Talk:Gothic stories

a lot of this is copied and pasted from the first footnote. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 06:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Which is why it's referenced. Much of the earlier stuff comparing the early 60s stories is referenced but I did go to lengths to re-write and research rather than copy. Also the first source doesn't cite any sources, I tried to source both the DW elements and the portions that define 'gothic' on fiction. --Tangerineduel 14:45, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Reads too much like an essay

A lot of work and care has gone into this article, but it still feels like an essay, or a work of general film criticism, to me. The first honest-to-God reference that's actually relevant to this wiki doesn't happen until the second section. I honestly think you could keep the first paragraph (well, sentence), cut grafs 2-4, and then launch into "Doctor Who TV Gothic". Lots of the rest of the article could be cut, as well. I think any graf that's not focused like a laser on Doctor Who and its sister programs should be gone. It doesn't matter to us what Jerrold E. Hogle thinks gothic is; it matters what Terrance Dicks thinks it is. The article totally fails to deliver a simple definition of "gothic story" from any resource valid to this wiki.

I think, too, that the article loses focus at the end where it confuses "gothic" and "horror" for the same thing. You're flat-out wrong to say that "in looking at the "gothic", it's also necessary to look at the role that horror also plays in the formulation of gothic stories". No it's not. The article is about "gothic stories", not "gothic horror stories". Keep on topic and the article will be miles better.

Also, some of the sources are, well, dubious at best. TVTropes? Seriously? That's not valid; that's like saying wikipedia is a valid resource. Just because it's not a Wikia wiki doesn't mean it's not just another wiki. And Kasterberous? That's just a blog, as is cathoderaytube. There are a few good sources in the reference section, but most of it doesn't pass muster.

This article just needs to simplify, get better sources, and stay on track. The article must be able to answer the question "What is a gothic story?" with valid DW sources, or there's simply no need for it.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 00:28:05 Mon 27 Jun 2011 

I disagree with this assessment. I believe this is one of the best written pieces on the WIKI. While it can, undoubtedly, be cleaned up a bit and better sources cited, it covers the subject admirably. Also, considering the historical evolution of the modern horror story, the cross referencing to the other genre is fully appropriate. In fact, it is that evolution and confusion between the two genres that makes the length necessary. Boblipton 00:44, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

I've just done a major grammar cleanup of this article, and I have to agree with Czechout's assessment. It does read just like an essay, not an article. It's an analysis of gothic/horror in Doctor Who. What's next, an essay about humor in Doctor Who?

Also, after reading and working through this article, I've come to the conclusion that the description of gothic literature is so broad and encompasses so many storytelling elements that you could probably find some gothic in every Doctor Who story. Shambala108 ☎ 16:49, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

I admit it is too wordy and looking at it now it's still too essay like. And CzechOut's right it does (well I) lost focus about half way through with gothic and horror. I seem to recall the problem was there isn't a very clear line between what is gothic and what is horror in DW stories.

It needs another hard edit to remove probably most of the intro and as Shambala108 suggests refocus the article on Doctor Who, Torchwood etc and as CO says get rid of the non-DW sources and basically re-write it so it's a wiki article rather than an essay.

I've thrown a cleanup tag on the page to highlight the issue. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:00, April 9, 2013 (UTC)