Do u say a hallucination or an hallucination? Cuz I'm a wee bit confused after reading Fear Street: Don't Stay up Late, where it is referred to as both a hallucination and an hallucination. So, can both articles be used? Thx:)
I've seen it used as a noun/adjective so much. Like, "She is Italian." "She is twelve-years-old." I understand what you're saying though, and I just googled, and both ways are right, so I'm fine with whatever you want to do.
> Do you say "straight, black hair" or "straight black hair"? The latter looks nicer, but I've never been sure.
It should be "straight, black hair."
It's about modifying. If both adjectives modify the noun, you need the comma. "ugly, yellow teeth." The teeth are both ugly and yellow, so the comma is needed. "Straight" doesn't describe "black." It describes "hair," so there should be a comma.
"Dark brown hair" doesn't need a comma because dark modifies brown, and brown modifies hair. Even though the hair is dark, what's being said here is the brown is dark. You can also have "dark, brown hair" because the hair can be dark and brown.
We should cut him some slack anyway. I'm pretty dang good at grammar and you've corrected some of mine here. I don't ever take offense because no one can be grammatically correct all the time. There are way too many rules, and they're constantly changing.
The things I am hard on people for are run-on sentences, sentence fragments (sentences without verbs), and homophones (they're/their, your/you're, it's/its, to/too/two). Those are all things that never change that we can all learn to use properly.
>The Summoner is a literary example of deus ex machina, which translates to "god from the machine." In literature, deus ex machina is a device that comes out of nowhere and solves a seemingly impossible problem.
I guess I have a few problems with this. First, it's not really "deus ex machina." (Maybe it would be on TV Tropes.) Don't get me wrong, it's unbelievably convenient, but it's also set up early in the story. Merriam-Webster qualifies "deus ex machina" as something that "appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly" to save the hero.
Second, literary analysis isn't usually allowed on articles, as it's opinionated.
Lastly, and this is just a personal thing, I've never really seen the point of using much literary analysis on Stine's work. Maybe it's because I was exposed to the horrors of reading something on Wikipedia...
>I have considered your disrespectful comments towards my Scholarly Review article and, now that the Christmas holidays are over, I am obliged to let my anger with your remarks be known. I shall start with you, NatureBoyMD. NatureBoyMD, you reffered to my article as dubious. This is ironic, considering that you as a person are quite dubious. When I read your opinions of my article, I scoff at you. Your argument is so ill founded that I cannot even take you seriously. It is quite obvious to me, and all the memembers of the SGAS, that your dissatisfaction with the page citations is not an indication of the article's "dubiousness", but rather an indication of your ignorance of Goosebumps and literature in general. If you think people need a citation as to where the camera in Say Cheese and Die came from,, then you need to understand what is common knowledge and not. For instance, If i were to write that the sky is blue, or that the earth is round, or that MACman202 has no idea what he is talking about, most reasonably intelligent humans would agree with such widely known facts. Such is the same for Goosebumps and R.L. Stine. When I say that the plots "are masterfully formulated" or imply that R.L. Stine is brilliant, the majority of people recognize that the two statements are widely known facts. As for you MACman202, any notion what so ever that you have the ability to recognize fine literature "has to be one of the most laughable things I have ever heard" (NatureBoy, I included quotations in the last quote so that you, always one to want a citation for the obvious, will know that I quote this MACman202 himself). MacMan, it is quite bold of you to assume that there is so scholar behind my article. Perhaps you should stick to editing the Simon and Garfunkel page on wikipedia. I am sure you are quite familiar with it already. Tony Fox, you and NatureBoyMD seem to be on the same page as far as your inability to recognize common knowledge is concerned. To me it seems that you label anything you do not agree with as a "peacock term." I find this most repulsive, as I, like most free thinking, intelligent people believe that speech should not be censored because someone does not agree with it. You can take comfort in the fact that you are not the only one guilty of this unjust censorhip. MACman202 and NatureBoy are just as guilty. Each of you should devote, as I have, your mind to understanding the beauty and brilliance of Goosebumps. When you feel that you have researched Goosebumps as much as I have (it is very unlikely that you ever will) then you may suggest alterations to my scholarly review. Until then, your comments are not welcome, and they certainly will not be tolerated any longer.
>The Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society
Like, that'd be a fantastic copypasta. Also, the following comment has me dying:
>I think at the end, [username redacted] might actually turn out to be a robot or an alien or maybe a dog having a daydream.
...So... What was I talking about, again? Oh yeah, Between the Lions. What a good show.
Hold on, I think I was talking about literary analyses on articles. (Honestly, I was probably just looking for an excuse to bring back that Wikipedia link.) Stay spooky. ;)
I think it's hilarious he called his own article scholarly. I actually really enjoyed his scholarly article, haha.
When I first started these recaps, I had the same view as you about literary analysis of Stine's work. Then, I thought about it, and I feel like we are limiting the perceived quality of these books by not analyzing them. I think kids, especially reluctant readers, can gain a lot out of these books if they choose to look at them analytically. I want to be able to direct my students to my blog in the future and help them discover books to read, showing what they can take away from them. In the 12 books I've covered so far, I've found red herrings, foreshadowing, symbolism, and in this most recent book, deus ex machina.
Now, about that deus ex machina. I think it's up for debate. Here's what I wrote on my blog for why I feel it is deus ex machina:
Did anyone feel kind of cheated when Gabe held his mummy hand up in the air and saved his impossible problem? You should have. Deus ex machina, translated from Latin to English as “God from the machine,” is a literary device that is often frowned upon in literature. The idea is that something will come out of seemingly nowhere and save the day. These devices seem too random, and often, too convenient. The Summoner, the mummy hand Gabe keeps in his pocket as a good-luck charm is a classic case of deus ex machina.
I like the idea of the purpose the hand served. There is something cool about Gabe having an ancient artifact in his pocket, but how he came about it is too random. We’re told Gabe bought it at a yard sale for $2. An unknown boy sold it to him and told him it had powers to summon evil spirits. Where did that boy get the hand? Where did he get that information? Why wasn’t this explored more?
If we had more of a backstory on the hand, the ending of the book wouldn’t have felt as cheap. I get this this is a Goosebumps book, and these books are not generally deep, but Stine could have avoided the need for background altogether, and would have killed accusations of deus ex machina if he had made Gabe discover the hand in the pyramid. Gabe got lost twice in the pyramid. If he had stumbled upon the hand the first time he got lost, thought it looked cool, and decided to stick it in his pocket, the ending would not have felt cheap at all.
What we got, however, was Khala’s hand just so happened to end up in a yard sale in the States that Gabe, a boy who would become trapped in her pyramid, would stumble upon and keep as a good-luck charm. Nah. I’m sorry. This is too convenient. For that reason, and because this particular item happened to save the day, The Summoner is deus ex machina. It’s a cool piece of deus ex machina, but it’s still deus ex machina.
Early in the book when Gabe is waiting on Ben and Sari to arrive, he hears movement at the door and, without thinking, he holds his mummy hand up in the air for protection. He does it again at the end of the book when he, Sari, and Ben are in danger. What drove him to do that? Did the mummy hand persuade him or control him to a degree? Now that is interesting. We just get a cop out, “I don’t know why I did what I did,” answer and it’s not explored more. It’s a shame, because this one item had real potential to strengthen this book, but as deus ex machina, I think it harmed it.
As for your argument, the magic in the hand appears out of nowhere. Given the randomness of Gabe having the hand in the first place, I think it could absolutely be deus ex machina.
On a side note, I read some other reviews of this book after writing mine, and a few others have mentioned deus ex machina. I just noticed it on Blogger Beware today. That's not where I got it, but I think since more than one person sees it, there's a case for it.
I support its removal off the article. I understand how it could be seen as opinionated. I was seeing it more in line with calling Alicia a red herring in The Horror of Camp Jellyjam. Since you think not everyone will see it as a clear case of deus ex machina, it's definitely opinionated and doesn't belong in the article. :)
Thanks for the heads up instead of just removing it. I'm not offended at all.
I have considered your disrespectful comments towards my comment and, now that the Christmas holidays are over, I am obliged to let my anger with your remarks be known. I shall start with you, Yeerk. Yeerk, you reffered to my comment as dubious. This is ironic, considering that you as a person are quite dubious. When I read your opinions of my comment, I scoff at you. Your argument is so ill founded that I cannot even take you seriously. It is quite obvious to me, and all the memembers of the SGAS, that your dissatisfaction with the page citations is not an indication of the article's "dubiousness", but rather an indication of your ignorance of Goosebumps and literature in general. If you think people need a citation as to where the camera in Say Cheese and Die came from,, then you need to understand what is common knowledge and not. For instance, If i were to write that the sky is blue, or that the earth is round, or that [insert name of politician here] has no idea what he is talking about, most reasonably intelligent humans would agree with such widely known facts. Such is the same for Goosebumps and R.L. Stine. When I say that the plots "are masterfully formulated" or imply that R.L. Stine is brilliant, the majority of people recognize that the two statements are widely known facts. Sincerely, The Swain Goosebumps Appreciation Society
I think it's more of a Chekov's gun, as it is clearly set up at the start and the from the name of it, you can assume it summons something, which it indeed sort of does. It's a bit more than what we usually get at least.
I agree with that. While it's impossibly convenient, the first few chapters establish that the hand can summon "evil spirits, or something." Then, when Gabe is out of options, he uses the hand to summon spirits. The book even throws in this line to plug up what might appear to be a gap in logic: "maybe I was unconsciously remembering the legend behind the hand that the kid at the garage sale had told me."
Huh, that's really interesting! I might add that in. I've heard of Chekov's gun but haven't really explored it. Look at you guys analyzing Goosebumps like it's good literature. lol
I agree with GbA. My major issue with The Summoner is its convenience. It feels cheap and cheapens the ending. If he had gone just a little deeper with it, given it a little more substance... but ugh, I guess you guys are right. It's not as random as I felt it was. I'll amend my review.
I guess I'm too used to these books not paying/setting things off at at all that I noticed when something is indeed set up, even if is this thing that he got at a garage sale happening to really work is super contrived, he should have found it in the pyramid or something.
You exploited my one weakness: being an annoying pedant.
>he should have found it in the pyramid or something.
I'm consistently confused by Stine's writing choices. There will always be these little details that — with minor adjusting — could actually make sense. While the TV show is corny, the writers almost always improve on the story.
Come to think, I think that wouldn't quite work either because if it was just a random thing he found, the climax would be even more out of nowhere cuz we don't know what it does and it happens to save the day. Now that would have been a Deus Ex Machina. So I don't know.
I agree. That's actually what I asserted -- that the hand should have been found in the pyramid the first time Gabe got lost. He went to a museum with mummies before his second pyramid visit, so he could have taken it out, and a mummy could have *possibly* moved, responding to it.
Gabe: Did you see that?
Sari: See what?
Gabe: Its hand moved!
Sari: You're imagining things, Gabe.
Something like that would have been awesome and would have set the ending up to not be random. We should have just written this book ourselves. lol
Hey, so I always write short stories and I've even written a few books, and what u ppsted in the comments sparked an entire plot in my mind, so do u mind if I use it? I wont use all the stuff u wrote, but definately some...is it ok with u?
>It's been a while since I read this book, so someone check behind me, but trying to be more specific than "one of the main characters.
I don't know if "secondary protagonist" is really a title. Which is why I never liked using it on articles. We could technically say "deuteragonist", but I feel like using obscure words is unfair to the readers. That's why I simply say "main character" when referring to characters like Alex.
Ah, gotcha. "One of the main characters" definitely works for characters like Alex in that case. So for a standard book you'll basically have a protagonist, other main characters, and supporting characters on the "good" side and "antagonists on the "bad" side?
I was surfing through the character pages, and the roles were all over the place. We had protagonists, main protagonists, main heroes, secondary protagonists, supporting characters, and "one of the main characters."
Mark from The Scarecrow Walks At Midnight is categorized both as a Protagonist and as a Supporting Character. I think these characters who are second in importance or activity after the protagonist are causing a lot of confusion.
If you don't use deuteragonist or secondary protagonist, there is just one protagonist per book. Even though characters like Mark, Fergie, and Lefty are important to the books, I think they are all supporting characters if there is no middle role, since they are not the one protagonist. Books that have two protagonists are generally romances, where both main characters are equally important.
Oh, I've never read HorrorLand. I just now noticed and was looking at the Appearances section and was about to post on your wall about this. The Billy page only covers the Deep Trouble books and lists him as the protagonist of just three books. That's where I was looking. Maybe we should tag his page as "Pages needing attention" and try to push for some information on him from the other books he appears.
> In order to standardize things, we should try to limit it to
A main character
I like this a lot. I also think the Supporting Character category is subjective. I'm in favor of moving characters like Mark out of the protagonists category and getting rid of the Supporting Character category altogether because it does confuse people. "Supporting Character" can have two meanings, really: 1) "minor characters" and 2) any character other than the protagonist or antagonist(s). Did someone make a special case for having that category?
>I could be mistaken, but were you the one to suggest that category?
Nope. I looked back on your wall to see if I had said anything that made you think that (wasn't hard because I've only been here since last December), and found a categories rant I made (if you look on your wall, go 7 pages back). It seems like "Supporting Character" used to be called "Secondary Protagonist." I don't remember those details now. I've even been writing "secondary protagonist" on some of my pages, lol. Shows how bad my memory is. Anyway, back then, I said:
Previously, "secondary protagonists" was a category for the "next most important" character after the protagonist. Fergie, Mark, Elliot, Andy. I didn't like the name, but used it because that's what the community had been using. I agree with the name change to "supporting characters," but I wish it had a restriction set like, only "next most important" characters or something. The problem is every character that is not the protagonist is a "supporting character." Why have a category at all?
You replied and said:
Maybe we should implement a "Minor characters" category. Then we could add a description to that category that says a character is either secondary or minor (or neither).
So nope, wasn't me. I've always said if there's no distinction between secondary and everyone else, we don't need the category at all (cause anyone who is not a protagonist or antagonist now falls in it). But! Did discussion move past this point for "Minor characters?" If readers/editors want a distinction between characters like Mark and Fergie and minor characters like Mom and Dad Alicia from Camp Jellyjam, that might be a good way to do it.
Evan is a normal boy. In fact, he is the normalest boy you could ever imagine. He likes being normal and doing normal things. His normality is a staple atrribute in his normal demeanor. #NormalHuman #JustLikeU
You just made me spit out the Diet Dr. Pepper I was drinking. lol
I'd be okay with it if Stine emphasized his normality in the books, but the statement is subjective at best and sterotyping at worst. Whoever wrote that originally went to town with it and listed things boys should like. I think Andy might fit the stereotype of a normal boy more than Evan. ;)
Hey dude, thanks for the edits on the Jonathan Chiller page. I think you were right in reverting my edits, I just thought 'a big old man' sounded a little vague, and in England we also use commas in lists to seperate the adjectives. Thanks. Cackles21 (talk) 20:01, August 5, 2018 (UTC)
Hey. I'm not sure what commas you are referring to, but we do that in the States sometimes, too, like, "his ugly, rotten tooth." One isn't needed between big and old in "big old man," though. I'm not sure why that is. I guess "big old man" is just a cliche phrase or description we all have heard.
The reason I reversed your edits wasn't because you removed the word "big," but because your edit created a new grammar mistake.
"He wears old-fashioned square glasses (the glasses for some reason were absent when Jonathan was seen on the cover of The Horror at Chiller House), as well as having a gold tooth."
That latter bit just sounded awkward, and I went to correct it and make that part its own sentence, but then I noticed that it was already its own sentence before you edited it and you moved the sentence. I didn't know if you thought "big old man" was bad grammar, either. It was just easier to undo the edit.
You were right to split the run-on sentence, though, so I did fix that back and credited you.
I hope I didn't offend you! If Jonathan Chiller is not described in the book as big, feel free to remove that again. I'm not super familiar with the book or character (haven't made it that far yet), but from your edit notes, you were correcting grammar, not content issues, so I thought maybe you thought "big old man" was incorrect grammar, which it is not.
Yeah, sorry. I just thought "big old man" wasn't the most clear sentence, sounding a bit strange. I think Jonathan Chiller did have a pot belly but wasn't particularly large otherwise, not even that tall. I'm very sorry, you're probably older and know more than me. Bye.
You should edit the page and go into more detail about his appearance like you did here if you feel stongly enough. Your description on my wall is much better than "big old man." Look, I simply reverted your edit because you said you were correcting grammar and there was nothing wrong with the grammar you edited, and there were grammar issues in your edit. I honestly believed you thought "big old man" was bad grammar. You didn't delete "big" and replace it with more accurate info (like the info you wrote on my wall here). I'm not an admin here, so this is purely advice and not instruction: If you think a sentence isn't clear, replace it with something more clear rather than deleting it. Someone thought it was important enough to add.
No need to apologize, and I don't know more than you. I clearly stated I am not familiar with the character or book and just wanted to help. You obviously do know about the character, so you know more than me in this case.
I hope you are not offended. All of us have our edits corrected. I added something to Night of the Living Dummy the other day that GbA removed because he didn't think it was exactly accurate. I didn't get offended because he explained why he edited my edit. Wikis are community projects worked on by a lot of people. I was honestly just trying to help you. :)
So, I’m an English major. I intend to teach middle School English. I analyze literature regularly leisurely, at school, and professionally. I look for literary elements naturally when I read.
As much as I love Goosebumps, I recognize they are flawed (some heavily-flawed); those entries in the series that aren’t flawed surprise me in a good way. Because of this, I don’t want to compare Goosebumps or hold Goosebumps to the same standards I do other books, because it would ruin my enjoyment of them.
I hope that makes sense and doesn’t seem like I’m being overly critical of the series. Like I said, I love this series. Troy Steele at Blogger Beware heavily criticized the books because he held them to the same standards as other books. I recognize my love for this series is fueled by nostalgia and I’m going into the series again knowing and accepting from the beginning that they are flawed. That’s the difference, and it’s why I wrote that rule for myself.
Hi. I noticed you had some trouble editing a page's infobox. I "fixed" anything that seemed wrong to me. By that I mean that I added a link and made the mom's name go on a separate line. Now you can just edit the infobox without changing anything, to see how I did it. If you have any further questions I'll be happy to help, however I will need to sleep in about an hour, so apologies if I don't reply soon enough.
I didn't want to start another thread, so I'll just post my message here. I noticed that you uploaded images onto the pages you created, however many have logos and/or other characters fully featured in them. I uploaded cropped versions of some for you. I'm not sure if you don't know how to crop, but I just use https://www.befunky.com/create/ to crop my images. It's free and (I've found) it's the easiest website to use. Hope this helps!
I can crop with Adobe Photoshop. I thought about cropping the picture of Mark, but didn't want it to be a smaller width than the infobox. I was hoping someone knew of a better picture of Mark all around.
Okay! You probably know way more than I do. XD Usually I search online for images and most of the time they're pretty plentiful. However in some instances that's not the case. Luckily I have Netflix to screenshot images from an episode when I need them.