Talk:In the Best Families

Notes on infobox

The infobox has been modified to conform with the novels project style guidelines, which indicate that the infobox should describe "only the media types in which the novel was originally available. For example, eighteenth-century novels were never published in 'hardback and paperback' nor in audiobook so it is inappropriate to list those print subtypes." Since the Nero Wolfe books (1934–1975) were originally available in hardcover, and only later published in other formats, the infoboxes for these Rex Stout novels and novella collections are being amended to read "Print (Hardcover)" -- with "Media type" describing only the first-edition printing.

The ISBN field will be completed, but read "NA" by request of the novels project. Subsequent releases of the book are listed with their ISBNs in a section of the article headed "Release details."

The genre in the infobox is being listed as Detective fiction, a classification that includes both the novels and the novella collections. Novels and novella collections are clearly differentiated from each other in the articles' lead paragraphs, and in categories that appear at the bottom of the articles. — WFinch 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The unfamiliar word

I'm troubled by the addition of "minim" to the list for ITBF. I've looked for it in chapter 13 and cannot find it. I do find minimum, on the second page of chapter 13 in my Bantam paperback edition, in the graf that starts "Through him I met people ..."

Perhaps I just missed it; I missed "slop" in TSC.

Or perhaps different editions have different words, either by design or because some "little scrivener" decided to change Stout's prose.

Can someone, perhaps Amy Duncan, who supplied the word, check this? I'd prefer not to have a typographical error make the Unfamiliar list, even if it's an interesting word.

Also: I'd prefer not to have plot discussions in tha Unfamiliar list and would recommend pruning the discussion of dissimulation. Any comments? TurnerHodges (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I like to see the context of the unfamiliar word, not just a straight list of words. I've been busily expanding the section, actually; see The League of Frightened Men and The Rubber Band.

Including context conveys the gift Stout has for making the word familiar — or at least more familiar. Sometimes the speaker actually explains the word's meaning ("ortho-cousin" in The Red Box); but usually it's up to the reader to surmise what the word means. Stout provides just enough to do that; I've never tried looking up Weltschmerz in the dictionary, but I think I get the drift. The context doesn't illuminate just the word itself — it often illuminates the relationship between the characters. I'm obviously big on context, so I rest my case.

"Dissimulation" is a problem for me because not only does the word have no context — there's no chapter cited. I'll have a crack at a rewrite and maybe we'll like it better. WFinch (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Minim" is found in the Viking edition of ITBF, Chapter 13, page 150. Wolfe is voicing his concern to Archie that they not spend too long in Archie's office: "A minim of cause for suspicion and I'm through."

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:minim, noun, from the Latin minimus (15th century), second definition - something very minute.

Perhaps the word was unfamiliar to Bantam, and they decided to change it to "minimum."

Sorry, I should have provided the sentence as well. Amy Duncan (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, usually no reason to supply the sentence, although here it turns out it would have helped. I suspect you're right, that Bantam took liberties -- but as WFinch has surmised, many apparent typos in the Bantam editions may well come from errors in OCR scans and software. I do find two instances of "minimum" in chapter 13: one that I mentioned above, and another in the sentence you cite, but in the Bantam edition it's "A minimum of cause for suspicion and I'm through." (Page 156.) And it is an interesting word: the SOED gives it seven distinct meanings, ranging from a symbol for a musical note to a friar to a Roman coin. I'm glad to learn that its use in the Viking edition appears to have been deliberate.TurnerHodges (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the familiarity of a word subjective? What is unfamiliar to thee may not be unfamiliar to me.Lestrade (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

It's a little tricky. There's a section titled Spurious Importance on the Nero Wolfe talk page that explores the matter some, and clarifies some participants' thoughts. TurnerHodges (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Applause

The writers of the article are to be lauded. They have fully described the events in the story without spoiling it by revealing the incredible twist.Lestrade (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Plot summaries: length and spoilers

Seeing the rewrite of the plot summary here today, and the edit summary that reads in part, "It's still perhaps a bit long", I went out in search of a recommended length for plot summaries in articles about fiction. After first taking a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, I was led to an essay titled Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, which provides helpful guidance.

Although no set length is given for a plot summary, the essay notes that some projects identify target word counts. This is noted in the section titled Length:

While it is hard to quantify a strict word limit, since no two articles are equal, for films, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines offers guidance that “plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words”; Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines recommends “100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines” for television episodes in episode lists, or “200–500” in standalone episode articles; and for novels Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines says that plot summaries “should aim to be no more than three or four paragraphs”.

I checked the plot summary I wrote quite some time ago for The Father Hunt. It’s 1,178 words and certainly more than three or four paragraphs. By comparison, the plot summary written for Plot It Yourself is 525 words; "Black Orchids" is 583 words; and "Instead of Evidence" is 727 words.

And I found something very enlightening in the section of the essay titled Spoilers:

… Information should not be intentionally omitted from summaries in an effort to avoid "spoilers" within the encyclopedia article. … However, when summarizing a plot and choosing what details to include, editors should use discretion. The advantages of exhaustive coverage of the work are in dynamic tension with the desire to preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers. Wikipedia should contain potentially “spoiling” detail where it substantially enhances the reader’s understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers [emphasis mine].

I feel that the edits made today to the plot summary of In the Best Families fall into that latter category, giving information that ruins the experience of reading the story. In support of that opinion, note the March 2011 comment in the section immediately preceding this one — complimenting the author of the previous plot summary for describing the plot "without spoiling it by revealing the incredible twist".

Thoughts? — WFinch (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have thoughts. But, bearing in mind Twain's (?) advice concerning silence and fools . . . TurnerHodges (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, all right. Let Stout speak for himself, as per a quote from Time in the Reviews section of The Doorbell Rang: "Stout once said all that he thinks is important to say. A good mystery writer, he wrote, merely tells the reader: 'Let's run a race. Here goes my mind, I'm off, see if you can catch me.' " Suppose that the Wikipedia article is correct, and that Time Magazine is also correct (a stretch, I admit). Isn't it clear, and hasn't it always been clear, that Stout would have objected to his publisher including a spoiler on the back cover of In the Best Families? or, for that matter, any item in the entire Wolfe corpus? And so doing is equivalent to identifying a murderer in a plot summary. The Wikipedia editors who have insisted on their assumed right to identify the murderer are obviously cutting across Stout's wish to have a race with the reader. I'm reluctant to term a Wolfe story "art," but nevertheless these Wikipedia spoilers are utterly at odds with preserving "the artistic qualities of the work for readers." The Wikipedia editors are merely indulging their own narcissism. Let them do so, by all means, but in private. TurnerHodges (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)