Talk:The Plague Dogs (novel)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Rowf page were merged into The Plague Dogs (novel) on June 9, 2005. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The contents of the Snitter page were merged into The Plague Dogs (novel) on June 9, 2005. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Peer review[edit]
 | The Plague Dogs (novel) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
If anybody could add something more, I'd be happy ^^;
I don't think it's necessary to have separate pages for the two dogs - they're unlikely to be searched for directly. I'd integrate their stories with the main page. Also, your descriptions could lose a few subjective adjectives - "poor dog", "miraculous" etc.
More facts about the book would be nice if you can find any. From what I can remember of it, I'd be surprised if it hasn't been championed by animal rights activists, condemned by companies that carry out animal testing, etc. Rls 13:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:RichardAdams ThePlagueDogs.jpg[edit]
Image:RichardAdams ThePlagueDogs.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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Book v. Movie[edit]
I don't think this article should integrate stuff about the movie, it shold cover the book and only the book. A list of differences between the book and movie really belongs on the movie's article, since it was based off of the book. If the article is really so short that we have to add stuff that should be in other rticles, we are doing something wrong. Magicallydajesus 04:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Basis in reality?[edit]
Adams based the book's research station on a real farm. This may be sufficiently notable to refer to, but it is not the films "Basis in reality", which conveys an entirely different meaning.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Black milk[edit]
Can anyone think what the "black milk" is, referred to repeatedly throughout the book, that's "kept upside down in a bowl on the ceiling"? I can't work it out. Of course, it may be purely imaginary, since it's only ever described by Snitter. Wombat140 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Is "fantasy" the right category?[edit]
I don't think this book should be classed as fantasy. Nothing supernatural happens in it, with the exception of the ghost chapter and a few things in Snitter's hallucinations which he apparently couldn't have known (but at those points the book is being so "experimental" that I'm not sure it really counts - it almost seems to abandon the idea that any of this is "really happening" in those passages). You might say that it's not proven whether or not dogs are even capable of conscious thought and hence of being point-of-view characters, but there's no particular reason to think they're *not* (in fact, the evidence seems to be stacking up in Adams's favour). I'd have described it more as a thriller, in which the protagonists happen to be dogs. If you did classify it as "speculative fiction" on the grounds that he's only speculating about what a dog's view of the world might be, then I'd call that science fiction - speculative psychology, which might or might not turn out in future to be true. "Fantasy" implies that what happens in it is meant to be impossible or supernatural, which is not the case.I've gone ahead and edited accordingly. By the way, I've finished the infobox (all that was lacking was identification of Wainwright as the illustrator), but not being a Wikipedia regular I diidn't know whether I should remove the tag or not. Wombat140 (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)