Talk:Snuff (Palahniuk novel)

Additional Plot Info is Incorrect

I'm changing this article some. Thanks to the glory that is pre-street copies that are sent to bookstores, I've read this book & many of the "trivia" items are way off course. Not to mention that you really shouldn't write any plot items until the book has actually been released. Tokyogirl79 (talk)Tokyogirl79

I was the one who put in most of the plot points. They were directly from the mouth of Chuck Palahniuk during his last book tour - which I included as a reference. Here is exactly what he says:

"The royalties from this movie will go to a child that she conceived during the making of her first adult movie and gave up for adoption and then it is more than likely that one of these three men in the green room is that child."

So with all due respect I don't think I jumped to any conclusions about the plot. While the actual plot may be different, I see no problem with having included the plot information up to this point even though the book hasn't been released because Palahniuk himself gave the information out. Until it can be verified by a person who has read the book (like yourself) the information is still valid because it came from a primary source and is therefore acceptable by wikipedia standards. FearNotMan (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't know he mentioned it as part of his tour. He must have changed the ending at some point between then & when the book was sent to the publisher. Then again, his quote is so vague that it's actually a bit misleading. Sorry for automatically assuming the negative! Tokyogirl79 (talk)Tokyogirl79 —Preceding comment was added at 07:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This information (specifically about the tour quote, not necessarily the trivia, which I rarely take without a fat grain of salt in a Palahniuk novel) is not incorrect, nor had the plot been changed as you say it "must have" occurred -- the phrase is deliberately misleading. It is, actually, "more than likely" that the "one of the three" he is referring to is the "porn baby", though Cassie couldn't have given birth to 137 or 600. However, "more than likely" doesn't mean "is". It is much like the mention on the back of the book's -- "one of whom may want to kill her". Nothing Chuck said on the tour before the book was released can be said to be wrong. Just misleading. On purpose. :) --Chacharu (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead & put a bit of a basic plot summary that is a little more in depth than the original book info, but still doesn't reveal anything. Again, whomever put in the info before was technically wrong. They must have read a chapter or two of the book, but trust me when I say that they must have jumped to the wrong conclusions about the mother/son thing. Tokyogirl79 (talk)Tokyogirl79

When I search "snuff," this doesn't come up. How do we get it so that it shows up there?

~~ I don't really know anything about editing on Wikipedia, but this is perhaps the worst article I have ever read - it seems lifted right from a publicity website, with dubious claims and a very informal tone. Not to mention that Irvine Welsh's 'Porno' covered the topic of pornography in fiction literature, and there likely have been people before him too. 24.114.252.226 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Snuff by Chuck Palahniuk.jpg

Image:Snuff by Chuck Palahniuk.jpg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)