User talk:Seoulseeker

I edited the introduction and entirely rewrote the plot summary for the page on Robert C. O'Brien's Z for Zachariah to correct factual errors. The plot summary contained many errors and omitted important details, generally presenting an interpretation of the text rather than a summary. This story is a first-person narrative with a demonstrably unreliable narrator. Many of the views and actions of the narrator, Ann Burden, are questionable in terms of reasoning and morality. Taking for granted the validity of her assumptions (especially those towards the end of the story) results in a very biased interpretation and misunderstanding of the main themes.

In response to your feedback

Hi Seoulseeker.... I think there will have to be a middle ground between being concise and fully explaining the plot!  :) Unfortunately, that's one of the things that'll have to be achieved through consensus and collaboration.

I noticed you wrote a terrific explanation on YOUR talk page. You ought to put that same paragraph on the article's talk page so other editors can read and respond to it. That's where discussions about how the article is written take place. One of the editors mentioned Wikipedia's Manual of Style. You can find that on this page.

If you ever need any help with something, please feel free to let me know. Just click on the word, "Talk" after my name and you'll be able to leave me a message. I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. Cheers!

Wikipelli ^Talk 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 

Thanks for your response and links to guidelines. I posted the explanation of the editing on my talk page because I'm new at this and couldn't find where to put it. I assume this is the talk page I'm writing on now. Regarding the summary, I am working on reducing it to less than half its original length while keeping details that seem important for avoiding misinterpretation. Given that there is a first-person narrator whose views are questionable, enough should be shown of facts to make her bias evident; yet, at the same time, the facts must be presented objectively. The problem with this story is that readers tend to sympathize with the narrator rather than view her narrative objectively and critically. Facts in the text that go against the narrator's assumptions later in the story tend to be completely ignored or distorted.

If possible, I would like to add more to the article about interpretation, but it will require some research of academic criticism and I would want to balance it with my own interpretation as well if that is allowed. Then again, I haven't noticed that articles are generally very careful to include specific source references for all information.