Talk:The House of Mirth

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 6 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maev223599!.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Gambling

In reference to the article: Lily doesn't tell her aunt about her gambling debts out of "reverence for honesty". She makes up that story because she needs the money to pay back Trenor. "If her aunt turned such a stony ear to the fiction of the gambling debts, in what spirit would she receive the terrible avowal of the truth?"

Just out of curiosity, is her aunt really named Mrs. Peniston? 'Cause that's perverted. It was on the California STAR tests for juniors in 2006. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perversion is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, it's Mrs.Peniston.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article upgrading needed

Plenty of advice here - but bear in mind that this article is primarily about a novel, the Film adaptations if they is going to head in the direction of a fuller treatment should really have their own articles. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I created a page for the 2000 film, and a disambig page for the other film adaptations - AKeen (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the book report synopsis unacceptably weak, at least the first half. It uses the word 'sabotage' several times to gloss over the finer meanings of what's really going on. It's like saying the Book of Matthew is about a kid born in a barn who does magic tricks.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) it's a plot summary, not an essay on the "finer meanings" of the book. (2) if you see any errors, please correct them, rather than huffing here that you find it "unacceptably weak." Uucp (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Amateur analysis

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I don't want to go about deleting stuff I shouldn't, but this article is so full of high school analysis of the characters--isn't this a bit inappropriate? Shouldn't a brief and impersonal overview of the characters be enough rather than in-depth and opinionated analyses? I'm not sure the article really needs parts like, "Aside from personality and appearance, Lawrence really isn't much of a catch." OK Chickadee (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  -- OK Chickadee, that was the exact sentence I was going to point out!  (Plus I really think a careful reader would have mixed
 feelings about Lawrence, not just disdain for him.) And I agree with all that the article is far too long and too 
much like a book report.  Plus there's nothing on Wharton, where the novel fits into her career, etc, and barely anything about 
what critics have said about it.  Hopefully one of us will find the time to fix this thing up soon. 
--Robynebyrde (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reworking the character section to put in a more in-depth description of each character based on expert critics' analyses of the essential characteristics of each character important to the development of the plot. I have stayed away from personal editorializing and use Mrs. Wharton's descriptions as well to sift who the character is. The hardest one is Lilly because she is so multidimensional and conflict-ridden.

I have added detail to the plot so that it will not seem like a book report which it still does. Are there any objections to the changes in the character descriptions I have made so far?

I have integrated what critics have said about different aspects of the novel through citations and a series of notes that also bear citations. Boccherini1942 (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Improve Chapter/Book Synopses

This is one of my favorite Wharton novels, and I'm glad to see it getting more attention on Wikipedia. Would providing a more detailed synopsis of each chapter or each of the two books in the novel be appropriate or allowed? For example:

Ch. 1. The novel begins on a hot Monday afternoon in early September, 1900, in New York City. Grand Central Station is crowded with travelers and commuters. Lawrence Selden spots his friend Lily Bart in the crowd and wonders why someone in her position is not still vacationing in the country. Other travellers linger to look at the radiant Lily. The two have known each other for 11 years, and Lily is now 29. Lily is in transit from Tuxedo to visit the Trenors at their estate in Bellomont.

The two friends stroll out of the station and head northward on Madison Avenue. As they are in Selden's neighborhood, he invites her up to his apartment at The Benedick. It is somewhat risky for Lily to be seen entering a man's apartment, but she characteristically gives the indiscretion no thought for the moment. There, over tea and cake, Lily longs for the freedom men have compared to the constraints suffered by marriageable women like herself. Since her parents' death, Lily lives in the city with her wealthy paternal aunt, Mrs. Peniston, and her unmarried cousin, Grace Stepney. In this conversation, Lily is preoccupied with her marriage prospects, and in a somewhat flirtatious way states that Selden would not be interested in marrying her, and that is the reason why he does not visit her at her aunt's. He replies that perhaps it is because she does not want to marry him that he doesn't feel induced to visit. Lily replies that she already has enough suitors, and what she wants is a friend in Selden. She continues that people are saying that she ought to marry. Selden replies, "Isn't marriage your vocation? Isn't it what you're all brought up for?" Lily runs through her recent marriage prospect: a man named Dillworth, who was discouraged from pursuing Lily by his mother and moved to India.

While she smokes in Selden's apartment, Lily peruses his library and asks pointed questions about Americana, rare books on America such as one of her suitors collects. Selden knows she is seeking information about Percy Gryce, a wealthy single man who stood to inherit the well-known Gryce collection of Americana. After further discussing the requirement for women like Lily to marry, she leaves him for her train to the Trenor's.

On the way downstairs, she finds a charwoman scrubbing the staircase. The woman (Mrs. Haffen, who appears again in Bk. 1, Ch. 9), notices her and assumes she is the woman having an affair with Selden. Lily brushes past her, and as she reaches the sidewalk encounters an acquaintance, Mr. Simon Rosedale, who asks what she was doing visiting The Benedick. She tells him she was visiting her dressmaker. He informs her that he owns the building and didn't know there were any dressmakers renting from him. She refuses his offer to accompany her to the station and quickly hails a hansom to take her to the train.

Is this too much detail? Would it be better to break it into two parts to match the novel?

Thanks

Hi, are you still here? It is too much.Sklifnir (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have taken all the essential parts of what was suggested and put into one opening paragraph with citations.

Boccherini1942 (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot tightening

The 'Plot' section of the article has a lot of character description (Lily Bart, Lawrence Selden, and Simon Rosedale). Moreover the description contain events occurring near the end of the book, which disrupts the flow of the section.

I suggest merging the information with the 'Other characters' section, and streamlining those paragraphs. With the addition of Lily to the 'Other characters' section it could simply become the 'Characters' section. I'll implement this if there aren't any objections. Objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklifnir (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Implemented, the plot section has no character description as of now. I also think it is out of order and missing key events, but as I haven't read the book it is the best I can do. Sklifnir (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, I would suggest reading some secondary analysis of the book, and see if any of the major things which the critics touch on have any problems. You are doing absolutely the right thing for improving the content, especially in relationship to plot sections! If you are still looking at improving the article, I would suggest taking a gander at Wikipedia:MOS_(novels) and see what else you can improve, I am watching the article, so I will try to catch any big mistake you make, but I like you am unfamiliar with the novel itself, Sadads (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the first paragraph of the plot section and reintegrated critical elements of the characters necessary to build the plot. The first chapter of the book sets up the principal themes upon which the events will unfold so it needs a little more detail, but not the detail suggested by one of the contributors a while back. I have been scrupulous about the degree to which Wharton tells us that Lilly takes the kind of chances she took on accepting Selden's invitation to have tea with him in his rooms. I have used words and phrases in line with Mrs. Wharton's voice (e.g. use of French terms was very common in that era). When I first approached editing this page several weeks ago, any list of characters there may have been had been removed, so I put in a list of all the main characters with minimal description as a page saver. I have been adding depth to each one, one at a time. I am reordering them as I go in the order in which the character appears or has the deepest description. It has been a while (6 years) since there has been activity on this talk page, so I hope there are minimal objections to attempts to improve this article about a novel which is such an important contribution to early 20th century American literature.

Boccherini1942 (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Boccherini1942: Thanks for the revisions, I see you have been doing quite a bit of work, and I didn't realize that you were calling me to the conversation on this page. To make sure someone sees, try using the template {{ping}} which sends a notification to other readers, to the named reader to make sure that they see the conversation (instead of relying solely on the watchlist).

I really appreciate all the work you have been doing to refine the article. However, when thinking about the the current version of the article, it doesn't quite serve our readers very well: both the plot section and the section about the title of the novel, are very verbose and use quite a bit of WP:Original Research. Currently, the length takes an overwhelming amount of time to read, and would require understands a complex writing style. For our typical reader (someone who reads the article quickly on their phone, or to start a research paper), this might be too much plot, and not enough focus on the secondary materials (per my comment above). Wikipedia:MOS_(novels) has recommendations on how to place more weight on the reliable material coming out of WP:Secondary sources, rather than inserting unverifiable material that might mislead our readers. I would consider looking at the amount of emphasis and weight placed on different sections in articles like The_Return_of_the_Soldier, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, or The French Lieutenant's Woman. Notice how the focus is on how expert opinions reflect on the work, not so much in exuastive detail about the work itself.

If you would like help with the research and collecting that kind of information, I would be more than willing to help; you will find quite a few sources, readily available through Google Scholar. If you want more/quicker help (I have been quite busy lately), I would recommend finding research support at WP:Resource Exchange, and/or other support from volunteers working with new editors at WP:Teahouse. Let me know how I can help, Sadads (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sadads:Appreciate your time in writing this response RE: The House of Mirth article.

1. Yes, too much language in the Plot. Will transfer completion of Plot to Sandbox. Detail so far compensates for multiple factual errors in what appeared when I started. In what is left unedited in the Plot there remain errors in what the novel "says" and that causes misinterpretation.

First step: get the facts straight through a close reading Second step: abstract the essential flow of events. Third step: synthesize a very complex plot with "expert" differences in "how to read" the novel.

2. I have read the Wikipedia article on what constitutes OR and still not sure of what constitutes OR in my edits.

For example, my edit in the Title Section:

(a)"At the time the novel takes place, Old New York high society was peopled by the extraordinarily wealthy who were conditioned by the economic and social changes the Gilded Age (1870–1900) wrought."

Comment: This is not my interpretation and is mentioned by three sources so I did not think it needed a reference and I didn't consider it OR.

(b)"Mrs. Wharton's birth around the time of the Civil War predates that period by a little less than a decade."

Comment: It is a well known fact that Mrs. Wharton was born in 1862 and should need no reference. It should not be considered OR.

(c)"As a member of the privileged Old New York society,[e] she was eminently qualified to describe it authentically."

I have provided a footnote [e] with an explanation and reference to Carol J. Singley, one of the preeminent authorities on Edith Wharton's work in general, and The House of Mirth in particular. So I did not consider this sentence to be OR. Singley does comment in her introduction to her edited book, Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth: A Case Book, on Wharton's authenticity to write about N.Y. high society at that time.

Would appreciate your judgment, as a guide, on these examples.

3. Sources: Thank you for your offer to help on the sources. I have added substantially to the list of sources and know who the recognized scholars are. What I am not sure of are decisions on the categorization of critical essays that "read" the novel with varying theoretical perspectives. I consider those to be secondary sources. (?) Will go to WP:Teahouse.

4.Re: complex writing style- Contributions so far need to be copy edited to eliminate wordiness. Is that what you mean by "complex writing style"?

Or, should the level of discourse be changed? Example: Newspaper articles are pitched about at the fourth-grade level. My contributions are probably (unnecessary words notwithstanding) at the first-year college level. At what level should the level of discourse be pitched?

And/or is the vocabulary too "sophisticated" e.g., use of french terms (linked to definition) used in the source literature?

Thanks for the examples of articles to read. Boccherini1942 (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Boccherini1942: Sorry it took me so long to respond, busy with work, and haven't been doing much editing lately (kind of wish I was, but I am not). Some answers to thoughts:

1. The plot section is beginning to feel more accessable. Answer to 4 would help a lot here.
2. For your examples: a definitely needs a source -- anything that could be reasonably disagreed with, and/or is a specific piece of information that can be verified by a source, should have a source. B) is reasonable synthesis, and not original research. c) is a claim -- and needs to be backed by some sort of expert opinion.
3. As for secondary sources: those are the ideal materials for Wikipedia. When you add WP:Footnotes to these sources, and summarize the information and conclusions from those works, you help the public access that material or at least understand what is in that source. The best place to get help with sources is the Resource Exchange
4. I think, in terms of complexity of style: yes wordiness, but also long sentences, and the heavy reliance on passive voice (sentences that include "to be" or "to have" verbs + -ing or -ed). Passive voice in particular is very hard for English Second language readers have a hard time with complex verbs, and they are a large number of our readers who access english before other languages -- and long sentences and complex language are hard to read on mobile (which is reaching over 50% of our traffic on weekends). I generally try to keep my writing to upper high-school, lower college accessable because of our audience's internationality, but also the difference of depth between WP:Lead sections and the rest of the article.

I hope that helps, and I look forward to hearing from you, Sadads (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)