Talk:The Overton Window

Reviews

The reviews in question were added by the authors who viewed them onto Amazon, not by Beck's publisher, thus they are perfectly legit. They are reviews because they are reviewing the books. A 'blurb' is just a piece of a review, but this is the totality of the reviews, not just a small part, and with that i see no reason not to include them. Ink Falls 23:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

These snippets are promotional, not reviews of the work.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

They weren't added by the publisher on Amazon, rather Amazon gave this book to various authors and they placed their reviews themselves on the Amazon page. Just because they happen to all promote the book doesn't make them 'promotional', any one of them could've been negative, its just that they're all positive(I guess a sign that the book is good). Anyways, they're not promotional but rather reviews(note: they are under a section titled "Reviews"), thus they belong. Ink Falls 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

These are not reviews; it's not even close.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blurb .Jimintheatl (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

See where it says 'Review' Ink Falls 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is all well and good to include a section about critical response (although a little strange in this case, since the book hasn't yet been released) but a book jacket-style column of adulatory single-sentence quotes is clearly promotional in intent, and not appropriate for inclusion. I have removed them; please do not add them again. Angio (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of pages

To the WPdian who insists on misstating the book's number of pages: please see Amazon, B&N, etc. Thanks.--75.45.112.203 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit was a mistake. Soxwon (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, now it's up to 336pp---- Whatever! ;~) 75.45.112.203 (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Author

I have been reading that Beck did not actually write this book. Can anyone confirm that?--CCoville (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the 14Jun USAToday

On the title page, Beck shares credit with three contributors. He calls the conspiracy novel "my story," but he says Jack Henderson, one of his contributors, "went in and he put the words down."

--and Henderson is apparently this author. Overton's title page credits assists also from Kevin Balfe ("Beck Inc.'s" VP for publishing) and Emily Bestler (an ed. at Pocket Books).[1]-- 75.45.112.203 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added Beck's use of contributing writers, citing the LATimes review.--75.45.125.213 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, just don't put it as the second sentence. Falcon8765 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've moved this mention to the article's current 2nd paragraph. Thanks, Falcon8765.--75.45.125.213 (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• The second paragraph looks fine to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with Henderson's Circumference of Darkness

Real Time with Bill Maher writer Chris Kelly asserted in the HuffPo similarities between Beck/Henderson/et al's The O.W. and computer programmer Henderson's maiden novel, Circumference of Darkness, independently published in 2005 and later picked up by Bantam Dell in 2007.--75.45.143.44 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Circumference of Darkness's UK version, Maximum Impact, published in 2008, is here.--75.45.143.44 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Kelly also points out that in the The Overton Window, Beck thanks Jack Henderson for "pouring his heart and soul into this project" -- which is to say that the novel was most likely ghost-written by Henderson.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WaPo-vs-Beck

As opposed to Time's backhanded compliments ("For Beck's millions of acolytes, however, the one-dimensional characters and half-baked plot will be less important than his message, which will channel their anxieties about perceived assaults on our freedom.")--the WaPo reviewer's allegation/observation that the novel may encourage domestic terror has resulted in some back and forth between Beck and the reviewer, with the usual sources have chimed in, as well (Media Matters, the NatReviewOnline, Newsbusters).

As our article stands now, the WaPo contention remains unrebutted and Media Matters' review is posted in external links. I'm not the best person to address this because I'm a Democrat, but if somebody COULD, I think it would bring better balance to the article. (Note, I've cross posted this notice on the Glenn Beck article's talkpage.)--75.45.143.44 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Positive reviews!?

Aren't there any positive reviews anywhere!? Of course the left wing papers are going to hate anything right wing, but what did the right wing papers think of this book? --BenMcLean (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Propose rename

I propose renaming this article The Overton Window (novel). Logically, an article named "The Overton Window" should be about the Overton window. Adding the definite article "the" shouldn't change what the article is about. Adding "(novel)" would make it clearer which article is which. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)