Talk:The Sun Also Rises

Lead

"A year later, in 1927, the British publishing house Jonathan Cape published the novel in England with the title of Fiesta." Maybe "in the United Kingdom"? TGilmour (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks ok to me: Cape was based in London. But, if "in England" confuses the transatlantic, maybe just take it out.--Wikiain (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

We decided to keep it in because it needs to be clear that Cape is in London/England. I think TGilmour is asking if it should be United Kingdom. England is prob fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How about "London publisher" and then remove "in England"? --Wikiain (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello all

I have removed the following sentences: "The basis for the novel was Hemingway's trip to Spain in 1925. The setting was unique and memorable, depicting sordid café life in Paris and the excitement of the Pamplona festival, with a middle section devoted to descriptions of a fishing trip in the Pyrenees." It isn't clear whether it's supposed to be the novel or Hemingway's 1925 trip to Spain which was unique and memorable. (Critiques of novels are usually written in the present tense because novels exist here and now.) In any event, this is just an editor's POV, as is the idea that Paris café life in the 1920s was sordid. (Unless it means that Hemingway depicted expatriates acting in a sordid way in Parisian cafés.) The information about the basis of the book fits better in the sentence about the novel being a roman à clef. The sentence about the writing style fits better after the sentence about the themes of the novel. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it's changed since it was first written. That said, as you've written it is nice. Thanks for posting about it. Victoria (tk) 22:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Infoboxes are not required or mandatory. Telling us that the book was published in 1926 by Scribner's isn't giving any information not easily found in the lead. It's been boldly added, I've reverted, now per WP:BRD, it's time to discuss. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I support having it. TGilmour (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Superfluous for this artice, imo. I realsise this this is largely a matter of preference, but I'd be inclined to give say to the primary authors. As I would if there was disagreement on citation style etc. Ceoil 21:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No requirement for infoboxes and the lead already gives all that information. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The metalinguistic construction of the infobox is often found in juxtaposition with, if not in direct opposition to, the reintegration of materiality. The localized infobox culture generates the discourse of dissimulation. In summary, the systemization of infoboxen does not foster the reinscription of praxis. (Writing help courtesy The Virtual Academic.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Riggr Mortis. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per above...Modernist (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I just pondered on it and concluded that infobox is really excessive for this article. TGilmour (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this cancer that seems to be metastasising throughout WP. Tony (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support having an infobox. I guess this is actually a settled issue for this article, but I don't understand the rationale for not having it for this article when it is so nearly universal for the novel category. One advantage is that it is much easier to scrape the data, and I think there is value in that. Mark Foskey (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support having an infobox. Many other very notable and famous books listed on Wikipedia have a book infobox. It makes perfect sense and helps summarize the contents of the novel and other Hemingway novels such as The Old Man and the Sea already have an inbox. Eric Carpenter (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Sun Also Rises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408171529/http://www.kcstar.com/hemingway/ehstarstyle.shtml to http://www.kcstar.com/hemingway/ehstarstyle.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

First edition dustjacket

I've removed File:The Sun Also Rises dust jacket.jpg, added in this edit, visible here in the publications section. On my monitor it breaks the formatting. It's nice to have the entire dust jacket, but I'm not convinced it's necessary on this page - I've never added front/back dust jackets to any other literature pages - but if it can be formatted better have no objection. Any ideas/comments? Victoria (tk) 00:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)