Talk:Rick Moody

Untitled

Author of the Ice Storm (1994)

Chris Peacock?

I'm removing this name until someone can provide more context than simply "classmate." He has no Wikipedia article, although Christopher Peacocke does. The name does appear in Podge and Rodge, but as an example of a double entendre, and Kellogg School of Management mentions it once. Googling for the phrase "chris peacock" with or without the phrases "rick moody" or "brown university" reveals very little. --Officiallyover 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

New Pornographers blurb

Don't know whether it's worth mentioning but the latest witty blurb for the album Together by The New Pornographers is attributed to Ricky Moody. See http://www.amazon.com/New-Pornographers/e/B000AQTF00/ref=ac_dpt_sa_bio OR http://www.amazon.com/Together-New-Pornographers/dp/B0039ZEM0W/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.126.1 (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Dale Peck review

Removing this material is a bad idea for two reasons: 1) Peck's review is, for better or worse, a notable event, as evidenced by the other material in the paragraph. Not including it in Moody's article would be a glaring omission. 2) Loading the critique section with only positive reviews while deliberately excluding a well known negative review is POV pushing. Not mentioning Peck's review at all is not an option, but perhaps we can work out a compromise version, with a more concise treatment of the material? --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war in progress over this review. Please stop reverting each others edits. If either of you feel this matter needs administrative review, you can post a note here. Thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen the review in question, but I agree that as it stands this seems like a bit too much puffery.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen it either. However, Moody is taken to task in A Reader's Manifesto, the publication of which is presumably a notable event as well (the linked article is fairly extensive). The 'critique' section would probably benefit from a reference to one (Peck) or the other (Reader's Manifesto), at least.

--

I just edited the criticism section, removing two sentences that are demonstrably false. The (anonymous) editor claimed that Peck "consistently made excuses." What Peck does is what any reviewer would do, in finding positive in a mass of negative. However, he does /not/ back track from his claim that Moody is the worst writer of his generation. He ends the review by writing, "All of which may be just a long way of saying that I hate Rick Moody's books, but there is always a moment in each one of them when I get mad at myself for hating them.

And then, alas, the moment passes."

Clearly, the alas is sarcastic. And what Peck's "praise" for Moody is essentially boils down to: "He sure can't write, but at least his heart is in the write place." The quote that the previous editor used to defend Moody is not so positive when seen in context: "And yet there is that urgency I mentioned before, the hysterical desire to be heard. For all its shrillness, Moody's volume strikes me as something more than the antics of a child needing attention. I say this as a fellow novelist: though he has never put together a single sentence that I would call indispensable, there is a true empathetic undercurrent in Moody's work."

I hope this demonstrates that the previous editors claims that 1. Peck does /not/ backtrack from his claim in the lede of the essay, and 2. Peck does /not/ praise Moody as a writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Moon (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability of every novel

Unreferenced praise has been included for almost every book Moody has written. I'm not sure this is kosher with WP:N. Thoughts? Vincent Moon (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The current section "Praise" should probably be trimmed by about half and merged with "Criticism" to a new section called something like "Critical reception" but I'm not familiar enough with Moody's works to do the trimming, not right now anyway. Also one or two mixed reviews could be added for balance -- like one about his short story collection Demonology, which I just ran across in NYT by a fellow author. El duderino ^(abides) 05:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)