This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
novels,
novellas,
novelettes and
short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
"Anyone who has read
E. E. Smith's Skylark and Lensman series will quickly realise the basis of the book. In fact it is probably true to say that, while the book is
humourous in its own right, full enjoyment can only be gained by those who have read Smith's books and thus be aware of the original material which is being
parodied."
There's nothing very original about that particular piece of "research". Anyone who has read the books concerned is likely to come to the same conclusion. So I think that you are applying the "No Original Research" policy well beyond its original area of application. Sources are essential where there is some controversy but unless you disagree with the accuracy of the paragraph, I can't help feeling that you are asking for a source for the sake of it rather than because it's really needed. --
Derek Ross |
Talk19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Okay then. Try
this for size. In particular the review by "Helena Handbasket" (which I swear I did not write although I wish that I had. It's just that it's sooo obvious). --
Derek Ross |
Talk05:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I can confirm (as OR, sorry) that the book appears pointless on its own, even to a HH fan. (so that's why it wasn't funny)
Amcguinn14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I would say the same. I read this many years ago, and with absolute honesty, I actually didn't realise it was meant to be funny until I got about half way through it.
BobThePirate21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't have my copy handy, but Cheddite was not made from cheddar cheese. Think Velveeta - which is not cheese and can not be called cheese but is instead labeled as "pasteurized process cheese food" - and you will be closer to the mark. My own interpretation was that the book was lampooning Velveeta in an appropriately over the top way. (I also found the book funny, but that is immaterial).
64.252.142.245 (
talk)
02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Chapter 1: "Before the [platinum] mine had played out, the shrewd Chester van Chider had sold out and used the money to buy the tiny cheese works outside of town. By the addition of inert ingredients and
deliquescing agents to the sturdy cheese he had built a world wide market for Van Chider Cheddar and a fortune for himself. Though discontented radicals from the lunatic fringe often said his cheese tasted like rancid sealing wax, the public at large loved it, mostly for its deliquescing agents which absorbed water from the atmosphere so that after a few days, if you didn’t eat fast enough, you had more cheese than you started with." -- and with Cheddite being created from Van Chider Cheddar, I'd have to say that it clearly was made from cheddar cheese.
Idontcareanymore (
talk)
16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Notability
Oh dear. Every point that makes this novel notable and that explains why it is worth reading has been removed from the article. The article now consists of a list of uninteresting facts, true, sourced, and banal. --
Derek Ross |
Talk18:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)reply