.109.63.214 (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I can't really agree with her perfection - she is a fool for love, in that she gives up her chances at a full life of her own to be there for Henry; in some respects she fails in being a whole person because she's consumed by Henry, yet she revels in his absence, twice sleeps with another man (though not while they are married), asks Henry to do violence for her (albeit emotionally justified violence), and pursues a child with a single-mindedness that's both self-destructive and damaging to her marriage. She seems like a full person to me, flaws and all. 144.137.195.166 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Error in the text

On Page 150, he remarks that the tide is out, referring to lake Michigan. The tides for Lake Michigan are no more than 1.5 inches, so this is not possible. —Preceding unsigned [Special:Contributions/99.229.156.4|99.229.156.4]] (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

GeneticDisorders really a good category

Is GeneticDisorders really a good category for this article? Seems a little weird. Sure, one of the main characters has a fictional genetic disorder (okay, so maybe two of the main characters), but this is about the book, and the disorder is FICTIONAL. Manuzhai 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This category has been removed. Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Boston's "Curse of the Time Traveler's Wife"

It seems odd that there has been no mention I've seen about Bruce Boston's poem "Curse of the Time Traveler's Wife", surely the origin of the title of this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.123.189 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Niffenegger has stated that she got the phrase from Man and Time (see this article. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

• Wasserman, Krystyna (2006). The book as art: artists' books from the National Museum of Women in the arts. Princeton Architectural Press. ISBN 1568986092. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This look like we can get a quote or two. Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Falk, Dan (2008). In Search of Time: The Science of a Curious Dimension. Macmillan. p. 197. ISBN 9780312374785.

I'll try to get this from the library, since the discussion goes on to the next page, which is unavailable from Google Books. I may be able to add something to the free will part of the "Themes" section. Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Only once do the couple take advantage of Henry's foreknowledge to make money

If Publishers Weekly noted this (and maybe they did - I don't subscribe so I have no way of finding out) then they didn't read the book very carefully. Clare as a child is talking about buried treasure maps and Henry narrates that this is "more or less how Clare and I fund our rock-and-roll lifestyle ... it does give us an edge in the stock markets". Sounds like they did that more than once. Nick Levine (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What page is that on in the novel? Awadewit (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

pg 41, during Clare's first meeting with Henry. "'You could bury the money and make a treasure map and dig it up in the future.' This is in fact more or less how Clare and I fund our rock-and-roll lifestyle. As an adult, Clare finds this mildly immoral, although it does give us an edge in the stock market." Joyous! | Talk 18:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence and the source, since they obviously didn't read very carefully! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

Reformatted to table format [1]. :) Cirt (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. ;) Cirt (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The use of infoboxes is well established throughout wikipedia. You appear (seen from previous edits) to have a anti-infobox fixation. Please debate such removals before taking such consistently anti edits. Also you do appear to be removing these wherever you come across them so you should be debating this on a wider forum even than here. What you appear to imply is that there should be none anywhere period! Which is very sweeping. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk)

Actually, that is not the case at all. I think infoboxes work wonderfully on articles about elements, for example, that have standardized information. I do not think that they work well on articles about novels, which do not have standardized information. Also, I do not "remove them wherever I go" - I remove them from articles I am working on - that is very different. You, actually, seem to add them wherever you go, without discussing the issue at all. This article is quite established (it is at FAC) and I do not think an infobox adds anything. It repeats the necessary information (publisher, etc.) and adds unnecessary information (page numbers, ISBN). Also, as I stated in my latest edit summary, infoboxes discourage new editors from contributing. Have you seen the usability study videos? (I would appreciate that you not refer to this as "nonsense" in your edit - it is a clear problem.) All of that code at the top of the page scares away new editors, so we should very strong reasons for including infoboxes. I don't see any such reasons for this article. Awadewit (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Video 1, Video 2, Video 3. Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't spend too much time on this at present - but I will give it some time, very soon. If you have a point rest assured I will change my view. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"You, actually, seem to add", largely because I am convinced of the value of presenting common information in a structured and formal manner rather than in a haphazard (probably too hard a term) and randomly sequenced form that even a lede will provide. Also there is little logical difference between "I remove them from articles I am working on" and "wherever I go" they become approximately the same thing. So why include infoboxes at all if they are so much of a problem!? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Unique Perspective on Time Travel?

"Niffenegger's unique perspective on time travel"?

O RLY? I'm not knocking the book but, come on... "unique" my giddy aunt.(86.1.172.195 (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

Not to mention F M Busby's short "If This Is Winnetka You Must Be Judy". 86.28.158.245 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that one of the sources that supports that is Carey Harrison, "Love conquers all—even time—in this tale", Chicago Tribune (5 October 2003). Access World News (subscription required). Retrieved 25 April 2009. I have found that book reviewers don't know as much as they should. However, at Wikipedia, "verifiability, not truth" is the rule. Awadewit (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Having sex with himself (Literally)

At the age of 15, Henry has sex with a future self. Do you think that the author was trying to make a point of something with that or was it just her having fun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.60.54 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

bands

If anyone cares to make a list of bands mentioned in the book, I think it would be a nice addition. 77.126.81.58 (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we only include information in articles that is mentioned in reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source that discusses the importance of music to the novel, please do add it. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Author picture

Looking at the two pictures of the book's author, I feel as though the first might be a more suitable fit. Both are fairly low quality, although the one not currently featured in this article, File:2007 10 Audrey Niffenegger 01.jpg, is 1) straighter/better aligned and 2) just kinda looks better. What does anyone think? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 00:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the 02.jpg file, personally. It's a clearer picture, with a better angle, in my opinion. Although both pictures are sort of low-quality. Nathan ^T 01:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Let's stick with the current version. Better pose. Durova³²⁰ 01:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• 01 definitely has some issues with blurring that make the picture seem rather odd. I much prefer File:2007 10 Audrey Niffenegger 02.jpg. (Full disclosure: Awadewit linked me to both and asked which I liked better without giving the context of why she was asking). NW (Talk) 01:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• 02 is better - 01's horrible colouring ruins the shot. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 01:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• I solicited the opinion of others on this. Apparently, 2 has it. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thanks, all! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 02:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I contacted the author and she has submitted a better photo now, anyway! Awadewit (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

comment on the logic of arguments

In the reception section it say

"Despite appreciating the novel's premise, Amidon complained that the implications of Henry's time-traveling were poorly thought out. For example, Henry has foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks but does nothing to try and prevent them. Instead, on September 11, 2001, he gets up early "to listen to the world being normal for a little while longer".[27]"

It's true that that's the statement of Amidon but we could (should?) also mention here, that this is an unlogic argument, because it's all explained. Henry acts as he does because he says that he can't change time, for example he failed in preventing the death of his mother. It's not just 9/11, he doesn't even prevent himself from dying (for a reason). 212.186.99.222 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We cannot do that because Wikipedia contains no original research, so we can't add our own opinions into the article. Awadewit (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The novel itself is the source, so it's not original research simply citing a part of the book or mentioning what is said. — N-true (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

wtf

dude, why do you have to explain all what happens in the book, there are people who hasnt read it, thats stupid of your part

From Wikipedia:Spoilers:

Articles on the Internet sometimes feature a "spoiler warning" to alert readers to spoilers in the text, which they may then choose to avoid reading. Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, Wikipedia:Lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information � articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance.

If you think this policy is wrong, the place to discuss it is here: Wikipedia talk:SpoilerKaid100 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not erasing anything. i'm just discussing my opinion about the article in the discussion page.

I think it's ok write some spoilers, but writting even the last scene of the book is not encyclopedic, it's absurd.

It's like explaining the 6 sense saying that bruce willis is dead.

you have to inform about the book, not rip every twist and surprise of it.

Um good pointi know thats an exaggeration but still it was kinda silly to argument in that exact way that being said I havent read the article yet because I was concerned i might be spoiled and from this discussion im not sure if its been resolved or not--209.181.16.93 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, leaving out that Bruce Willis is dead in the Sixth Sense is absurd, since it would leave readers with a misunderstanding of the work. This is an encyclopedia, and to discuss a work throughly, all key points of a work's plot must be addressed. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

i agree we need to be careful with spoilers no movie or book encyclopedia entries in other encyclopedias i've read contain blatant spoilers. i for one like to find basic info before i commit a lot of money on something on it and when wiki didnt spoil every thing it used to be a good source he sign but i got on tilde on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.78.129.24 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarites to Journeyman (TV series)

I know I can't be the only one who sees similarities between this novel and the TV series Journeyman. I'm surprised that there's not been any kind of issue between these two works of fiction. Hires an editor (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that talks about the connection between the two, we can certainly mention it in the article. Awadewit (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Critics Reviews

"Despite appreciating the novel's premise, Amidon complained that the implications of Henry's time-traveling were poorly thought out. For example, Henry has foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks but does nothing to try and prevent them. Instead, on September 11, 2001, he gets up early "to listen to the world being normal for a little while longer".[27] — however, Henry mentions several times in the novel that he is unable to alter the past and thus couldn't do anything to prevent what has already happened" - I'm guessing the part after the dash shouldn't be there, as it's added after a full stop and seemingly uncited and OR. Thoughts? Skinny87 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is OR. I've removed it. Awadewit (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

about Film & Kindle Edition..

I do not agree about Films are disappointing. I watched today & awesome itself... though can't help but admit it is far from money-making hot one...

Do i get this best-seller in Kindle or B&N? or Author do not want to supply it with E-editions? It's weird i cannot find any in e-store...

We use the opinions of people who publish in reliable sources, film critics and other film experts. Awadewit (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias? =

guys, the "Reception" section of this article reads to me as if it were suggesting that the sucess of the book is partly based on the publicity ir received. If that is the suggestion then it should be clear. The "reception" section talks a lot about other things, and only gets to talking about the reception on the third or forth parragraph. Reads as if the author of the article did not like the book (which is fine, it should just not show on the article)190.245.153.88 (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See also

It seems to me that the Man Who Folded Himself is quite different from this book - why include it in See also ? If there is a source suggesting similarities, it should be mentioned with the other works. If not, should it be mentioned at all ? -- Beardo (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there doesn't seem to be any justification for its inclusion.—DCGeist (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Time Traveler's Wife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301140908/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Locus2004.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Locus2004.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Time Traveler's Wife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040621170302/http://www.powells.com/fromtheauthor/niffenegger.html to http://www.powells.com/fromtheauthor/niffenegger.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016224330/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Cmem2005.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Cmem2005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927123023/http://www.exclusivebooks.com/awards/amaboeke_award.php to http://www.exclusivebooks.com/awards/amaboeke_award.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118131109/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Geffen2006.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Geffen2006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727163510/http://www.publishingnews.co.uk/bba/pnbb_previouswinners.asp to http://www.publishingnews.co.uk/bba/pnbb_previouswinners.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)