Jump to content

Talk:The Book Thief

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Summary

The summary is very badly written. It is not in a good chronological order and has a poor writing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.230.213 (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC) seriously I slightly revised the summary to make better chronological order Coho (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add a spoiler alert? I had to stop reading the entry since I'M STILL READING THE BOOK! Jeesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.150.80 (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't allow the spoiler alerts anymore; that's why it's best not to read a Plot Summary before you read a book. However, you bring up a good point in that a brief synopsis of the plot should be in the lead paragraph, for those who haven't read the book. Therefore, I've added a brief spoiler-free summary to the lead section. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seriouslu I stopped reading this after one paragraph - "gains endured", very basic spelling mistakes... I guess there have to be a few duds in the treasure trove that is Wikipedia. I suggest the article be deleted it is so poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimlocator (talk • contribs) 11:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article in fact some sort of joke?Dimlocator (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2009

SOFIXIT. You do realise you can fix any mistakes you find, right? If an article needs improving, isn't improving it a better idea than deleting it? SellymeTalk 23:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even say anything about her foster family being killed..........TT It just jumps from them seeing the downed plane to Liesel going to live with the mayor and his wife, without explanation. I may rewrite this thing myself. I'll start shortly. --131.202.201.231 (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: What I wrote is quite long, and could very likely use some trimming, but it's much more comprehensive (not to mention comprehensible) than what was there before. Anyway, I posted it to the article a couple of weeks ago, and it hasn't been reverted or anything, so now I figure it's worth mentioning on the discussion page that the current plot summary is the one I said I'd write in the above comment. --156.34.239.47 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the book and used this as a resource for an English task, and it was perfect now. Don't know if it is all the editing or if it's just me being bad in English... (12 June 2012, 18:11 GMT+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.171.217 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree the summary is too long, nor the whole article. After just watching the advance screening without reading the book, this article helped fill in all the missing details. I really enjoyed it, and found it better than any of the professional reviews of the book or the movie. I'd like to see more articles like this if possible, as it saves a considerable amount of time researching a book or movie. I would also like to see a better link from the movie article, referring readers to this book article for a full review that will tie up many of the loose ends. Although the article added details that were required when editing down for a movie, it appears to me the movie did a great job capturing most of the essence of the book. DaaBoss (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the summary is too long either. It depends on what you want the summary for. Sometimes I haven't seen a movie and want to figure out the significance of a popular reference. Sometimes I have seen the movie but want to get a name or other detail.
There are those who think a Wikipedia plot summary should be the length of a TV Guide listing -- two lines to tell you whether it's the kind of movie you want to watch tonight. People have other reasons for reading Wikipedia, and the summaries should be about this length. --Nbauman (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the plot summary seems like a perfect length. It manages to include the entire plot in a concise yet sensible way. Removing "too long" notice until valid reasons for it are mentioned here. Asperous (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no info about the book itself that can be added to this page? The artice is more like Cliff Notes than an encyclopedia article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.151.58 (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An error: The summary mentions "Rudy" (who must be one of the townsfolk, as "Rudy's father" owns a local tailor's shop) without identifying him. Mucketymuck (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prizes

This page lists prizes that the book has won. The Booker Prize is listed, but this book was not awarded the Booker prize. If this is referring to another prize it needs to be rectified. These prizes really need references. 81.174.243.233 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that it states The Book Thief won the Commonwealth Writers' Prize in 2006, but the Wikipedia article on the Commonwealth Writers' Prize has another novel winning that year, and does not have The Book Thief as a winner any year. Needs a double-check please. Keithh (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Do we really need to talk about the main character? Isn't discussion around death sufficient? "The main character really is a scrub. Death said X"

Book Summary

The book summary is very incoherent. Thus I changed the Max line to earlier. 203.218.103.58 01:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synesthesia

To anyone who read the book: Would it make sense to link to the Synesthesia article because of the color-emoting-linking thing Death does? The book was recommended to me because of that, but I haven't read it yet, so I don't have an opinion. Tierlieb 11:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally think so. The color metaphors in the book are fairly random and used only for a sort of surprise effect -- surprise in that they are not really applicable to reality -- far from it. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

The only character listed is death and it only plays a small role in the story, other more important charaters should be added. I have added several more major/minor character from the book Coho (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly felt that Max and Liesel were going to get married! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the end of the book, after everyone dies (which was super super sad!) its says that Max and Liesel met again. I agree with the thought that they got married. I think it gives the book a semi-happy ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.14.91.199 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referances

there is only one referance for this article more are needed to help prove its reliabilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coho (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake, go out & buy yourself a referEnce book!!!Dimlocator (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film Adaptation

Is a student film, especially one with merely related themes, relevant enough to warent a mention in this article? 137.222.211.174 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a site to give actor suggestions? I think Adrien Brody would make a good Hans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.168.231 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


They really should make a movie out of this!!! It's an epic book, people now need to watch the story on screen. I think AJ Babcock of House of Heroes would play a good Max, cause he kind of has his kind of mood. Quiet, but yet cheerful you know? and he has a kind of rough voice that I think Max would have because of all of the days without drinking and eating anything. A rough, quiet voice.... (4.245.99.222 (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC))Moptopstyle1 20:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that there is a movie being made that will come out in the end of this year, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.14.91.199 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know how I can contact Markus Zusak?

I've written a little something I think he might appreciate. Anyone know any way of contacting him or one of his "people"? I've already checked his website, but in vain. Thank you in advance. 70.181.173.246 (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send a letter to him via his publishers. Their address will be in any of his books. This is the tried and true method. If anyone knows his details they won't publish them here. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! This is exactly what I was looking for. 70.181.173.246 (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.84.50 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of publication

It states in the article that the book was published in 2005. If this is true could someone correct the categories refering to 2003 and 2004 novels? Thank you. Raisin56 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was published in in Australia first (2005), then US (2006), then UK (2007). See UK publishers website and Amazon blurb--Plad2 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revealing the end.

Why does the article tell us that she dies in the end? Way to ruin the book. --216.106.111.55 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you don't want to know that end, you probably shouldn't read the article. PrincessofLlyr royal court 04:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She dies of old age... so I hardly call that a spoiler, I mean everybody dies at some point :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.153.63 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, considering the book almost serves as its own spoiler (telling you that certain characters are going to die long before it happens, etc.) I don't have too much of a problem with this. Besides, Wikipedia is not meant to be spoiler free. Don't come here to read the summary if you haven't finished the book and don't want spoilers :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.108.81.43 (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Reviews

The article is unbalanced, lots of people did not like this book, me included. For me its soft war porn for Jews. Im going to hunt for reliable neg refs. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adopted or fostered?

The article uses "adopted" and "fostered" interchangeably, referring to the family that took in the protagonist. These are two different things. Which was it? If I knew that I'd correct it. Sylvia A (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the book, but SparkNotes says "fostered". Note that SparkNotes may have gotten this information from here. Asperous (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German friend?

The article states "we meet Max Vandenburg, a Jew who is being hidden by a German friend name Walter Kugler." Why should the fact that Walter Kugler is German be stressed? Everybody in the book is supposed to be German, it takes place in GERMANY. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that Vandenburg isn't German, in fact it states the opposite. You do realize that one can be German AND Jewish at the same time? I'm going to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.84.175.250 (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

The book summary should look more professional. For example, the second sentence is "Liesel and her brother, Werner Meminger.", which isn't even a full sentence. Many of the paragraphs have extremely short sentences, which aren't exactly fit for Wikipedia. In conclusion, the section looks like it was written by a third grader, so there should be an overhaul. 121.131.24.1 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

revealing the end AGAIN

"i am haunted by humans" is a huge spoiler!!! those are the last four words of the book!!! why is this in the wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2D00:5FC:8D46:D6FC:4C58:6DAD (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I am haunted by humans" is five words. Also, Wikipedia is not written to be a spoiler-free encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.108.81.43 (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Honors English 250HV10

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 28 October 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samhi60 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: FrzIce, Fall2022.

— Assignment last updated by Fursheep98 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Random quotations

Random quotations littered throughout the article hinder reading and clarity Notseans1 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Book_Thief&oldid=1255342014"