Talk:The Way of All Flesh

Novels High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

Did he "dare not publish it" or feel that its tone was "too contentious?" The article on the novel and the article on the author are at odds on this point.

Roy Harmon 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The review link appears to be broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.53.242 (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading through this plot summary, and it's wildly conversational and sensationalist. I'd clean it up myself, but I haven't read the book and wouldn't want to cut something important. Maybe another kind soul could, though? AdjectiveAnimal (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Way of All Flesh/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The below comment starting at "Do not trust..." is pure drivel. I am the person writing The Way of All Flesh (novel) section. I have read the book 3 times. I am disabled and cannot work full time on completing this commentary, however I do intend to complete it before the end of June 2007. I have never seen the movie version so I don't know where the idiot who wrote the below gets off. He is full of crap and I doubt he or she has ever read the book or they would know that my commentary is a precise review of the plot. Given that there were ZERO summaries before, I decided to expend the labor to give Wikipedia users a decent summary. If this is a sample of how the morons who "review the reviews" treat people making the effort to bring FACTUAL knowledge to this site, then I surely won't bother making any further effort. I challenge whoever wrote the below to specifically tell me where and how I am not being factual or, indeed, rambling. David Hill, Murrieta CA I hold an MA in English Literature and have written several novellas.

Do not trust this summary. Not only does the author of this write a rambling, confusing recap, most of the information is wrong. This is most likely a summary of the movie and not of the actual novel. Having only read the novel myself, I can assume (and hope) that's what this is. Otherwise, its an extremely innacurate description.

Substituted at 22:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Purpose?[edit]

What is the function of saying that the book can be found in hardback and paperback? Isn't this a bit pedantic? And it also neglects digital copies online, audiobooks, etc. Moreover, what is the function of telling the page numbers of the book? It certainly doesn't agree with either copy of the novel I have. Even if it were true of one edition (even the first), what information is conveyed by including it? AnthroMimus (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]