Talk:Villa Incognito

How Does It Look Now?

Judging by the feedback below (and other places) I have revised the article. Suitmonster 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Personally, I think this article is generally good, but the tone seems to be one of gushing over the work, not a sober analysis. I'm sure it's a great book (a friend of mine loves Tom Robbins work), but statements such as "Robbins flexes his unique style and the plot twists bear his hallmark oddities" and "Villa Incognito is like Robbins' other works in that it has at least four plot threads that he wisely sews into one festive sexual garment of a tale, subtley draped over the reader" read more like advertisements than statements of fact. I'm all for creative writing, but I don't think it fits in Wikipedia. Just to make sure I'm clear, my quibble is not with the content of the article, but rather the style in which it's written -- especially since none of the statements in the interpretation section are sourced.

I'd personally go in and clean it up, but I haven't read the book and I'm not conversant with Robbins criticism. I'd probably end up squishing some important details in the process. --FreelanceWizard 22:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It still looks very POV this year ("remarkably", et cetera), and a lot of the interpretation reads as original research as well. I'll try to find time to prune it, but though I have read the book I haven't read any criticism on it, so I'm not sure I'll have any good cites at my fingertips. LaPrecieuse (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense Line

From the entry:

"This quote above all others, illustrates why the author chose Tanuki for the catalyst of Villa Incognito (if in fact the choice was not made the other way around, with the story being catalyzed by Tanuki)."

This line makes no sense, basically saying "chose A for the catalyst of B" or the other way around with "B being catalized by A". I'm going to just delete this line since it's just another instance of the gushing as noted previously.

This article is a mess.

And I mean that.

• It opens, for unfathomable reasons, with a "most often quoted line", (other than that someone found it amusing to use the word scrotum, I can't tell any reason for this). The opening paragraph fails to mention any possible awards or such, as is usually the practice with novel articles opening paragraphs.
• It goes into a "plot outline", instead of, quite simply, a "plot" section next. The plot outline features some examples of circular logic and in-universe descriptions: for instance, what exactly does "robbins-esque" mean? I don't know, and I doubt anyone else who, like me, never read a Robbins novel before does, either. How is having tanuki blood and having a chrysantemum seed embedded in your mouth connected? I don't know, since I haven't read the book, and there is no general knowledge fact connecting these two either, at least not to my knowledge. And yet the article makes that connection without bothering to explain it.
• The entire "Writing style" section reads like original research. It is also heavily laden with a certain set of Western morals - rabidly avoiding talking about sex when describing how the author talks about sex is not only comical, it is also POW. As is, for instance, the following: "...this pure (and yet lusty) celebration of life..." - why use yet? Who is to say that a "pure celebration of life" cannot also be lusty? If anything, I'd say a pure celebration of life is almost bound to include sex, but that's just my POV.

This article needs to be rewritten entirely by someone who has read the novel. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

press release

a press release. this wikipedia article, Willrix (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Villa Incognito. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060203110624/http://www.rain.org:80/~da5e/tom_robbins.html to http://www.rain.org/~da5e/tom_robbins.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051214162701/http://www.rain.org:80/~da5e/trbio.html to http://www.rain.org/~da5e/trbio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)