# Talk:Tipping the Velvet

I realize this is a stub, but I got interupted.  Will finish later.  lunaverse 23:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As per imdb, this is a three part TV film, not a serial. Hoverfish Talk 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but only due to semantics.  It aired on BBC, and according to serial, "In British television, it is also synonymous with the American term "miniseries", meaning a short run series where one overarching story is told across several episodes and concluded in the final installment." María: (habla ~ cosas)  00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

After noticing that Fingersmith and its tv movie adaptation exist as separate articles, I decided to split Tipping the Velvet and Tipping the Velvet (TV serial) because of their individuality of both and the fact that the page was looking cluttered with two infoboxes.  I'll get to fixing the links and such. María: (habla ~ cosas)  13:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone inserted "faux" in front of the Victorian-era term that means cunnilingus. Although I can't find a Victorian era book on pornography on the Internet to verify otherwise, I have to challenge that whoever put "faux" there should cite that it didn't exist. Sarah Waters has an extensive Victorian pornography collection that she drew upon heavily in writing Tipping the Velvet and Fingersmith. I have to defer to the experts here, and I believe Sarah Waters before a wikieditor I don't know. But prove me wrong, by all means. Moni3 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I, too, have done some searching on this subject, and the closest I can come is here: "Its saucy title--a euphemism for cunnilingus that I had plucked from the relative obscurity of Victorian porn," from Waters herself.  She doesn't name the source material, however, and there is nothing, like you said, Moni3, in any slang dictionary online.  It's very frustrating, but short of tracking down Waters and asking her for a source, I'm plum out of ideas.  I choose to trust her, however, and that it's not made up, as some other articles ascertain.  María: (habla ~ cosas)  18:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try here to add a footnote citation here on wikipedia for your source, Maria. Never done it before, but that "citation needed" bothers me...Moni3 01:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3
OK nevermind...I don't know how to do citations at this point...I have to read up on it. I will try tomorrow.Moni3 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Hey, no problem, it took me a while to learn refs, as well.  I still screw them up.  I'll leave it for you to play with after some *cough* homework.  If you need help, just send a message.  :) María: (habla ~ cosas)  01:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I did it....after resisting the homework assignment...thanks.Moni3 12:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3
It's not up to editors to believe or disbelieve. I added the natural and obvious "According to Waters". -- 98.108.203.136 (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The site it redirects you to is People Collection on AOL. It's no reference and therefore I believe it should be removed. Moocowsrule (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

People must have stored the story. Let me see if I can find a better citation. --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Updated. Didn't take long, just a quick search. The rumor is pervasive, however. Best to check for an updated version rather than remove it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is overall an excellent article, and I can't find much fault with it.  The passive voice writing style bothers me a little, but only because of personal preference; I think it reads as more than a little less encyclopedic in places, but seeing as how this isn't an article about mitochondrion or something similar, I can live with it. ;)  A couple notes:

There's confusion of past and present tense throughout the article.  A majority of the article refers to critics and scholars in the present tense ("so and so states, writes, etc.), whereas in the "Critical reception" section, they are referred to in both past and present tense.  I'm one of those people who prefer to refer to reviewers' comments in the past tense; the book was published nearly twelve years ago, and people's ideas change over time.  Just my personal preference, however; it does need to be made consistent, though.
Very much an oyster girl, Nan's hands are covered with "those ranks sea-scents, of liquor and oyster-flesh..." -- is this correct, or is it supposed to be "those rank sea-scents"?
Her use of all the senses in lush descriptions particularly interested Harriet Malinowitz in The Women's Review of Books. At Kitty's first meeting with Nancy... -- this is somewhat confusing, as it's not clear that the following plot description is part of Malinowitz's discourse until a few sentences later, when she's mentioned again.  Perhaps lead this second sentence off with "For example, she cites Kitty's first meeting..." or something similar.
In 2009 Waters told Robert McCrum from The Observer that had she no obligations to meet stemming from her subsequent success as a writer that she would continue working on Tipping the Velvet because it was so much fun. -- I don't know what this means.  Seriously, I've read it like ten times, and it's akin to saying the word "monkey" over and over until it just loses all meaning.  Huh wha?
Nan's path through the plot indicates... -- "Nan's path" is mentioned later in the same section, but here it seems awkward.  I'm not sure how to fix it, though; Nan's personal growth?  Not sure if that's an improvement or not.  Hm.
Nick Rennison in Contemporary British Authors characterises it as an "unabashed and unapologetic celebration... -- Does the "it" here refer to the term "Tipping the Velvet" (previously mentioned) or the novel?
Waters, Sarah (May 1, 2000). Tipping the Velvet: A Novel, Riverhead Trade (American edition). ISBN 1573227889 -- This is formatted as if it were a journal article.  Use instead:
Waters, Sarah (2000). Tipping the Velvet: A Novel. PUBLISHING CITY: Riverhead Trade.  ISBN 1573227889.
Other than the above, and my slight copy-edits throughout, I think this is in great shape.  It could use another look for someone with a better eye than me, but for the most part it's a very good read.  I don't have any questions after having read it, and I feel it's an excellent representation of the novel.  I was initially surprised that theatricality as a theme wasn't addressed head on, but because it was touched upon in other subsections, so I didn't miss anything.  The sources are great, the reviews plentiful, and the images seem okay.  In short, this looks almost ready for FAC; great work!  If you need anything less, let me know. ps: squee! María (habla conmigo) 15:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Maria. Superb work as always, exhaustively researched. Kudos for your diligent work and engaging prose. A few nitpicks and queries follow; respond or ignore at will. (Sorry it's not split into sections.)

While learning about the activism in socialism, women's suffrage, and utopianism, she was inspired... Does this mean she was learning about this sort of activism in the world around her in the modern world, or activism c. 1870, the time she was researching?
Waters was drawn to the Victorian era because of the (mis)understandings of what social norms existed during the period. The (mis) bit is a good way to represent this dichotomy, but I fear that some folks might not like it at FAC.
Nan learns that the child is from a previous boarder who died shortly after its birth. Florence was deeply in love with her but her affections were not returned. (I altered the wording of the first sentence.) This is unclear to me. Does the "her" refer to the boarder with whom Florence had the kid (as the reader will assume)? Was there a man involved in the process? Has a pronoun gone missing?
Look, I added one of my favorite fancy words!
...which had flavoured my fingers and those of my family for so many years we had ceased, entirely to notice them.. Seems like there should be another comma after "entirely". Typo?
I love the quote about the ghosts in London.
When removing items from a quote, anything taken out of a sentence before the next sentence should generally be shown with four periods. The blockquote has three in several spots where I think they should have four. (Of course, this looks to be a quote from a review, so if the original review uses only three I suppose we have to keep what's there.)
The reviews are mostly discussed in present tense, but some of them switched to past. I tried to fix what I could, but I worry that I may have missed something(s). You may want to go through and certify the tense consistency. (I left the "Reception" section in past tense, since it's internally consistent in that section.)
Why has the quote from Waters about "Victorian lesbo romps" been made invisible?
I'm not sure how Nan's movement from naif to performer to etc etc shows a similarity to Dickens. Perhaps this should be made more clear? (Indeed, the rest of that paragraph seems negatively critical.. Are the Dickens comparisons usually meant in a positive light? Feels like that paragraph could use more internal unity.
The Dickens pic was just below the "Genre" subhead, which is a WP:MOS#Images no-no. Moving it down didn't seem like a good resolution, since it would run into the next major section, so I moved it up. Feel free to try another solution.
...Nan's role as character in her own life or a play on a stage that might be a theatre or the streets of London is unclear. This sentence is also unclear. =)
Sexuality and sexual identity is the most prevalent theme in the novel. They strike me as two distinct themes. If they are one and the same, it will be less confusing to the reader if we just pick one and use that as the section title and single item in the first sentence.
Should we include the "euphemism for lesbian" that the drunk guy yells? The reader will be curious. Also, would "slur" be a more precise word?
A reminder that the MOS demands a non-breaking space before a three-dot ellipsis, which can be achieved with &nbsp; .. You may want to check the article for instances that I failed to correct.
You just had to work Bannon in somehow, didn't you? =)
Switching from "Nan" to "Nancy Astley" in the Gender section is confusing. I recommend sticking with what the reader has come to expect.
Paulina Palmer sees the reading material available in the various locations of Nan's settings as symbols of the vast class differences in Victorian London. It feels odd to only get one example of this. Perhaps there's another that can be offered succinctly?
Referencing the advent of the identification of female homosexual characteristics in the 19th century, a friend of Diana's named Dickie reads aloud during a party from a medical text describing the histories of several acknowledged lesbians, including Dickie's own. This sentence is a bit confusing. The reader can figure it out with some effort, but I'd like to see it presented more crisply. I took a tiny whack at it, but I feel too far away from the source material to rephrase with accuracy.
Although Diana is a supporter of women's suffrage, she discourages Nan from reading such literature, confiscating any political material Nan picks up. In contrast, Nan feels hopelessly uninformed when Florence and her friends engage in heated political debates. I don't get how this is a contrast; they both seem like instances where Nan is ignorant of (or oblivious to) political matters.
Florence introduces her to the writings of Walt Whitman, Eleanor Marx, and Edward Carpenter, which they sexualise by using as an introduction to intimacy. Who does the "they" refer to? Could we get an example of how they sexualise these authors? (Or does that refer to the writings?)
How about a picture of one of the actors (there's a free pic of Keeley Hawes) in the TV serial section?
The BBC had previously aired a sanitized version of Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit in 1990 and some other scenes in dramas to follow, but none had been so explicit. Does this refer to lesbian love scenes? Should that be specified?
Good luck with it! Please let me know when it's at FAC. Scartol • Tok 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)