Talk:Apt Pupil

Time frame

I deleted the clause "(from mid-1974 to mid-1978)". In the version I read (UK paperback, I bought it while on holiday as a teen) the story extends into 1980, since at one point a couple of the characters discuss the Iran hostage crisis. It's possible that King may have revised the story slightly for different printings, as he has done in some other short stories. Ellsworth 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Apt pupil is not 'horror'

it is disturbing porno (or at least, trying to) but it's not horror. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.153.236.209 (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

David Schwimmer?

Shouldn't the fact that David Schwimmer plays the role of Counselor Fisher at the college? Zeitgeistjaeger (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Also a 1987 Adaption

Besides the 1998 adaption (with Ian McKellen and Brad Renfro), there is also a 1987 adaption with Nicol Williamson and Ricky Schroder. — al-Shimoni (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this not a notable book?

@Piotrus: Is this book not notable, despite being the subject of a film adaptation? Jarble (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jarble In order. I don't think being a subject of a film adaptatin is a sufficient criteria to make the work notable (see WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG). However, I expect we can find sources covering this work and showing it has stand-alone notability - but until this is done so, the purpose of {{notability}} is to indicate that the article is not making the case for why this work is notable well enough. An easy partial fix would be to mention the film adaptation in the lead, but what we need is more - information on awards, or literary criticism and reception this work received. In conclusion, neither me nor the tag are saying the subject is not notable, only that the current article needs to make it more clear. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)