Talk:Brideshead Revisited

message: Wasn't Sebastian the third son? After Bridey and Julia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schilippe (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sebastian

message: I added a section on the Catholic themes of the novel. The previous version of the page was a bit unbalanced. The main theme seems to be Catholicism, yet the page only had 2 sentences to about this. On the other hand, it had 900 words under Gay Themes, which is a minor theme of the book. I got the content from this audio of a Catholic TV network: http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6602&T1= --Nino Gonzales 09:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic themes

message: The most important section I think is missing: a discussion of Brideshead Revisited as a novel. I think this should be the longest section (it's supposed to be a literary masterpiece). Maybe followed by one or two sentences on the Catholic angle and a line or two on the gay controversy. --Nino Gonzales 08:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary analysis 

message: I added a short section referencing the (truly terrible) unauthorised 2003 sequel.  Do you agree that this is relevant to the article?Brideshead 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be trivia... so I included it in the Trivia section...--Nino Gonzales 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel 

message: The section header itself seems to be POV. Could anyone think of a header that captures what seems to be the nostalgia for England's age of nobility? It seems the Marchmain family represents the last of a dying breed.--Nino Gonzales 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another instance of snobbery is wanting to suppress any mention of the influence of this on pop culture. Anton Mravcek 21:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It absolutely is. This would be an entirely forgettable piece of British literature if it didn't have any references in American mythology. In fact, if this article went for deletion, I'd vote "Keep" only because of the pop culture references. ShutterBugTrekker 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm, yes, quite. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Snobbery

message: What is the difference between the revised edition and the original? Njál 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised edition 

message: I wikified the categories in the article. As of March 15 2007, they were broken. I'm not sure whether all of these categories should be retained, but I'll leave it to y'all to make a decision on that. Cheers!
--82.207.201.138 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for completeness: In my edit, I also removed the following text which stood forlornly at the end of the article (after the links), without any proper purpose, as I feel.
Brideshead Revisited
Brideshead Revisited
Brideshead Revisited (boek)
Gjensyn med Brideshead
En förlorad värld
--82.207.201.138 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikified the categories 

message: Hi:
I've never read the book, it's one of those titles I keep meaning to get around to. So, in a spare moment, I looked it up here and make the following suggestion about the plot summary: Can it please be re-written so that it makes a modicum of sense to someone who hasn't already read the book?
Thanks.
AG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.181.30 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that, it also needs to be trimmed and the character list folded into it.Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: The section "Motifs and other points of interest" contains a great many uncited assertions. Without cites, these are merely the opinions of the editor(s), and don't belong in a Wikipedia article. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites, please 

message: :Image:BRIDESHEAD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BRIDESHEAD.jpg

message: Standard English uses one possessive when referring to one common thing shared by two possessors.  "Robert and Mary's wedding."  "Bill and Brian's friendship."  "Joanna and Mary's apartment."  It is at least confusing and unnecessary (and possibly incorrect) to say, on the other hand, "Robert's and Mary's wedding."  (That is, unless you wanted to say something along the lines of -- "I have seen the throwing of rice at two weddings, Robert's [wedding] and Mary's wedding."  That's why I am undoing the addition of an apostrophe in "Charles and Sebastian's relationship."  theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of possessive 

message: Regarding these sentences from the article: 
"During the Second World War, Charles, now an army officer after establishing a career as an architectural artist, is housed at Brideshead, once home to many of his affections. It occurs to him that builders' efforts were not in vain, even when their purposes may appear, for a time, to be frustrated."
My questions are:
1) Why was billeted changed to housed? (I'm just curious, not disagreeing.)
2) What on earth is the second sentence meant to convey? And how is it relevant?
Wanderer57 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still hoping for an answer to the second question.  Please and thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy late edits. Billeted is the correct term for housing a soldier. The second sentence means that the chapel, built for the worship of God, is now being used for its purpose, despite being closed up for many years. Greglocock (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Quoting the article: 
"Julia decides that she can no longer live in sin, and for that reason can no longer contemplate marriage to Charles."
This suggests that marriage to Charles would involve "living in sin".  How so? Is something missing here?
Wanderer57 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, Julia is Catholic, and the Catholic Church does not allow divorce.  So even if Julia were to divorce her husband (dissolving their legal marriage) and then go through the form of an Anglican marriage with Charles, in the eyes of the Catholic Church she would still be married to her first husband, and her relations with Charles would be adultery.  76.118.82.108 (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage to Charles 

message: A very minor suggestion: the American TV series "The Twilight Zone" from the 1960's had an episode entitled "Deaths-Head Revisited" (#74, 3rd season, Nov. 10, 1961). This must allude to the novel under discussion, though I can see no real connection beyond the title.
82.181.39.239 (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in other media 

message: I find it odd that two characters have separate articles (Lord Sebastian Flyte, Anthony Blanche) besides the articles themselves probably failing notability, they don't really serve a purpose that isn't covered in this article's plot and character sections. I propose we merge them back into this article.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Better to merge the articles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Merge them.Ktlynch (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge. I think they serve as much purpose as any good character articles. And since they are too long to merge or add, and no one has even tried to, I'd say keep them as is. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate character articles merger

message: I think this article needs a section about the book's publication history. I have not been able to find who published the first edition in England. It would be interesting to know just how many editions it's gone through, how many languages it's been translated into, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.214.35 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially because later editions of the book contained substantive changes (trimming some of the more purple prose, and inserting more detailed physical descriptions of some of the characters that had real life counterparts). I'll try to get round to it. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication history 

message: Seriously, why is Charles identified with artist Felix Kelly? Seriously people, it's clear that if anyone Charles is Waugh himself -- his Oxford homosexuality, his closeness with the Lygons, his conversion to Catholicism. This wiki article is frustratingly lacking and innaccurate, but that at the very least should be fixed and mentioned. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of Charles Ryder 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Brideshead Revisited. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3594/artsbooks/13027/brideshead_revisited.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Softlavender, your total reversion of my new lede seems a quite excessive reaction to a single factual error. It would have been perfectly easy to edit-in a reference to English stately homes in addition to Oxford. The current lede does not summarise the article, as it is meant to. It contains much material that is not represented in the article. It is clearly suitable for transferring, whole and complete, to a new opening section titled ‘Background’, as I suggested.
 
I will not re-revert at this stage, because I dislike edit-wars. But you may care to reconsider the function of the lede on Wiki pages. Valetude (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested new lede 4/12/16 

message: This section is very weak. Rwood128 (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nostalgia for an age of English nobility 

message: Dear Sir,
Already a time ago I did add an new section but I see it is not there. Procrustes???
Regards,
145.129.136.48 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted per WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikipedia is not a forum or message board to discuss the subject of the article or ask questions about the subject of the article. This talkpage is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article. Softlavender (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section??? 

message: I removed the bit about "the nearly overt homosexuality of Sebastian Flyte's eccentric friends at Oxford University" for the reasons I gave in my edit summary ('the only part of sebastian's circle described at all is antony blanche, and he is an overt homosexual ("inverted", "pansy", etc)'). I guess you could also say that one other person is described: Boy Mulcaster. However, it's not clear whether he's really supposed to be part of that circle or not (I don't think he's mentioned as being at the initial lunch party Sebastian invites Charles to, even though he is shown to be there in the series). And he doesn't seem to me to be portrayed as even slightly homosexual. I think you could make the case that romantic friendships are a major theme, but I don't want to write that stuff myself. The homosexuality (overt/implied/whatever) of Sebastian's circle at Oxford is definitely not a major theme. It can't be because the circle itself is not even a subject.
My own opinion is that Waugh is very deliberately saying "Maybe they are homos, maybe they aren't, that's not the point." And as if to belabor that point he contrasts them with Anthony Blanche, who's explicitly identified as homosexual. I also suspect that at least one partial reason for this was because of Waugh's own homosexual affairs at Oxford: he wants to downplay the importance of actual homosexuality in these sorts of relationships. Instead they're mostly about aesthetics & deep romantic friendship, and maybe there's a bit of gay sex thrown in, or maybe not, who knows? But while the first part you can arguably get from just reading & summarizing the book, the latter part would definitely be original research. Dingsuntil (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede Improvements