Jump to content

User talk:Simmaren/Sandbox/Jane Austen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction

[edit]

The introductory section seems overly detailed to me (compare to William Shakespeare or Charles Dickens). IMO, the second paragraph should go, and most of the third. Clarityfiend 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guidance on lead sections (Wikipedia:Lead section) says that the lead section should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the topic is interesting or notable, etc. It also suggests that for an article of this length, the lead section should be three or four paragraphs long. [I've looked at a number of "FA" and "A" biographical articles of cultural and literary figures and they seem to have multiple paragraphs (not long ones) in the lead section.] The first paragraph, standing alone, tells why Jane Austen is important, but doesn't provide context or summarize the most important points or themes of the article. The importance and influence of Austen's family is the most important fact of her life, IMO, after the writings themselves, which is why I focused on that in the second paragraph. The third paragraph was an attempt to identify her key works. It may well be that I haven't done a good job with the second and third paragraphs, and I will go back to the drawing board to see about improving them, but something more than paragraph one is needed. I will start by removing two sentences in the second and third paragraphs that are arguably surplus, and move on from there. Thanks for your thoughtful reactions. Simmaren 23:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Do for "Life, Works, Criticism"

[edit]

1. Add Prince Regent episode and Plan of a Novel

2. Add History of England to Juvenilia

3. Rework lead paragraphs

4. Find and add new images -- Ideas: scan of the Walter Scott review, scene from Bath, England, Cassandra's illustrations for History of England

5. Add material re JA's mother, JA's religion and politics, Martha Lloyd

6. Consider spin-off articles: "Family Setting," "Juvenilia" (must disambiguate), "Character and Personality", "Writing style"

A few ideas

[edit]

Sorry it took me a couple of days to get around to reviewing your revision. I hope that you don't find any of my comments or suggestions too nitpicky. I'm glad to see that someone has taken on the task of bringing the Jane Austen article up to shape. :-) -Severa (!!!) 13:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General ideas

[edit]
  • The biographical information has been significantly improved over the current version of the Jane Austen article. As it is, it's well-researched, thorough, and interesting to read, but, if the goal is to nominate this revised version for Featured Article, I think it might need to be pruned a bit first, as it's on the long side. See J.R.R. Tolkien and Rudyard Kipling to get an idea of how familial backgrounds have been handled in FA-quality articles about other English novelists. I'd recommend creating a separate article for George Austen and moving a lot of the detailed information about Jane's family history there.
  • I think a sentence about Austen's History of England should be added to the "Juvenalia" section. History gives further insight into the satirical nature of a lot of Jane's work and introducing information on it would give pretext for featuring one of Cassandra's illustrations as an image in the "Juvenalia" section. I also think the collaboration between Jane and Cassandra on History helps to highlight their relationship.
  • A suggestion for another image which could be included in the "Adult Life" section would be Image:Thomas langlois lefroy 1855.jpg, a portrait of Thomas Langlois Lefroy later in life, based on other articles in which I have seen portraits of a person's close associates used to illustrate their article (e.g., Harriet Arbuthnot).
  • I understand that you've tried to tie image placement in thematically with the text, but, I'd recommend moving images to the tops of sections, if possible. This formatting seems to be the standard in other articles I've seen.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), only "the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings" should be capitalised, thus "Family setting," "Early life," "Illness and death," "Character and personality," etc.
  • "Lesley Castle, a story in letters" could be described as "an epistolary story," so as to link readers to more information on that particular genre of writing.
  • A few concepts remain without Wikilinks, namely Jane Austen's juvenilia, some of which have articles of their own (see Category:Novels by Jane Austen). Also unlinked: Tom Lefroy, Addison's disease, The Mysteries of Udolpho, A. C. Bradley, Ian Watt, Lionel Trilling, Marilyn Butler, and Edward Said.

-Severa (!!!) 13:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor copyedits

[edit]
  • Family Setting: "Rev Austen supplemented the income from..."
    • Period missing at end of "Rev."
  • Professional Writer: "...a better known publisher, who published Emma in December 1815 and a second edition of Mansfield Park in February 1816."
    • Italicization missed on Mansfield Park.
  • Works: "In spite of the lack of evidence, Honan des not agree that Austen was inactive during this entire period..."
    • Typo on "does."
  • Various sections: "1600's," "1840's and 1850's," "1950's."

-Severa (!!!) 13:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, suggestions

[edit]

This is an extremely well done, comprehensive article and such an improvement from the original. Great job, I'm very impressed! I don't have the time to go through it in great detail at the moment, but I will in the next few days. I will say for now, though, that there are a few cosmetic changes I would make, such as capitalization in headers as per the MoS ("Reception and literary criticism" instead of "Reception and Literary Criticism," for example), and perhaps listing the references in two or three columns instead of one. That's it for the moment, but I'll be back to give it a thorough read-through. María (críticame) 23:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

There is so much good information here and so much great detail, but I'm afraid that much of it is going to have to be deleted or moved elsewhere. Unfortunately, readers often want short and concise explanations, not careful, nuanced ones. We have to balance those desires with what we know is better. Here are my suggestions:

Lead:

  • I would like to reserve resolution of this issue until the article is farther along. See my response to Clarityfiend above for my rationale for what's now in the lead. I checked the lead paragraphs for all 19 biographical articles classed both "FA" and "core" (Austen is a core bio) and found that half or more are shorter, but some are as long (e.g., Darwin, Gandhi, Joan of Arc, Michael Jordan), and one is significantly longer (Franklin Roosevelt). One can make a good argument that the first paragraph is the only one that is needed, but I'm not sure that it alone does all of the things the guidance suggests should be in the lead. Simmaren 22:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detailed is different from long. I agree that Austen's lead is going to be longer than, say Mary Martha Sherwood (a bio I did recently), but the question is what information to put in it. I agree with you, though, that the question should wait to be resolved until later. I can never write leads until the article is "done". In fact, I can really never write good leads at all - they are very difficult. Awadewit | talk 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austen's work implicitly critiqued the romances and novels of sensibility of the second half of the 18th century and provided an early transition to the realism and seriousness of the 19th century English novel. - I would say that her critique is pretty explicit; also, the "realism" of Austen's novels is highly debated.
  • Her novels helped legitimize the genre, which before her time had been generally not respected by established literary critics. - I don't see how this can be true since here novels were not very popular when they were originally published. I think that it was Walter Scott who did the most at the time to legitimize the novel.
  • The two prior points: We should discuss these. I believe that these two sentences are a fair summary of the material referenced in footnote 4. Please note the careful (Clintonian-Cheneynian weasel words) phrasing: the first sentence casts Austen as a transitional figure, the emphasis in the second is on "helped." I've gotten rid of "implicitly" because your reaction confirms that I was too cautious in summarizing the sources. As for "realism," Duffy (who may be a partisan in a war I know not of) is clear about it: "Certainly she is one of the earliest and most distinguished of English realists....Her place in the realistic tradition, however, seems a matter of universal agreement." This was also Scott's view (and perhaps Whately's as well, although I didn't focus on that in describing his criticism - I'll check). The "legitimating the genre" comment is supported by Whately's critism in 1821. Perhaps the problem is that much of the material/criticism I relied on is old and has been left behind? However, it seems to be respected in the summaries of criticism in the various "companions" I used. Simmaren 22:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at your reference list. Throw Bloom out - his editorial publications are not really respected in academia. You basically have to already know the scholarship to know if he selected a representative sample of the work. The best "companion" is the Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. I am currently awaiting the arrival of my used copy before I start work on this page. Cambridge Companions are wonderful books for overviews. I think that I pretty much know the broad outlines of Austen scholarship, but the Companion will reassure me. Watt is old. He is known for perpetuating a realist theory of the novel that has highly influenced the field but has also, in the last few decades, been questioned by scholars such as Michael McKeon, J. Paul Hunter and Deidre Lynch. We must include him, but he should not be the basis of any literature article. (You can't know these things, really, unless you do a lot of work - your bibliography is exceptional for someone who is not in the field.) Awadewit | talk 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloom is out. I see many collections of critical essays with his name as editor in the library shelves, far more than he could possibly produce by himself. Science fiction critics use the term "sharecropping" to describe authors who exploit their own successful novels by hiring others to produce sequels and spin-offs. I wonder if that's what's going on here? Simmaren 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cambridge Companion is excellent. You might also want to look at Jane Austen in Context, which overlaps the Companion in coverage and contributors but is longer and adds considerable material. This is the last volume in the recent recent Cambridge UP edition of the complete novels. Simmaren 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about Duffy - I normally reach to be sure I still have my wallet when someone begins an argument with such words as "certainly" or "indisputably." :) Simmaren 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't rely on a comment from 1821 to justify the "legitimizing the genre" claim. That is such a big claim and Whitley was too close to the debate. We need more there, if that is indeed true; ideally, a contemporary source and a modern source. Awadewit | talk 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would delete the "Influences" from the infobox. Any important influences should be discussed in depth in the article and I have seen such box entries descend into edit wars. It is not worth that. I find infoboxes to be helpful only for factual information that cannot be disputed.
  • I am not interested in an edit war - from the discussion pages on the articles you've worked on, you've seen more than your fair share, and it looks tiresome. However, I suggest that we leave it in, for now. "Influences" is extensively sourced and well-supported. The category "Influences" is a part of the standard template Template:Infobox Writer, the topic is much discussed in some of the critical writings I've read, "Influences" can be useful information to Jane Austen "newbies," and it can be removed from the infobox if an explosion ensues. We have some time to think about this before the new material is posted. Simmaren 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can discuss further, yes, but I am slowly becoming more and more opposed to infoboxes (they are not required, by the way). I think that any important influences should just be discussed in the article. But, this is not a live or die issue for me, like it is for some people. You might look at this essay on boxes and tags - it is informative. (The "debate" on Mary Wollstonecraft's views on abortion was one of the most annoying - see here. Note also that that archive has an extensive discussion of the dialect of the page. I don't remember if your page was in BE or not, but if it isn't, either be prepared for someone to switch it to BE or to defend its AE.) Awadewit | talk 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions of information that can be moved to another page or deleted:

  • Jane Austen's family (suggested fork):
  • All of the detail on the family's finances - reduce it to a sentence or two and move the rest.
  • The details on most of Austen's siblings - cut and move the rest.
  • Forked and done. Simmaren 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her second oldest brother, George, did not develop normally and lived away from home for his entire life. - This sounds very strange - very 19c. If you include this information elsewhere, be more specific.
  • Geneaology should be greatly reduced - cut to a line or two and move the rest.
  • Details on family theatricals - Reduce to two or three sentences and move the rest.
  • Jane Austen's Juvenalia (suggested fork):
  • Do not discuss all of the "Juvenalia" - select the most important ("Love and Friendship" and "The History of England", perhaps?) A whole article could be written on this alone. There is a new book out just on her juvenalia, I think. If you want, I can get you the title.
  • I'd appreciate having the title, thanks. "Juvenalia" should perhaps be a spin-off article with much more detail than is in the section of this article now. One hesitation: a separate "Juvenalia" article should be comprehensive, but "Lady Susan" already has a stub article. Perhaps an new article covering "Minor Works" - the "Juvenalia," "The Watsons," "Plan of a Novel," "History of England." Worth thinking about. Simmaren 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think you could write an entire article on each work. There is just so much Austen scholarship and she wrote so little, that even these works get talked about a lot. I wrote a decent article on The History of the Fairchild Family with only a few articles and books. That doesn't mean a "Minor works" page, which discusses them all together as a set wouldn't be good in addition, though. So much work, so little time. (After search for a while, I finally found the book (I think) - here is a google books link. Partial view only, of course, but you can see the TOC. I thought it was only about Austen, but that is because I blocked the other half of the title from my mind. The Austen essays would be useful, though - I recognize the scholars' names, which means something, finally. :) Awadewit | talk 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce the description of Austen's family life as an adult. I love all of the detail, but it is simply going to have to go if you want to have an article encompassing all aspects of her life and writing. The page needs to be a bit more of a summary than it is.
  • The details provide flavor that both of us love. I've left some of the details in for now, with the thought that they can be removed or rewritten once we have a better idea what the final size of the article will be. There may well be room enough. Simmaren 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove some of the details of the move to Bath.
  • The "Character and personality" section should be drastically cut (sorry!). Any vital information should be integrated into the narration of her biography. It is very awkward to discuss her "character" separately from her life. Also, the section reads like a prose list.
    • No problem. I started this to answer a question that interested me, without being sure how it would fit in. What's there now is essentially notes gathered while doing other research. I'll integrate this information where relevant and discard the rest. Simmaren 12:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the details from "Works" are going to have to go. I would eliminate a lot of the publishing details first. Those can go on the invididual novels' pages.
  • I condensed the publishing information for particular novels as part of removing and reworking the "Works" section and will add detailed information later to the articles on each novel. I left in the footnotes some general information about the method of publication ("on commission") and the unusual size of her editions because this applies generally to all of her novels and is interesting. I think it important to give a sense of Jane Austen's (and earlier, her father's) self-confident willingness to take risks to be published. We can revisit this later if need be. Simmaren 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut from the 19c and 20c "Reception" section. These again read like little lists of "who said what." Try to write a more overarching narrative and then insert the quotations. I don't know if I would try to summarize Austen scholarship as part of the reception. The scholarship is the basis of the article. You might briefly mention it, but other topics are of more interest to readers and probably more important, such as the flare-ups of Austen mania in the 1950s and the 1990s (both around movies).

Organization:

  • I would suggest that you add more subheadings. I don't mind the long sections, but wikipedia editors seem to like short sections that are easily viewable on a screen and easily demonstrate the sections of the article.
  • The "Works" section contains a lot of biographical detail. I would move this information into the biographical section of the article and discuss the content of the works more directly in the "Works" section. (See Anna Laetitia Barbauld.) Right now, the section feels repetitive and doesn't offer a lot of new information on the novels.
  • I agree with your comment and suggestion. I started by following the organization of the original article when I should have reconsidered it at the beginning. I will work to combine and condense the two sections into a single narrative, with subheadings. I decided very early to limit my research and discussion of the novels to their writing and publication and not to discuss the content of the novels at all, given that we have separate articles for each one. I will move some of the publication details to the separate articles as you suggested above (which also need help, but that's a problem for another day/week/month). Simmaren 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the Austen novel articles need help. There should be a mini-Austen wikiProject or something. Unfortunately, I fear that it would only attract "Janeites" of the worst kind. Awadewit | talk 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need all of those categories for "Literary technique." That page will eventually be forked as well, I assume. I would focus on "Free indirect discourse" and "Irony." Those are the two topics always taught to undergraduates and I often think about wikipedia pages as undergraduate surveys. It has worked well so far.
  • Don't put important information in the footnotes - very few people them, sorry to say.

Prose:

  • There are some wordy sentences and sections of the article that use repetitious diction.
  • Many sentences have too many clauses, making them unwieldly and hard to follow.
  • It is generally not a good idea to repeat sentences word for word in the article that are already in the lead.
  • Watch out for colloquial language or language that a non-native speaker would have trouble understanding. Awadewit | talk 09:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS: You might just read through the basics of the manual of style and familiarize yourself with the expectations. That way you can head off a lot of nit-pickers.

I will begin adding material on her writing style and themes in a few days or a week. Awadewit | talk 09:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interim Status: Much remains to be done, but as of this evening the article is at 8,233 words of "readable prose," more or less, down from about 9,300 at the peak. Simmaren 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interim Status: As of this morning, after moving the text of "Reception and literary criticism" elsewhere and before rewriting that section, the article is at 3,947 words of "readable prose," more or less. Simmaren 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I'm sorry I haven't started yet. As I said, I'm awaiting my Cambridge Companion before I begin. One of the questions I have is, how thorough do you want to be in the "Works" section? Even a short section can be thoroughly researched. There are all sorts of levels with Austen. How far do you want to go? Ten books? Twenty books? Fifty books? We should probably set some sort of limit and then figure out which books we want to read and divide them up. That way, we both don't have to read all 10/20/50, etc. Fabulous work so far, by the way. Awadewit | talk 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to the "Works" section. I assume you mean either "Reception and literary criticism" (now spun off in bulk, but the replacement "overarching narrative" still needing attention) or "Literary Techniques" and "Themes." When this is clarified, I can react on the "scope of research" issue. The idea of splitting the work has great appeal. I'm not sure what criteria to use, but we can think about that. Simmaren 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Literary techniques" and "Themes" sections, sorry. I was just condensing in my head and forgot to uncondense on the page. I don't know about criteria, but I have a feeling it doesn't matter what we read. What do you think about both of us reading a certain amount and then perhaps sketching out, very messily, what we think needs to be included in the page based on that reading? By comparing the two outlines, we will find the points of overlap in the scholarship. Awadewit | talk 13:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't list anything in my original bibliography that I hadn't read. I appreciate your additions. You will be interested to know that I saw a reference to Lynch's book in one of your comments on an article on one of the Austen novels, and had picked it up at the library the day you listed it. I plan to read it and the Galperin book as well. Simmaren 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happily, my books have arrived! (Finally!) I shall be starting soon. Awadewit | talk 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading and bibliography

[edit]

I have expanded the bibliography a bit. Do you want to split up the reading? Just paste the titles below that you have already read or are willing to read. Many of the feminist works I have already read, so it might be best for me to take those, as I already have notes on them. Let me know what you think. Awadewit | talk 21:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Splitting responsibility, reading, discussing and back-and-forth sounds good to me. We've both read some of the books before and we should probably leverage that. I would be happy to take Butler, Duckworth, Jenkyns, Johnson, Lascelles, Litz, Macdonough, and Waldron, all of which I've read (and have access to) and some of which I have notes on, Irene Collins, and Koppel and Wiltshire (JA and the Body - fascinating topic) if I can find copies. I plan to read Galperin and Lynch eventually but won't do that now since I believe you probably have those well covered. Please let me know how this seems to you - your suggestion for the split makes sense to me but I'm not wedded to these selections and there may be something to be said for tackling unfamiliar material. Simmaren 02:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can take the Armstrong, Devlin, Fergus, Galperin, Gubar, Johnson (if you don't mind), Kirkham, Page, and Poovey. Of the edited collections, I can take Copeland, Lynch, Southam, and Todd (Cambridge Introduction). I won't read any of the biographies until I've finished with these, since you have already done such an excellent job with that. I think that is all of them. I will start reading! Awadewit | talk 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned Claudia Johnson in my list, but she is part of the feminist group and may be more properly on your list than mine. Let me know what you think. Simmaren 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have notes, too. Awadewit | talk 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to give some thought to the mechanics of collaboration. A concern: I suspect that I will have trouble keeping up with you once you get up a head of steam. Simmaren 02:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I have to read most of these for my dissertation anyway, which is like my job, it is hardly fair to make comparisons, is it? I can sit in my apartment and read all day with some justification. :) Awadewit | talk 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about posting little summaries of the books/chapters along with interesting quotations on a user subpage (either yours or mine). Once we accumulate all of the summaries, we can see the overlapping threads (hopefully), which is the most important thing to present, and then we can decide which of the non-overlapping interpretations to present. I've never embarked on such a complex page before, so I don't know if this will work. Let me know if you think it sounds helpful. Awadewit | talk 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've established a work page in my userspace for us both to use for posts of this nature:
Jane Austen Work Page
Feel free to play with organization of headings (if any), etc. We'll have to see what works. Simmaren 01:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book split seems fine for now. We can always trade later, or read jointly, as seems appropriate. I'm glad you're taking Southam Critical Heritage - I've been trying to get a copy of the book for several weeks, but it seems to be a target for theft in Chicago. I would buy a used copy if the price were more reasonable - $150 on Alibris for a copy in good condition is too rich for me. Simmaren 01:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you can follow what I've said about Armstrong. I did not elaborate as much as you did, so I want to make sure you can still understand what I wrote. Also, for some of the books I'm reading (such as this one), I am not going to give a true summary, but rather highlight the ideas that might work well for a wikipedia article. Not all literary criticism works well in an encyclopedia article. Is this acceptable? Awadewit | talk 02:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. I can follow. Each of us is recording notes in a personal style that works. You already know that I like to start with much more material than I expect to use in the end. :) (This is a habit that goes back to an influential freshman/sophomore high school English teacher I had.) I want to record possibly useful quotes because some of my sources will have to be returned to various libraries before we are finished. Simmaren 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It occurs to me that this work page will be useful when we start to argue with others after the replacement article is finished/posted. Lawyers have a concept called the 'weight of authority" -- this page will add gravity to what we have to say. Simmaren 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder what you think about embarking on the depressingly large project of fixing up the Austen novel articles. Once we have read all of this material, we would be in an excellent position to edit those. I would assume that we would have to read very little more. I am doing this with Mary Wollstonecraft's works and while I think that we might go a little Austen crazy, it is probably worth the effort. Let me know what you think. Having worked on Wollstonecraft, which is not as extensive as Austen, I can tell you that it is a big project, but perhaps with two of us (maybe we will acquire a third or fourth later), it could be accomplished. I find the quality of the Austen novel articles a travesty. Awadewit | talk 06:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indignation about the quality of the present "Jane Austen" article (along with the feeling that I could help do better) was a prime motivation for getting involved in this in the first place. I feel the same way about the articles on the individual works. The project is very very large, but can be done over time (especially with one or two additional reliable participants) if it is broken into enough pieces dealt with one at a time and interspersed with others unrelated. Simmaren 16:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're certainly correct that the work we are doing will take us a long way toward what is needed for the individual articles. I have been planning to go back to add the publication history/details to the individual articles. Simmaren 16:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm making time, but come the fall, my wiki-time will be much more restricted. I will start teaching again. I would like to read just about everything I have committed to for this page before then. We will see if that happens - it will be difficult. Awadewit | talk 13:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odds and ends

[edit]

Have you read Rudyard Kipling's The Janeites? Fun stuff. When you have a moment, you might want to listen to Claudia Johnson's lecture on Austen and war - it's quite interesting. Awadewit | talk 06:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • More seasoning - have you read Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair? (I won't link it in case you haven't). It's a fabulous mixture of historical novel, fantasy novel and science fiction novel (it's very hard to describe generically). "Books" and "characters" really exist in an alternate Bookworld. There are real "bookworms". I recommend it and its subsequent sequels for some fun reading. Awadewit | talk 21:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jasper Fforde is a great favorite at my house. All three of us have read the first four Thursday Next novels and will soon read the fifth. I think The Eyre Affair is almost perfect. My wife and son also have read the Jack Spratt Nursery Crime series, which they loved. Simmaren 01:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reading the fifth Next novel right now. It's refreshing after a hard day of Austen criticism! I also prefer The Eyre Affair to all of the other Next novels and have read the Nursery Crime series, which I think is better than Next2-4. Awadewit | talk 08:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now about one hundred pages into Next5 and am enjoying it. I mention t because I've reached the point in the story where the entire Austen corpus is in the shop for refurbishment, and Thursday has just seen off Lady Catherine. On Nursery Crime, my family would agree with you. Simmaren 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't read Marisha Pessl's Special Topics in Calamity Physics, you should consider it. It is, among other things, a great parody of academic writing, a coming-of-age story, and a mystery story (although it's not really clear until about the 80% mark that it is a mystery). The narrator/protagonist is a high school senior, the precocious daughter of an itinerant professor of international relations. It's very funny and also very sad. Simmaren 01:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I picked up Pessl's book after reading a review of it in the NYTimes. Unfortunately, I think that the review raised my expectations too much, because I was disappointed. For a parody of academic writing, I prefer David Lodge (Small World in particular) or Alexander McCall Smith (the "Professor Dr. Moritz-Maria von Igelfeld" series). Awadewit | talk 08:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

I just finished making a Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft. I wondered what you thought about making something similar for Austen. It is really quite simple - it only took me a few days. I think that an author of Austen's stature deserves a timeline. Awadewit | talk 04:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the suggestion, and am impressed with the one you did for Wollstonecraft. Would you add it as a subpage to the main article? It's a good way to provide context non-linearly, and helps those people who prefer to take in information visually. I would be glad to help, of course. Simmaren 11:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a lot more information on Austen and her family now. Since you are more familiar with the biographical details of her life, perhaps you could look the entries over and remove any extraneous ones. One benefit of leaving all the trips on the timeline is that one can really see how she was never settled, but the chronology is looking a bit cluttered. Let me know what you want to do. Also, one reviewer of my Wollstonecraft timeline suggested an introduction to the time period as well as to Wollstonecraft. I have yet to do that, but I think it is a good idea. We might want to do something similar here.
You have—still impressive. I will do review the entries as you ask. Is there a way to color code entries to help categorize them - travel, publications, family events, etc.? That could look even more cluttered, I suppose. Let's put a pin in the "introduction to Austen/time period" suggestion. It's a good suggestion but will be easier to write when we're closer to being done and can see better what's needed. Simmaren 19:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that color-coding might mess with red and blue links. We could add more fields, though. Instead of having "Austen", "Literature" and "History", we could have "Austen family", "Austen family travel", "Austen's publications" (although that would be pretty spare), "Literature" and "History". Let me know what you think of something like that. I've added a "to do" list to the talk page of the timeline so that we don't forget to rewrite the introduction. Awadewit | talk 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about more columns. The current timeline layout is attractive, legible, and leaves room for pictures. One more column might be o.k. but it's not obvious how we would split the Austen material into two categories. Let's try to make the layout we have work, at least until we run into a wall. Simmaren 20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novel title pages

[edit]

I noticed that all of the Austen novel articles use reproductions of the original title pages and google images seems to have slim pickings on that front. I can get images from the first editions of Emma, Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility at my library. I noticed that you live in Chicago - do you know if the Newbery or any university library up there has first editions of the novels? I don't know about you, but I find facsimiles just not quite good enough. :) Awadewit | talk 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went down this same path a couple of months ago with the same result, and feel the same way about using facsimiles when the real thing is available. I know I can get library use and borrowing privileges at U of C and will have to look into the Newberry Library and Northwestern (where I have some contacts through my job). I don't know what they have in their collections but I've been looking forward to finding out. This will take a bit of time bit of time. Simmaren 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry that I've been pretty much absent from the task for a week or 10 days - I've been overwhelmed unexpectedly at work and have also been also doing some traveling with my family (which will continue this weekend). My schedule will open up after Labor Day. Simmaren 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow!

[edit]

I'm so glad I found this sandbox. Here I was editing the current article without noticing this. Silly me. I hope it's okay if I join in helping. Stanselmdoc 14:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Awadewit and I are working on this one together (we have been collaborating since early July) and would welcome interested and competent help. Take a look around this page and the spin-off pages and let's discuss how to integrate your efforts effectively. At the moment, we are both reading works of criticism and posting notes that will eventually form the basis of a second part of the main article, now outlined only in embryo. See here: Jane Austen Collaboration Page I don't know whether this work would be your cup of tea. Awadewit may wish to add additional comments.Simmaren 22:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see from your userpage that you are a bit of a grammar hawk. That is excellent. We always need good writers! I, too, would encourage you to click around and look at our little project. I would suggest one of two things: 1) There are still many books to be read on both of our lists at the Collaboration Page: you could select some of those, read them, and provide summaries as we have been doing; or, if you are less interested in that; 2) wait a few months (I fear it will be a few months) until we have a rough draft and help us perfect the writing. We can make a note to ourselves to alert you. If something else strikes your fancy, though, just propose away. The Austen pages on wikipedia need lots of assistance. Awadewit | talk 23:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that Austen's pages were not up to Wiki's standards, and was saddened. Unfortunately recent events in the real world have eaten my editing time (a.k.a. I have a lot of work to do), so probably the best thing for me try would be to read some of those books, and try to get back to you. I'll let you know how it goes. Stanselmdoc 11:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Leads are very difficult to write for articles such as this, so I thought perhaps we should start reworking now. I noticed that you have discussed her works before her life. I don't have a problem with this, but as we are replacing the "Jane Austen" page, which is ostensibly a biography page, I wonder if we might run into criticism regarding that choice. (I have deleted quite a bit of material to give us more room to add in topics we address as we write the second half of the article.) There will have to be a paragraph on "reception", for example. Awadewit | talk 08:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Her novels display a concern with morality and with social conventions, although not always respectfully." The original wording, though perhaps a bit awkward, was intended to distinguish between "morality," which was one of Austen's major concerns and (I believe) about which she was always "respectful," and "social conventions," which she clearly did not always respect. The new wording is bound to come under fire. What do you think? Perhaps there's a better way to revise the original? Simmaren 15:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny point regarding linking

[edit]

You don't have to create a piped link when the only thing you are changing about a word is the initial capital letter. For example: [[Sensibility|sensibility]] can just be [[sensibility]]. I also delinked a lot of terms in the page as I was revising. The trend seems to be toward conservative linking at the moment. Awadewit | talk 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenilia

[edit]

Here are my thoughts on the current "Juvenilia" section - jotting down notes as I go:

  • There is too much detail for the casual reader - we need to make general comments about the juvenilia as a whole. That will also allow us to cut the section down and give us more space for other sections.
  • There are too many quotations from scholars - we need to summarize as best we can and rely on quotations only when the quotation uses particularly helpful language or when the scholar is particularly important. They did a pretty good job of this over at William Shakespeare. Awadewit | talk 07:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will take a look at the "Juvenilia" section as soon as I've put down a few more notes from works on my reading list. On scholarly quotes, I'll take a look at Shakespeare to see what they did. I tend to want to quote directly when I think the language is elegant, pungent or flavorful, but I can get carried away. There will be a subpage for the Juvenilia, so perhaps the quotes can appear more extensively there. Simmaren 01:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eventually, I'd like to start a new page on Juvenilia generally which can redirect to the JA page and other future pages. I haven't forgotten the book you recommended. A project for another day. Simmaren 01:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

infobox

[edit]

As the months have proceeded, I have become even less of a fan of infoboxes than I was before. They do not provide the reader with any additional information and, in the case of a writer, the information is not arranged in any sort of intuitive format, as it is with an element or a species. If, however, you would like to retain it, I would ask that we remove the "Influences" section. That field could be filled to the brim and I really do feel that influences are best explained in the body of the text, where they can be fully described. Awadewit | talk 08:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have now moved the image to the left-hand side of the page, per WP:IMAGE. (That way the portrait is not facing off of the page.) I have also sized it to "thumb". All images are supposed to be sized to "thumb" unless absolutely necessary to accommodate for user preferences and browser issues. See what you think. Awadewit | talk 01:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Left hand placement is better esthetically, so I'm glad you made the move and that WP rules agree. I didn't have time when I made the changes to finish all that I intended. The infobox allowed for a larger image, which is an advantage with the Austen sketch - the details in the sketch are hard to make out in a small size. On the other hand, some of my visual issues arise because I'm using a monitor with fine resolution [1,600 x 1,200] which makes things appear smaller than they would on most monitors. I'm fine with this. At some point, I'll make a similar change on the sub-pages. Thanks for taking the trouble when you weren't feeling well. Simmaren 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

[edit]

How wedded are you to the citation templates? I really can't stand them. They are so very restrictive. If you like them, we can use them, but I find it much easier to construct all of the citations myself. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not very. I started using them at the beginning because I had some vague idea that it was better WP form. If they are a problem, I'm happy to junk them. We can go through and convert them, over time. Simmaren 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to biography

[edit]

updates

[edit]
  • New reception "summary" is in place, although it needs to be more of a summary. :)

Draft of style section

[edit]

I am trying to work on a draft of the style section that we might have completed by the contest date. I think it would be good to have something on her works in the article. Unfortunately, I have this terrible flu right now. It is not easy to write. Awadewit | talk 13:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about your flu. I think you are working too hard, burning too many candles. I will try to look at this tonight - why don't you relax a bit and give yourself a chance to recover. I wanted to "talk" to you anyway about what we wanted to try to accomplish in the next week. What has been posted so far ought to blow their socks off when compared with what was there before, so anything we can do in the next week is icing on the cake. [I'm full of clichés tonight.] I don't think we should try to have a "finished" article by next Monday. [It already appears pretty finished, even if we have ambitions for significantly more.] We should make an effort on "style" but it's not terrible if that's not there or not finished next Monday. The contest judges want to see progress, not necessarily completion.

I've got my hands on The Child Writer From Austen to Woolf and would like to make a project of the Juvenilia soon. That would be a good spin-off article the absence of which next Monday won't matter at all.

Be well. Simmaren 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm always trying to do too much. :) We can talk in December about the other half of the article, too. By the way, I've read through our notes several times now - there is a fair bit on the juvenilia in there, so that should help you out. Awadewit | talk 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to divide my slowly increasing time between continuing my reading and notes for the work page (Litz is begging to go back to the library after five months!) and this page, for which I will do as you have done and start digesting the notes. Simmaren (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the outline you've prepared. When I've done some digesting, we can perhaps divide responsibility for some of the sections. Simmaren (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm thinking that this will become a spin-off article with a summary for the main article. Your earlier insight that this one would be long is undoubtedly correct if it's to be done the right way. Simmaren (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When we are done with this page, I'd like to keep it in being for a while to preserve the drafting history. That means copying and pasting the text to create the new spin-off article, unless there is a better way to do it. Looking at the drafting history will be helpful in running down the question Churchh raised about that image caption and may well be similarly useful for other things. We could get rid of it after six months or a year. We might also consider transferring the talk page stuff into an archive on the main page. Simmaren (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realism

[edit]
  • You said that Galperin was difficult (what pleasures await me!). The second paragraph of this section, the material that comes from Galperin, the concepts (fully defined, outlining realism, oppositionality), is/are opaque to the non-specialist and therefore need(s) a bit of "fleshing out". Simmaren (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Unreliable Mentor

[edit]

It might be interesting to do something, somewhere, on the unreliable mentor in Austen. The excerpts on the main page are all Knightley, who is the best of the lot, along with Henry Tilney and Darcy vis a vis his sister. All have flaws. The rest are a mess, including Edmund in Mansfield Park, Lady Russell in Persuasion, and Mr. Bennett in P & P, Simmaren (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Male Mentor

[edit]

I've trolled through all of our notes (!) to try to find anything even distantly related to this topic. I found some more, but the whole seems thin to me. We should discuss how important this is to add to the article. Simmaren (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simmaren/Sandbox/Jane_Austen&oldid=340038005"