Difference between revisions of "Talk:Literature"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I hate to sound patronizing, but... please improve it? That's what Wikis are for, right? This is still a very young (albeit successful!) project, so your help would be appreciated.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:00, 21 February 2008 (EST) | :I hate to sound patronizing, but... please improve it? That's what Wikis are for, right? This is still a very young (albeit successful!) project, so your help would be appreciated.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:00, 21 February 2008 (EST) | ||
::I am afraid I am one of those who has fallen for that "superficial, fallacious liberal logic" in my quest to be "long in academic degrees but short in intellectual achievements of [my] own". Any contributions I would make would be invariably biased towards neutrality, at the least. But I couldn't pass some of these articles without at least pointing them out so they can be improved. There must be at least someone with some background in literary studies who is competent to improve this... they could hardly make it worse. Bon chance, though.--[[User:Gigg|Gigg]] 23:06, 21 February 2008 (EST) | ::I am afraid I am one of those who has fallen for that "superficial, fallacious liberal logic" in my quest to be "long in academic degrees but short in intellectual achievements of [my] own". Any contributions I would make would be invariably biased towards neutrality, at the least. But I couldn't pass some of these articles without at least pointing them out so they can be improved. There must be at least someone with some background in literary studies who is competent to improve this... they could hardly make it worse. Bon chance, though.--[[User:Gigg|Gigg]] 23:06, 21 February 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :::It's easy to criticize, but... | ||
| + | :::Honestly, I'd add, but it seems like you know the subject better. It's not my specialty, really , so I'd rather someone who feels impassioned about it contributes. I could add "''Atonement'' is a pretty good book," but, again...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:11, 21 February 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 04:11, February 22, 2008
Content?
This page is almost absurdly devoid of content about one of the great topics of... well, life. It is simply insane that there are huge articles devoted to a thousand different iterations of homosexual topics, but that this is the page for something so vital to a full life and educated mind. Literature is a word commonly used to denote the great books, so at least some discussion of literary study or criticism would be good. Instead the page's content is essentially a copied dictionary definition, a copied encyclopedia definition, a mediocre metaphysical poem, and a terribly written quote from a free online study guide. It's a travesty.--Gigg 22:59, 21 February 2008 (EST)
- I hate to sound patronizing, but... please improve it? That's what Wikis are for, right? This is still a very young (albeit successful!) project, so your help would be appreciated.-MexMax 23:00, 21 February 2008 (EST)
- I am afraid I am one of those who has fallen for that "superficial, fallacious liberal logic" in my quest to be "long in academic degrees but short in intellectual achievements of [my] own". Any contributions I would make would be invariably biased towards neutrality, at the least. But I couldn't pass some of these articles without at least pointing them out so they can be improved. There must be at least someone with some background in literary studies who is competent to improve this... they could hardly make it worse. Bon chance, though.--Gigg 23:06, 21 February 2008 (EST)
- It's easy to criticize, but...
- Honestly, I'd add, but it seems like you know the subject better. It's not my specialty, really , so I'd rather someone who feels impassioned about it contributes. I could add "Atonement is a pretty good book," but, again...-MexMax 23:11, 21 February 2008 (EST)
- I am afraid I am one of those who has fallen for that "superficial, fallacious liberal logic" in my quest to be "long in academic degrees but short in intellectual achievements of [my] own". Any contributions I would make would be invariably biased towards neutrality, at the least. But I couldn't pass some of these articles without at least pointing them out so they can be improved. There must be at least someone with some background in literary studies who is competent to improve this... they could hardly make it worse. Bon chance, though.--Gigg 23:06, 21 February 2008 (EST)