Talk:A Wizard of Earthsea/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 07:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this on. And I see congratulations are in order! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Chiswick Chap: thank you, and thanks also for very detailed suggestions. I'm travelling right now (I hadn't expected this to be picked up immediately!) but I'll start implementing your suggestions when I get back to a good connection on Saturday or Sunday. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say "no hurry" for other reasons, but if you're travelling there's double reason for allowing time. No worries! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• The order and structure of the main sections feels slightly counter-intuitive. The first section might naturally give the "Context" (or "Background") of the writing of the book, which would logically begin with a brief account of Le Guin's earlier work (especially The Word of Unbinding 1964 and The Rule of Names 1964, which include some of the same themes and characters): both need to be mentioned.

I've mentioned both these: was there more detail you wanted about the background specifically?

• "Setting" would then be a subsection, possibly the first one, of a section about the "Book" itself, which might contain subsections for "Setting", "Plot", "Map" (or "Illustrations", to include the cover), and "Publication history" (which should include a possibly more detailed discussion of the "trilogies"). This leaves a separate main section (outside the "Book" section) called "Reception".

• The Plot section is currently rather too long for the article.

• I'll work on trimming it.
• Trimmed it some: let me know if you have further suggestions.

• I am open to discussion on the need for an introduction to the major characters. I see a brief list of them was recently deleted; I'm not convinced that simply having a link to the list of characters is sufficient, and would favour having a brief list back. Perhaps we should however have a short section on the characters, given that some of them recur through the "trilogies".

I did think about this, especially as I have included "characters" sections in some other articles I have written. I decided against, though, because unlike with other works by this author, Ged is the only character from this novel to receive any significant critical attention, and the book is very heavily focused on him: so I'd rather not.

• We should wikilink the major characters' names, Ged, Ogion etc to their Earthsea articles.

done

Specific comments

Settings section

• "The Hardic peoples are a dark-skinned people to whom most of the characters of the story belong" could be better worded. Something like "Most of the characters are dark-skinned Hardic people."

done

Themes section

• The role of Le Guin's Taoism in the book needs to be discussed. E.g. Jan Griffin writes "As a self-proclaimed Taoist ( American, p. 546), LeGuin manufactures a world based on two of the main principles of Taoism: 1) the theory of inactivity in which one acts only when absolutely necessary, and 2) the relativity of opposites which is the belief that opposites are interdependent, and their interdependence results in the equilibrium". Since this is a major theme, it should get a subsection to itself. I'd suggest that a cited example is given of each of these two principles.

• I'd suggest using and wikilinking the exact phrase "True names" as the title of a Themes section, as it's a major theme. That would make "Equilibrium" a Themes section on its own (separate from "True names"), which seems appropriate given its importance in Taoism. This might perhaps subsume the "Human evil" section, which is largely about Equilibrium.

• You have mentioned race/skin colour under Style and structure. Perhaps this theme too deserves a named section within Themes, rather than being in the Style and structure section.

I'm not sure about this. I thought about putting in the themes section, but it has received very little critical attention. All the folks that mention it cite it as part of Le Guin's subversion of the "standard" fantasy genre, so they are describing as a technique, much more than a theme (I think).

• Ged's Shadow is a major theme, arguably the central one. At the moment, mentions are scattered across all three Theme sections. I think it deserves to be addressed directly in a section of its own.

Again, not sure I'd call this a theme, but a character used to show many themes: balance, coming of age, etc. I'll think more on this, though.

Some critics definitely consider it so. By the way, the mention of the shadow in the context of Jungian psychology ought to link to Shadow (psychology). If Le Guin really hadn't heard of Jung at the time, the similarity is all the more remarkable.

added link.

Thanks. I really don't think the shadow that accompanies Ged throughout the book can be called a "technique". The whole tale could be said to be about one man and his shadow, after all.

Well, perhaps "technique" is the wrong word, but it's a character, not so much a theme. I went back through the source material, and I can't seem to find stuff discussing it as a theme: the shadow is used to discuss the notion of equilibrium, etc. The closest thing to a discussion of shadow as a theme is the mention of similarity to Jungian thought, but this is never done in any significant depth. If I were to create a sub-section for shadow as a theme, it would be a cobbling together of content that is already in other subsections: there isn't anything more to add. Vanamonde (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It's so pervasive that it affects all the themes, I see.

• Incidentally (not a GA condition), there is a redirect from Gebbeth which currently points unhelpfully at Earthsea (disambiguation)#Gebbeth (there's no such subsection). Perhaps it could redirect to A Wizard of Earthsea#Shadow, if you happen to make that section mention the Gebbeth, which appears necessary in any case. The old, uncited text is available at Gebbeth (2009).

Publication section

• The Publication section should give some detail on (the number of) later editions of A Wizard of Earthsea, including the fact that it has remained in print up to 2016.

added some info

• It would be nice to give some idea of total sales.

It would indeed, but as I found with The Left Hand of Darkness, a good estimate of sales is really really difficult to come by. There is a recurring rumor that the Earthsea series as a whole sold many million copies, but this is not repeated by a single reliable source: it seems to come from a fan review or something, and been merrily copied by everybody on the internet. I'll keep looking, but we can't count on this.

Often the way. It's an odd thing, as the publishing industry all know how everybody else's books have done, but the actual data don't seem to get properly, er, published anywhere. Still, it would be nice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Illustrations section

• There seems to be doubt about whether the book was illustrated, so whoever wrote the footnote in the article presumably did not see an early edition of the book. Robbins created a set of illustrations in 1968, including a compass-like roundel with nine circular rune-like symbols for the title page (not in a rectangular frame); the maps (whole and as details); and a woodcut-like image (pure black and white, no halftones) to head each chapter; the images were used in the 1968 Puffin (UK) edition (I have it in my hand) as well as in the Parnassus Press edition. Every chapter has as stated an illustration, drawn in a rectangular frame, as follows:

• 1 Warriors in the Mist has an island, presumably Gont, with a figure with hood and staff, and a goat on a hilltop.
• 2 The Shadow has a Viking-like longship with swirling winds over swirling waves with a line of scaly fishes.
• 3 The School for Wizards depicts a set of buildings with high stone towers inside a wall with a small door.
• 4 The Loosing of the Shadow depicts a man with a chameleon-like animal on his shoulder: he and it are black; he is wrapped in white, seemingly in cloths wound about his legs and head; he sits under a tree.
• 5 The Dragon of Pendor shows a winged, scaly dragon.
• 6 Hunted shows a roundel inside a rectangular frame; around the roundel are a bird, a boat, and a wizard with a staff, and a curlicued symbol.
• 7 The Hawk's Flight shows a white building with a tall tower on a mountaintop: a hawk with wings outspread occupies the foreground.
• 8 Hunting shows two dolphins amidst waves, on which a boat rides.
• 9 Iffish has a butterfly in a much-branched bush.
• 10 The Open Sea features a man with black skin standing with a staff in the stern of a small sailing boat, which has eyes either side of the bows; he wears a cloak. Waves and sky swirl around and above.
• The book ends with a single page (a postscript), topped with an unframed image, a jagged line, unexplained, with a fork at the left, a curl at the right, two points above, three points below. It might be a reptile-like animal, perhaps, or a symbol of some kind.

Some account of these images, as well as the Parnassus Press cover and the map(s), should be given in the article. If you email me I can let you have a working copy of the images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, the footnote is clearly in error, and I have removed it. I agree that having an account of these illustrations would be ideal, but I'm not entirely comfortable providing it myself, given the artistic liberties that have been taken with the illustration; and I cannot find any reliable coverage of them whatsoever. The little coverage that exists is on blogs, like [1], [2], or [3]; or on pinterest. I could provide a very bald description of each image (as you have done here) but it could very reasonably be challenged on the grounds of WP:NOR. What would you suggest? Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

We are allowed to describe a book, its plot, contents, and illustrations. Perhaps the best would be a) a very brief collective description (woodcut-like, black and white, nearly all rectangular, at start of chapters, thematic); b) a single image with NFUR and a more detailed description (say which one you want and I can upload it).

Okay, that sounds good. The edition I currently have does not have these images, but from my memory the ones that have the most obvious subjects, and are thus easiest to describe, are 3, 5, and 10. I'm sort of inclined towards 5 for simplicity or 10 for the image that best captures the imagery in the book, but those are personal preferences. What do you think? Thanks for offering to upload the image: image tags have never been my strong point. Vanamonde (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Inserted image with NFUR and a bit of placeholder text that urgently needs improvement and expansion, not least to justify the image! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Translations

• Some detail on the translations is needed, probably as a subsection of Publication. The book is available in languages including Dutch (Machten van Aardzee, 1968), French (Le Sorcier de Terremer), German (Der Magier der Erdsee 1968), Arabic, Polish (Czarnoksiężnik z Archipelagu, 1968), Spanish (Un Mago de Terramar, 1968), Swedish (Trollkarlen från Övärlden, 1968), and others including Chines, Russian, Italian, Japanese, Turkish, Czech, Hungarian. A complete listSome mention of at least all the 1968 translations is required; ideally of all the translations made to date. Take a look at WorldCat. It lists some 68 English editions, not necessarily all distinct. I see that a suitable list was deleted yesterday. This looks very much like instability, a reason for failing a GA; its deletion was surely a mistake. Let's have it back and nothing more said about it. If you want a reason beyond simply describing the book thoroughly, then consider that a list of translations demonstrates the international interest that the book aroused, and that the specific languages involved demonstrate precisely how far that interest reached.

I would not call this instability, given that it was one of many changes I performed when rewriting this article. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, but be that as it may I have restored the list, for now. Part of the problem is going to be sourcing: Worldcat does not claim to be complete, and there is no source I know of that lists all the translations. In any case, let's roll with the one we have right now, and I'll try to add as many as I can find. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Reception section

• The coverage of the book by critics - very favourable - is rather too light. The Reception section needs to cover more of the major critics; usage of the book (and series) in literature degree courses; and for balance, any negative reception too.

I haven't exactly set out to find only positive reviews: I just added everything I could find/access. I'll keep looking (I do have more stuff to add, but it's not particularly different in tone); if you know of a negative viewpoint that's been left out please let me know.

• The major critical themes probably deserve subsections. For instance, the "for adults, not just for children" theme for example deserves more detail with examples and justification.

• The mentions of George Slusser are slightly scattered and could with benefit be regrouped.

I've copy-edited this a little.

Legacy and influence

• Some mention, possibly a section, is needed to describe the book's influence on other books and authors (e.g. on David Mitchell), and books which influenced it, including Lord of the Rings (link gives refs). There are more refs in Ursula K. Le Guin#Influences.

I've added the Mitchell source, and will dig further for things that either influenced her or that Wizard influenced. I'm hesitant about the examples in the main Le Guin article, however, because those are very very generic, and I could write pages describing general influence on Le Guin: for instance, the "background" section of The Left Hand of Darkness contains a number of influences, but these are very different, because they are specific to the Hainish cycle. If I can find references anywhere to specific influence, I will gladly include it.

The 'See also' link would be better incorporated here (Le Guin's own opinion).

That's a good idea: I might just paraphrase that entire sub-section, as it is well written.

done

Sources

• The first two sources, "Earthsea" and "A Wizard of Earthsea" need to be cited in full.

done

Details

• Suggest authorlinking Ursula Le Guin in Sources section.

done

• The abbreviated form Wizard is used a few times, alternating with A Wizard of Earthsea. I'm not sure this is a good idea; it could easily be avoided by spelling out the name, or by using forms such as "the book".

Well, I didn't make this one up: the sources often use this. That said, I can see how it might be confusing, so I've made the change.

• "Ged flies back to Gont goes to Ogion," needs copy-editing.

done

• Bildungsroman should be capitalised throughout.

done

• The bulleted list in the Adaptations section should be flattened to text.

I could easily make the change, but surely it's more readable as it currently is?

As you like. On the whole I think text is better, and less 'magnetic' to cruft.

• Childcraft needs italics.

done

• Why is the performance of Tolkien's works mentioned under Adaptations?

• to make Inglis more interesting, I guess, but it's not very relevant. Removed.

• There should be an Awards section, which should list and cite all the major awards and their dates.

done

• "some similarities between Ged's process" - suggest deleting "some".

• done

• "terrennon" should be "terrenon".

• done

Summary of review

Well, we seem to be all done here. I hope you feel, as I do, that the article is now sharper and clearer for the review. I am glad to have been of some assistance, and I am happy to say this is now a well-deserved GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and thanks for doing a very thorough and detailed review. Vanamonde (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)