Talk:Armor (novel)

Command of English

I'm not sure what section this would go under in the article, but one of the most remarkable things about Armor is the author's hideous lack of understanding of comma usage, along with the other glaring typos. Some variation in the usage of commas is expected for any book, but there are some hard and fast rules which are violated again and again in this novel. Why is this not mentioned anywhere?? Psychlohexane (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at it as a literary affectation. The main character, Felix, is a very gritty, down-to-earth character, and I thought the writing style went along with that. Then again, I've never read anything else by Steakley, so maybe he's not much of a grammatician. Middlenamefrank (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That could make sense, as in Cormac McCarthy's The Road, but Felix was some sort of royalty before he became a soldier, so it seems his command of language should be exquisite. But I have never read anything else by Steakley either, so who knows. The typos are consistent enough that it's either on purpose, or because of Steakley's poor grammar and his editor's laziness/sloppiness/lack of knowledge. Psychlohexane (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary Issues

The current article summarizes Armor in a rather poor manner. I'd say it unwise to give away too much of the plot and background right off the bat. I suggest the article summarize each of the three segments of the book, in no more than a paragraph or so. Then after that should be a short discussion of themes of the novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.42.130 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 January 2006

There's basically no standard on Wikipedia for how much to reveal, beyond the requisite spoiler tag. Some books (Dune) have ridiculously long plot synopsis written by someone who's enthusiasm exceeds his writing ability; others have what amounts to the back cover blurb. Do what you think best, and in the finest Wikipedia style, if someone disagrees they'll change it. JJ 21:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional note to the reader

Although Armor is similar to Starship Troopers, is a far better read and if you only saw the movie, it is at least thrice better than the film adaptation. The author of this review has done an excellent job of providing the guts of the story but there is something that no review can capture and that is what J. Steakley does so well - make the reader feel like Felix in (and out of) his armor.

If you read this, really read it, and get to the part where Jack meets Felix on Sanction, and feel nothing, you may be an "Ant". Felix is the quintessential anti-hero. He doesn't want anything to do with it but he's it, like it or not. There is no techno-babble in this novel - only real guts and raw emotion that honestly puts the battlefield into perspective for the common man. It's absolutely horrifying, but these kinds of sacrifices occur even today. The computer glitch only makes it that much more realistic. This book made me wonder, want to kill, and even get misty.

Tribute —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZikChil (talk • contribs) 03:06, 29 July 2006

Just wanted to pitch in. I think the impartiality of this article is very obviously in question. Though of course I'm too lazy to change it myself, I think it should be looked at. In addition, the grammar and spelling are wanting.

"Grammar and spelling wanting"? What else would you expect from an Armor fanboy? Psychlohexane (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Suit self destruct

The article currently states

“ Later in that same drop, Felix takes a soldier who's gone into 'traction mode'--his armor has taken too much damage, and has extended his arms and legs to maximum extension in the medically safest position--and wires the nuclear reactor to go critical. Over the cursing of the immobilized soldier, Felix tosses the human nuke down a ant-hole, incinerating an insect colony. ”

There is no wiring the reactor they just trigger everything and hit eject its a hidden self destruct. Plus in the story he takes a wounded volunteer but the wounded soldier is killed. Another who was escourting Felix taking the volunteer in is critically wounded and will soon die and is matter factly volunteered and self destructs inside the hive. Could someone change it up more accurate. I suppose I could, just not the best writer for job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiahou (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Yup, I just finished reading this book and agree that detail was incorrect. Well, at least in my book - a first edition. Perhaps in later editions the first self-destruct was combined with the hive-blowing self-destruct? But since 2 of us recall it the separated way, I'm changing it for now. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ArmorOriginalCover.gif

Image:ArmorOriginalCover.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armor (novel). 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/20061221001300/http://johnsteakley.com/Armor2.html to http://johnsteakley.com/Armor2.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)