Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Horrible / Literature

Go To

[003] Nohbody Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
That said, I don\'t think it really qualifies for inclusion here. It\'s not a great work by any stretch of the imagination, but as a Clancy reader since about the PB release of RSR I think \
to:
That said, I don\\\'t think it really qualifies for inclusion here. It\\\'s not a great work by any stretch of the imagination, but as a Clancy reader since about the PB release of RSR I think \\\"horrible\\\" is too far... especially considering \\\'\\\'Dead or Alive\\\'\\\'. :P
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Considering the guy who made the entry for \'\'The Bear and the Dragon\'\' can\'t even get that basic, verifiable-in-10-seconds-with-Wikipedia fact I can\'t help but laugh at his/her assertion about research failures.
to:
Considering the guy who made the entry for \\\'\\\'The Bear and the Dragon\\\'\\\' can\\\'t even get that basic, verifiable-in-10-seconds-with-Wikipedia fact I can\\\'t help but laugh at his/her assertion about research failures.

That said, I don\\\'t think it really qualifies for inclusion here. It\\\'s not a great work by any stretch of the imagination, but as a Clancy reader since about the PB release of RSR I think \\\"horrible\\\" is too far.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Considering the guy who made the entry for \'\'The Bear and the Dragon\'\' can\'t even get that basic, verifiable-in-10-seconds-with-Wikipedia fact right, I can\'t say that I\'m all that trusting of the entry addition, even setting aside that as a Clancy reader since RSR\'s PB release I don\'t think it qualifies for SBIH. Great it\'s not, but that entry reads like \
to:
Considering the guy who made the entry for \\\'\\\'The Bear and the Dragon\\\'\\\' can\\\'t even get that basic, verifiable-in-10-seconds-with-Wikipedia fact I can\\\'t help but laugh at his/her assertion about research failures.
Top