|WikiProject Novels||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Abortion||(Rated Start-class)|
It appears the storyline is duplicated. Also, maybe there should be sections one with "storyline" and another with "interpretations". One could be a nice little synopsis of what happens in the story including all side stories etc. The other could be a section about the symbolic interpretations such as the references about Homer's journey from erotic love to love of civitas. Also , comments on the name of the character (Homer seems like an allusion) and the symbolism of the orphanage being in the hills or the phrase "be of use" a call for a utilitarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Novel v. FilmEdit
Remolded the page so it focuses towards the novel The Cider House Rules, as opposed to the film. They're quite different (e.g., look up The War of the Worlds and see how many versions you get). Also created page for the film The Cider House Rules (film). Included some of the initial pro-life/anti-abortion arguments about the film in the controvery section. Kept it neutral. Poisonouslizzie September 30, 2005.
- Okay, I had to remove some goofy POV about "the wonderful thing about this novel." This isn't a book review, keep that for your term papers. Thanks. Poisonouslizzie 04:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Is this correctEdit
There's a line in the article which says "The pro-life groups contend that the usage of an uncommon occurance of a father raping a daughter is sufficient reasoning and logic to justify all abortions". Shouldn't that be insufficient reasoning? Moriori July 4, 2005 01:37 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. The sentence was convoluted, but it was correct. However, the entire section was so biased that I removed it. I'm not against inclusion of criticism of the film, but it should be NPOV.
- Given the high number of girls that are molested by their fathers, is it at all accurate to call daughter-rape an uncommon occurrence? I'm going to reword that; feel free to edit further if you feel I've done it wrongly. Oni no Maggie 22:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Is my edit okay?Edit
I'm new at this editing business, and came upon the article while looking for something else (a local theater group is staging a play based on the novel in the spring and I wanted details) but couldn't resist editing the plot summary because it was so Homer-heavy. I really would like to edit it further, for several reasons, but don't want to step on toes; in my edit I kept as much as I could of the prior text, although rearranged somewhat. But I think the links to other articles are capricious (death??), the one sentence on Melony is either too much or not enough, and I really wanted to write a paragraph starting "Although the book contains a large number of secondary characters who exemplify Mr. Irving's usual style of exaggerated grotesques, the two main characters are naturalistic in a way unprecedented in his work. You can identify with Homer or Wilbur." but was afraid that would violate the no-original-research rule.
I also really hate the entire "Controversy" section. Wilbur is pro-choice but not pro-abortion; he is driven to perform abortions after a woman to whom he refuses this service dies from a botched back-alley abortion. And Homer remains deeply opposed to abortion throughout the book, although he finally decides that if he's willing to make one exception, in the extreme case of Rose Rose, it would be arrogant of him to try to draw a line. From the tone of the "Controversy" section you'd think that Irving was promoting abortion as the preferred means of birth control.
Could some more experienced editor comment on all this, please? Briankharvey 02:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Bias in the "controversy" sectionEdit
I notice that the "controversy" section, while on the surface making some formal nods to NPOV, only presents one of the sides in the abortion debate, and also contains certain word choices which might seem to reveal the bias of the writer. Additionally, it certainly appears to be written purely out of personal experience or the opinion of the writer. To state the view of an entire community such as the "pro-life" community, you really should cite a reference. Additionally, it would be a good idea to add a summary of the viewpoints of, not only pro-choice advocates and how they react to the novel, but also those who do not believe the novel is as black-and-white in its portrayal of these issues. Jupitermenace 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
First paperback cover?Edit
The cover picture caption says "first paperback cover" but this can't be true, because the cover says "Author of 'A Widow for One Year'," which Irving hadn't written yet when I bought my paperback copy of CHR! Briankharvey 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
When I saw the film,I thought that the"cider house rules", as read by the fuit pickers near the end of the film, was a comment on the 10 commandments. For example, the several rules that taked about, if memory serves, reasons NOT to go on the roof. I took that as a common about how the bible spends 2 commandments to prohibit "coveting". Also, I, think there was 10 rules. Did anyone else get this from the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- This article is about the novel, not the film. Also, this talk page is not for discussing the novel, but for improving the article. María (críticame) 02:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously if the article is about the novel (and it is) then discussing the novel is REQUISITE to improving the article. Furthermore, being that the film is based on the novel, you would kind of expect some similarities between the two to say the least. Thanks for your thoughts, Steve Kap, if the rules are a reference to the 10 commandments that would greatly improve the article, being that the rules are the namesake of the entire novel. MarcelB612 (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, novel or film, if this was an intended ref, might it not be relavent to the article? Wouldn't it make it more complete, more informative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)