Talk:Persuasion (novel)

message: Now has info box; i removed tag
---------------
See also Talk:Persuasion, for discussion of edits made before this was spun off into a separate article.
:Just read this book, and this is in my opionion most romantic from the books by J. Austen I already read. Przepla 14:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "While far more sensible than Sir Walter Elliot, she too has a great concern with rank and does not think Wentworth is good enough for Anne because of his inferior birth." was just added and I think this is an oversimplification -- if memory serves me right, it wasn't necessarily his inferior birth (though she did have hopes Anne would marry someone of rank) it was more that he seemed too impulsive and unstable. Her prejudice in seeing him through the lens of class made her jump too quick into judging him as not being stable, etc. plange 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right in calling it an over-simplification.   Lady Russell had other objections besides rank, as noted in chapter 4 of the novel. BellyOption 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Russell 

message: The tone and diction of this article are a little askew.  Can we find a better term for "Persuasion is the first of Austen's novels to feature a woman who is no longer in her first youth"?  I had to look the term up on google to see that it wasn't just made up by the author--it wasn't, but hasn't been used once since Austen's times, if not before.  --Mrcolj 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "in her first youth"

message: This section —"Explanation of Title"— is challenged: it shows no source of JAusten's thoughts, drafts, or finished writing indicating she had any such title or theme(s) —persuasion— in her mind for this novel; indeed, the current revision states clearly, (1) that she had another title in mind, and (2) her brother supplied the title "Persuasion" (although no source citation is provided for either of these critical facts).  Instead, in this section we are scribbling original exposition and speculation that envisions (fantasizes?) a theme, plus variations on that theme —when we have the obligation to be reporting what reputable scholars say that JA said. 
So, what did Jane say? And, where are the scholarly connection(s) to Jane Austen's thoughts on this matter? Please provide details below —and/or your comments. Thank you.--Jbeans (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found another article on Wikipedia covering analysis of all of Jane Austen's novels, complete with references and inline citations, called Reception history of Jane Austen. I added that as the Main article under Literary significance section, which section seems like Original Research, without any citations. Is it allowable to take the parts most pertinent to this novel, and simply bring them, with references, to this article? Pondering. I learned why the French Wikipedia has better articles on her novels -- they understood them before the English speaking audience did. Amazing. If cutting up the main article is bad form, is it reasonable to delete what is there, all without citations for eight years, some or all of it, and simply leave the link to the Main article on the reviews of all her novels?  --Prairieplant (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the Austen? 

message: I rewrote and replaced the section "Explanation of Title" because the (previous) version is without basis for the claims made and implied: that the author, —the magnificent Jane, she of 'irony-full' and error-free'— herself wrote —the great theme of persuasion, 'with variations on the theme'— into her (masterpiece) story: of Anne Elliot with addled family & kin, and —not least— of Anne's bedraggled dreams for her (most un-Hamlet) hunk, Captain Wentworth, currently of HBMRN.
By "without basis" I note there are no scholarly sources cited that speak of any evidence —among JA's papers, letters, notes, etc., or others' records— that JA wrote such; pls see above section: "Where's the Austen?" Without reliable and independent sources these claims should not be reported to the world by wikipedia as Jane's work —or even as her sly writerly intentions.--Jbeans (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of title --Variation on a theme?

message: Regret to revert this good faith rewrite of 'Plot Introduction', because: 
1. By  intent, the type and amount of information written to a "Plot Introduction" is very restricted; because it is to be kept small and purposeful.
2.  Adding details that do not directly explain the Plot Introduction should absolutely not be done there --somewhere, maybe, but not there. —>>(Examples:    1)...(she)... "lives at Kellynch Estate"  2) "Her mother is  long dead"  —this repeats the same infomation already stated in a more (plot-introduction) meaningful context. 3)  Anne...  "has all but resigned herself to a meager, spinsterish existence..."; 4)   (he) "..and treats her coolly when they finally meet again. This pains Anne deeply: however, his presence gradually sets her life in motion." —>>((( All of these:  somewhere else, maybe?, but, not here, not in the small space!)))
3. Agree —a Plot Introduction or Plot Summary can always be 'tightened-up'  —>>e.g., "due to" can always be 'improved out' —But 'tighten-up' should result in less, not more words.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeans (talk • contribs) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Tighten-up'? Plot Introduction

message: For the record, I've ordered a nice C.E. Brock Persuasion from 1909. Images shall be had in abundance shortly. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I think that a merge with the main persuasion article would be good since it already has a main character section.
RH - (rosscoolguy) (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merge? 

message: This article is shaping up, but what I notice is there is almost no mention of the humor/humour that marks Austen's style and certainly is present throughout Persuasion. I hope there is a reviewer out there we can quote who speaks well of the humor/humour as well as the concise writing, no words extra in her sentences.  --Prairieplant (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humor in this novel 

message: The title page for these two novels has the usual anonymous author (by the author of her earlier books, and her first book says, By a Lady), but also has the phrase, with a Biographical notice of the Author. What is written under that heading in the very first edition? Did the public learn her name in that notice, or that she had died? In the Northanger Abbey article, it says the copyright for that novel was bought back from the publisher who never did publish it while Austen was alive, unaware it was by a successful author, who published anonymously. We all know Jane Austen is the author these many years, but when were her novels first published with her name given as the author? Just curious about this small historical detail.  --Prairieplant (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Belated reply - now have a source at hand to answer the question. In December 1817 John Murray printed Persuasion and Northanger Abbey, dated 1818 (this was typical then, the books were published early for the end-of-year gift buying trade), in a set of four volumes. They included Henry Austen's "Biographical Notice" in which he revealed his sister's identity - See page 136 of Gilson, "Editions and Publishing History".  The Jane Austen Companion. Ed. J. David Grey. New York: Macmillan, 1986. . 135-139. Victoria (tk) 19:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  With a Biographical Notice of the Author -- what is in that? 

message: I see that you have added much to the Literary significance section. The whole section is long, and seems rambling to me. I made an effort to delete exact duplication, but that is hardly noticeable. Lady Russell need not be called the substitute mother each time her name is mentioned. Some of the repetition is due to citing one author, then another in a different paragraph, saying pretty much the same thing. Some of the topics covered seem more like themes in the novel, not Literary significance or criticism, but I am no expert on that. If some could be worked into Themes, each theme could have a subsection title. Perhaps you can look over the article now that you have added from every page of Irvine, to see how it fits in with what is already there. If several authors agree on a point, why not make it once and give it several references? If they differ, then point out the differences in one sentence or paragraph. I broke up some paragraphs as they were getting very long and covering far more than one topic. I leave it to you.  --Prairieplant (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Prarieplant, thank you. I'll go over this page this weekend. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary significance section is getting so long, repeats itself 

message: British English likes an object with reconcile, which is an active verb. These are two on line sources on specifically British English, or English versus American, on which I relied.
 I hope these and the change in the sentences satisfies the British English speakers and we reconcile our differences.  --Prairieplant (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - re the use of reconcile, we do not use reconcile in this way in the UK, as this shows: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reconcile. We say 'were reconciled'. This is standard British English. I appreciate it is used in the way you've used it in the USA, but this is a British article on a British subject, and so should use the British form, which is to say they were reconciled. Over here, "they reconciled" just sounds odd. 195.188.42.194 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your rapid reverts are not much fun. Have it your way, but I hope you learn to to use the article's talk page in the future when you revert multiple times, to settle the issue.  --Prairieplant (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconcile those differences 

message: Hello all! I am going to be editing this article for the next few weeks, and I would appreciate any help/guidance/conversation about the edits I plan to make. I am going to be focusing on the organization of the content, language usage, the plot summary, and the "literary significance and criticism" section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse R Long (talk • contribs) 21:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , please do remember to sign your posts and describe your edits. I hope you have sources for your changes, especially in the Literary significance section. The themes section could be expanded, in my view, with good sources. I have judged the plot summary as good, so I hope you do not plan to lengthen it. At any rate, I hope you have read the other articles on Jane Austen and her works, and do not introduce contrary statements to what is in those articles. Jane Austen and the articles on each of her other novels, plus Styles and themes of Jane Austen and Reception history of Jane Austen are some of the main articles. You can find titles and links to each article in the navigation box visible at the bottom of the page when you open the article on a Desk top or lap top computer. The navigation boxes do not show up on a smart phone, alas. Better writing and newer sources are always welcome, of course. Many editors have been involved in writing about Jane Austen and her novels on Wikipedia. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Edits  

message: In the final paragraph of the literary criticism section, the last sentence makes a claim about other's considerations of Anne's wants and wishes. This claim is not sourced in the references of the article. The claim isn't inaccurate, and I think it could be reasonably argued, but I wanted to know if anyone knew of a source that backed this claim or had any advice about editing the sentence to present a more neutral point of view before I change anything. Jesse R Long (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This points up a lack in this article, a list of best or definitive editions of the book, with preface by an editor, or annotations. I think the text you mention is referring to this book, Persuasion, Jane Austen, Penguin Classics, editor Gillian Beer, , 2003 or later printing. If there were such a list, then there would be a full citation for the Penguin Classics edition. I do not have that edition at home, but might be able to get it from the local library, and learn what Gillian Beer said. Good catch!  --Prairieplant (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinderella Story  

message: I was reading through the plot summary and character list, and I noticed some of the descriptions have information that could potentially be viewed as "un-encyclopedic" in tone. For example, the article states "He was clever, confident, ambitious and employed" when describing Captain Wentworth. This is not incorrect, but I think the tone of the writing could be improved by removing the adjectives and simply stating that his social status was the reason for his broken engagement to Anne. What would be the best way to go about editing these statements?
The character list has repeated plot information. Should I consider removing this information from the list, making the list simply a description of each character's relationship to other characters and the story as a whole rather than detailing each interaction?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse R Long (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , You have already made the changes. Of course the Character descriptions will include some of the plot, as these characters are important because they are part of the novel. The description of the good points of Frederick Wentworth when Anne first met him seems logical to me -- why else did she fall in love with him? "He was clever, confident, ambitious and employed" is a short sentence. It is not essential for all the text in a Wikipedia article to lack useful and concise adjectives. Keep in mind that there is an article about Captain Wentworth, as well as his description in this article, because he is a well-know character in fiction. Not describing him is giving short-shrift to a main character. This article needs a list of definitive editions, and will benefit from comments that well-known literary writers, like Gillian Beers, said about the story in those definitive editions. Free-style editing is not the primary need. I do discourage you from shortening the descriptions of the characters. Even if you do not read French yourself, you can see the length of that article, and see the names used in the Reference list. Plus it is easy to copy a chunk of the French text into Google translate to get a reasonable idea of the topic covered in a section where you cannot guess the topics. And it is still necessary to sign your posts. The bot does not always catch the unsigned posts and add sign for you. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input! I can go back and revert the changes I made back to the original wording; I was working with some potential changes to see how they looked, but I appreciate the feedback you gave. I will keep this in mind moving forward. Jesse R Long (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Descriptions And Repeated Information 

message: In the literary criticism section, Robert Irvine is cited as a source for the idea that overhearing conversations is a key component to the plot. This is well written and cited correctly. However there is a line that is problematic in relation to the overall focus of the paragraph.  
::"As Captain Wentworth fears a second rejection by Anne, much of the novel is concerned with incidents that bring the two together and relies upon relating Anne's psychological state as she comes close to the man who once proposed marriage to her, making more of a psychological study."
I'm not sure how this information connects to the overall idea of overhearing conversations. Does anyone have any comments on editing this sentence, the relevance of the statement, or what changes should be made hear to include this in another section. Jesse R Long (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I cannot say either how relevant the remark is, but the information is cited to John Wiltshire, who is quoted many times in this section. Wiltshire, I found, is known for the study of psychoanalysis and literature, and I added the page from the Jane Austen Society of North America where I learned that as an inline cite where I mentioned his name. I broke that section off to a new paragraph, as it seems a new topic from overhearing conversations, as you pointed out. I also condensed the many cites to the same page in the Cambridge book mentioning Wiltshire, and added an isbn to that book. See if that looks any better.  --Prairieplant (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychological Study 

message: Lady Dalrymple is included in the character list, but she is not mentioned in the plot summary or the remainder of the article. Could this information be removed?Jesse R Long (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are insistent that every character be mentioned in the Plot summary, then add Lady Dalrymple to the plot summary. She should not be deleted from the character list.  --Prairieplant (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Dalrymple  

message: Your change to the article on the novel Persuasion by Jane Austen here is introducing two different referencing formats, which I do not think is consistent format, looking at the rest of the article, specifically the Reference list. Using harvnb with short ref formats was dominant, and I changed the Pinch references to use that, matching other inline citations in the article. For reasons not clear to me, you changed my work to use the rp template, showing page numbers in the article. I have nothing against the rp format and have used it in some articles. But not in articles that were using short format with harvnb for most of the citations. It seemed a waste of energy for you to make the change, when harvnb was in place, and recently done for purpose of consistent format style. Many prior editors resisted the ref formats of any type, but they have not been showing up lately, so I am glad to see the short ref method used. The next step, in my mind, is not to add rp templates, but to make a Bibliography with the long version of those inline citations that use the short format, as is done in several other articles about major novels. I did not revert your changes, as I thought we should use this Talk page to attain a consistent format.  --Prairieplant (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and thanks for giving me an opportunity to explain my reasoning. I don't see the problem with having two different types of ref format going on in this instance, harvnb for books, rp for journal articles (Kindred, Pinch). Harvard short-cites are generally suited to book citations because the cited author is responsible for the entire subject of the citation (i.e. the book), and rp tags are more suitable for journal citations because the main citation indicates a specific article published over a range of pages within the full journal publication, and the cited author is not responsible for the entire subject of the citation (i.e. the journal), just one article within it. Looking at this version before I made the change, you have ref.9 as the main journal citation for Pinch, but it does not specify the page range of the article within the journal (97–117), just the single page (98) that applies to the tagged text. I therefore saw rp as a better solution as it allows full page range in main citation, with rp tags off it. It would be preferable to link to the full (book and journal) citations in a Bibliography section, as you have suggested above, in which case journal citations would be laid out in full with relevant page ranges, and then harv-linked from Refs section just the same as the books. So I agree with you on that. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I never put the range of pages for a journal article. I see it only rarely in the Reference lists for the Wikipedia articles I read. I think having the page citation for the statement is all that is needed. Both journal article and books have an author, a year and an exact page number, so I do not see the logic of two ref systems in the article. Every book has a total number of pages also, and that is not included in the citation for a book. I was glad to get rid of the page range of the journal article when I used harvnb. So we see that exactly opposite as the article is now. Perhaps I can start the Bibliography section and use harvnb for anything cited more than once.  --Prairieplant (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change to a Bibliography section, and added short refs. I think the pages are included for the journal articles, please check it over. Refs to Beer, Litz, Morgan, Tave have no page number in the citation -- need a page number. Are there other inline citations that should move into the Bibliography list, use short form in Reference list? --Prairieplant (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference formats two types going now 

message: , your recent changes paid no heed to British spellings and style. I tried to catch a few of them. I would appreciate if you would review your own edits to assure the spelling of words are British style, not American, not Canadian. Another point of British style is no periods after Mr, Mrs, Dr, distinctly different from US style. -- Prairieplant (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I apologize for not being aware of this. Had no intention of "Americanizing" the plot description, just wanted to fix some issues I had with the structure of the original text. I will keep in mind the importance of using proper foreign spellings when writing for certain novels. -- GenesisMaster (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Certain novels means all those by English authors, . Most of this articles have a line at the top of the edit page showing a shortened phrase saying English variation Brit. It is a template, meaning curly brackets are around it. EngvarB|date=December 2020 is the cryptic phrase in the template. Noticing the categories at the bottom of the finished page also gives clues, David Copperfield by Charles Dickens has 1850 British novels as its first category. Template:British English shows other ways to indicate the variation of English and has a link to some of the examples of British spellings that differ from American or Canadian spellings. Obvious things to notice are the words realise and favourable, as indicating British spellings. You removed realise several times and used the American spelling. Jane Austen is English and every article about her or her novels uses British English and style. The same for Charles Dickens and Agatha Christie, as well as contemporary authors like Bernard Cornwell or the late Patrick O’Brian. Changing to American style means every British reader of the article will be doing small edits to spell words correctly. I like many British authors so I have been learning it. It is to the point where Mr looks correct now, and Mr. does not. - - Prairieplant (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

text: See also this Wikipedia page, template:EngvarB. - - Prairieplant (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you for the information. I didn't mean to sound condescending, if that is what you are implying. Will use this information for future edits. - - GenesisMaster (talk) 1:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use British style and spellings for this article 

message: I reverted the addition of a 2021 film in the article, as the references for it and the others I found on first look indicated the filming had not yet begun. Now I found a review in The Guardian here that says that the film Modern Persuasion was released on digital platforms as of February 8, 2021. If someone wants to add it into the Adaptation section using the article in The Guardian as the citation, making clear the film is available to be see, go ahead. The review does not much praise the film, for what that is worth. Here is a quote from the review: "the biggest crime against Austen, and the film’s fundamental flaw, is turning woman-of-substance Anne Elliot into yet another romcom thirtysomething cat lady sighing dreamily at the Manhattan skyline while waiting for Mr Right." -- Prairieplant (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film adaptation 2021