Talk:Gate of Ivrel

Synopsis

This synopsis is not encyclopedic and reads like something out of a fan publication. It assumes familiarity w/ the source material and is not comprehensible to the average reader. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Your version assumes the reader already knows things, not mine. As I have noted in one of my edit summaries, you don't even explain what a Gate is. That's rather key for understanding what the heck is going on. There is also no magic; this is a science fiction novel, not a fantasy one. You also deleted the connection to the Union-Alliance universe.

I have written hundreds, if not thousands, of synopses, including the first ones for Lawrence of Arabia and Animal House. Isn't it odd that nobody else has, to the best of my recollection, ever complained that the tone of my writing isn't encyclopedic? In what way does it read like a fan publication? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the flowery language, the use of specific detail and in-universe jargon. Reading it makes me feel like I'm reading the book. Not to mention, I had it down to 450 words and now it's pushing 700 again, which is skirting the edge of "too long." I get it, you're a fan and you want to share your knowledge w/ other people, but these articles need to stay comprehensible for someone like me who's never read the book.

I deleted the connection to that other universe because there was no source given and it sounded like original research. (Also, I had never heard of it and had no idea what it meant. Again, too esoteric for a noob.) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed most of the backstory about Morgaine's mission. It's really not necessary to understand the immediate plot at hand. We know she's on a mission to close the Gate. That's all a casual reader needs to know for purposes of an encyclopedic article. If they want to know the whys and wherefores, well, read the book.

I'm also still suspicious of the statement about the mention of the connection to the larger universe. Calling it "tenuously set" there sounds awfully subjective. That statement needs to be supported somehow or it's original research and if I don't remove it again, someone else will. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You have cut down the plot far too much. Romeo and Juliet could be described as, "When two teenage lovers belonging to feuding families don't get their way, they commit suicide", but that hardly does justice to the story. That's about what you've done. What's left in your synopsis is utterly confusing to the average reader.

I have dug down, and to my surprise, Cherryh and Andre Norton say it's a fantasy, so there's no connection to the Alliance-Union universe. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The reviews section looks good. That quote from Andre Norton goes a long way towards establishing notability. However, the plot is still too flowery. It sounds like you're trying to "capture the feeling" of reading the book rather than simply relate the bare events. Plot summaries are book reports, not retellings. At this point, we are past the three revert rule and before this turns into a full-out edit war, someone else needs to step in. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what "flowery" means. My synopsis is not flowery, far from it.

The notability of the novel was never in question; the article listed seven reviews, four of them in top-tier publications.

To any new participant, please read JACU's synopsis first. If you read mine first, the holes and omissions in the other version won't be as apparent. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:PLOTSUMNOT, holes and omissions are preferable to a "recap" style summary. "The objective point of a plot summary is to condense a large amount of information into a short, accessible format. It is not to reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story, nor to cover every detail." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I mostly agree with Just Another Cringy Username here, and prefer their version, with adjustments. The current version of the plot is too exciting. Unlike, say, a book review or a synopsis on the back of a book, our summary should not to retell the story, but dispassionately summarize it. Phrases like an eerie place shunned by all are inappropriate for Wikipedia (outside quotations). This principle applies as much to fantasy novels as to Shakespeare. Also, the current version is on the longer side, which makes sense for exceptionally influential or important works, but probably not for this book. There are a couple details in Clarityfiend's version that I'd like to see added to JACU's version, though. In particular, it needs context on who Vayne is, and what "Nhi" is/are. Roh should be consistently spelled out as Chya Roh for clarity—it's odd to use last names for characters in plot summaries unless that's how the book consistently uses them. Finally, it should be made clear why Morgaine is on a mission to close the Gate at Ivrel. Hope this helps your dispute. Ovinus (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)