Talk:Fictional book

List of fictional books

Talk:List of fictional books redirects to here.

I've removed the bizzare redirect from Talk:List of fictional books. You might want to move any relevant discussion text over to that talk page, and keep this one for discussing Fictional book -- Colin°^Talk 08:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I copied it over. Not sure whether to delete it from here, so I didn't. Karen | Talk | contribs 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I did ;) --Quiddity 19:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 21:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Necronomicon

/ was going to do the Necronomicon. --Litefantastic 16:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to seem too Arkhamcentric, but I can't think of another fictional book in literature that's as widely used in stories or written about. --Cecropia 18:47, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Monty Python's bookshop sketch

On the Monty Pyton album "Contractual Obligation Album" there is a sketch featuring John Cleese and Marty Feldman in which Feldman enters a bookshop and makles a series of increasingly ridiculous requests of Cleese, from "David Copperfield by Charles Dikkens with two K's, the well-known Dutch author" to "The Amazing Adventures of Captain Gladys Stoat-Pamphlet and Her Intrepid Spaniel Stig Among the Giant Pygmies of Beccles (Vol. 8)". A list of these would provide a much-needed opportunity to link to the article about the gannet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.52.193.8 (talk • contribs) .

Prod on List of fictional books

I must say I strongly disagree with this prod and threatened deletion. The list is well organized with headings and subheadings, and is a handy place to look up titles of these nonexistent works, and compare the modest tally invented by some authors with the extensive lists invented by others. Many are joke titles, so reading down the list (particularly the sections of Douglas Adams and other humorous writers) is entertaining as well as instructive for seeing what has been done with this convention. Furthermore, the use of fictional books helps to define the nature of the world of the real work in which is appears - absurd, regimented, religious, philosophical, or whatever. The purposes of fictional books as narrative devices are largely covered in the parent article. While I do think the parent article probably should be cleaned up a bit to focus more on the device and less on specific authors, the list article seems pretty solid to me, and should not be deleted. I'm not comfortable removing an admin's prod, though, so I thought I'd start a discussion here. Karen | Talk | contribs 07:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Mavarin.

Plus anyone who makes their way to a "list of fictional books" in the first place, is looking for some kind of overwhelmingly 'bibliophilic' experience... :) --Quiddity 08:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bibliomaniacs unite -- you have nothing to lose but your shelf space!! --Bookgrrl 03:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Junior woodchucks guidebook

I'd add it myself if I knew how, but you can find it by searching for the above title. I've seen it referenced in other comic books, not just the Charles Barks 'Duck' books (which were themselves popular to the point of being pop culture icons) I think it merits inclusion (but I don't know how to add a link) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.117.144 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Term ambiguous, possibly incorrect

The term "fictional text," which redirects here, is used much more often to refer to a work a fiction rather than a non-existent text. In fact, the only place I have seen the terms "fictional text" or "fictional book" having some other meaning is in this article. Doing an advanced Google search for either term will produce similar results. I feel the term "imaginary book" is much more suitable. I'm also inclined to believe this can be inferred from the definition of fiction: a literary work based on the imagination and not necessarily on fact. Here we see that fiction is not synonymous with imaginary or non-existent. Yes, when the majority of literary critiques use the term otherwise, the term is too ambiguous, perhaps incorrect altogether. Also, please note that being an avid reader of Borges, I'm quite familiar with imaginary works of fiction, it's the primary reason I'm discussing this article. Qld3303 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have created a similar lemma at the German edition of wiki. I have called it FIKTIVES BUCH, which means FICTITIOUS BOOK. It certainly fits better than FICTIONAL. Then again, IMAGINARY might also be appropriate Jackcauffle (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Article rewrite

As it stands I think this article has very little value, given that there is another called List of fictional books & various other specific lists as well. I propose a rewrite from the ground up (when I get round to it) along these lines:

• History
• Different media and genres
• Purposes
• Real world effects

Any other ideas welcome. Btljs (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fictional book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070215140940/http://www.underneaththebunker.com/ to http://www.underneaththebunker.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)