Talk:Monster (Peretti novel)

Author

The author has strayed into mainstream horror with religious elements. I would have to disagree. The "mainstream horror" present in this novel is a lot less intense and horrifying than novels by authors such as Stephen King. Scorpionman 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I would say it is EASILY as horifying as Stephen King (look at "IT" as an example). But still that does not make Peretti a mainstream SECULAR author. He still is awesome. There is nothing wrong with portraying evil as REALLY horrifyingly evil. That's what it IS after all! --Teenwriter 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. It's not as weird as IT either. But the word "strayed" should be removed; Frank Peretti has not "strayed" into mainstream horror, he has written books such as these purposefully to display the faultiness of evolution. But man, I sure loved this book, and I want a lot more monster stories from Frank Peretti! Scorpionman 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

The question has been raised by Teenwriter as to why the interview section has been removed from the article. The answer is simply to conform to better Wiki standards in an attempt to clean up the article as requested. The article, which is still available via a link in the External links section, is not necessary and strays away from the format of other Peretti title articles.

Aside from the question of being necessary or relevant, re-adding the material completely borked the layout of the page. - Cybjorg 10:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for "borking" the layout of the page....(should I link to that verb? ;)), and your explanation was *somewhat* sufficient, although not completely. If the interview was formatted to be "cleaner" THEN would it be acceptable to article? After all, it is TOTALLY about the book...and inspirations are an important discussion... --Teenwriter 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree that the inspirations are an important aspect, which is why the interview is linked in the external links section. I just don't see the need to reprint the article here. Some of Peretti's inspirations for authoring the book are listed in the article's opening paragraph, which should suffice. - Cybjorg 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay. That's fair enough. Thanks for explaining! :) --Teenwriter 16:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The book information still needs to be put into an infobox, instead of the failed template language that seems to appear just above the information about the possible film version. --Orange Mike 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First Sci-Fi Novel? I Beg to Differ

I removed the statement that this is Peretti's first science fiction novel. Certainly Hangman's Curse and The Nightmare Academy could be classified as science fiction. Waluigi Freak 99 23:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Peretti6.jpg

Image:Peretti6.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing the one favorable review

I was reluctant to remove that review, but did so because it came from a non-notable publication and a non-notable reviewer. It appears the only reason it was in here was to provide some hint that somebody liked the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)