Talk:The Blind Assassin

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Novels Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Can somebody please clarify these allusions? I noticed none, and nowhere else on the Internet mentions allusions to Eliot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.250.210 (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I haven't done a scholarly review of the book but while reading it casually, Waste Land references kept hitting me over the head. I'll clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.22.9 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot twist[edit]

Removed the major plot twist. Too much to give away in an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.149.160 (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot." This edit has been reverted. María (habla conmigo) 11:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an issue of it being a spoiler. If it was, it would have been noted in the comments. The claim for the edit is that the ending gives the summary a more complete feel. I argue that this is untrue. The summary for the plot does not discuss much of anything to give context to the ending. So Iris is the protagonist, but is the protagonist of "The Blind Assassin" ever discussed? Is the assumption that the protagonist was Laura mentioned? The ending should be added if context can be provided, otherwise it lowers the quality of the article's prose. For example, compare the following:

"Star Wars is a story of Luke Skywalker, a young man who assumes the role as the last Jedi Warrior to fight the tyranny of the galactic Empire."

"Star Wars is a story of Luke Skywalker, a young man who assumes the role as the last Jedi Warrior to fight the tyranny of the galactic Empire. Skywalker learns that Princess Leia is his sister and that the evil Darth Vader is his father."

""Star Wars is a story of Luke Skywalker, a young man who assumes the role as the last Jedi Warrior to fight the tyranny of the galactic Empire. During his trials, Skywalker encounters the evil Darth Vader, agent of the Empire, and must rescue the leader of the rebellion, Princess Leia. Skywalker defeats the Empire, eventually learning that Princess Leia is his sister and that Darth Vader is his father."

The edit requires added context, otherwise, it appears to be the weakest of the three possible versions in terms of style and prose.Luminum (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a great edit! Lova Falk (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Luminum (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations[edit]

I deleted the entire section titled "Quotations". Yes, this thins out the article, but take a look at some other works of fiction on Wiki, they're missing this section. In any case, it was more akin to a Trivia section and adds absolutely no value to the article. Forseti11 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement[edit]

This article as the moment is in dire need of improvement. At the moment it only contains a plain description of the plot and a trivial description of the characters. Since the novel has an unusual structure that should definitely be described as well as fleshing out the reception section and how it fits into the author's body of work. Ashmoo (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

The first sentence of the Reception section feels like an odd assessment of hundreds of reviews, which have been referred to elsewhere (including, for just one example, here: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/atwood-speaks-out-about-bad-reviews/article18426385/) as "overwhelmingly positive." In reality, the negative NYT review referenced here (by Thomas Mallon) was very much an outlier. The claim of the reviews being "mixed" seems even odder with the section ending with the many prestigious awards the novel has won. Lastly, the term "mixed" is problematic anyway--all reviews are "mixed" if what that means is they weren't 100% positive or negative. But the term has taken on mostly pejorative connotations, and, overall, just feels very lazy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:280:21C4:246E:4232:C36E:A229 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]