Talk:Jane Annie

message: I'd love to give the source that said this, but I cannot remember it. I'm sure it was in a G&S book at my local library, but they recently got rid of the entire collection, so I can't go and see which one it was in. It might have been one of the D'Oyly Carte/Savoy Theatre books; probably not Bailey or one of the more famous ones.
"I'd very much like to tell you all,
You'd love to know about it.
But just this point I don't recall,
And as it's most material, 
we can't go on without it." :) 
(Is this not appropriate??)
Slfarrell 22:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Scott.  Eventually, Wikipedia articles need to give citations (either page number references with bibliographical "references"; or external weblinks) for all factual assertions.  However, the more controversial statements need to supported most urgently.  So, when you create content on Wikipedia, try to cite your sources.  Meanwhile, this is a good start to the article.  Best regards!  -- Ssilvers 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea.  I went through the links and fixed this. -- Ssilvers 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. Thanks Ssilvers! Slfarrell 15:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you ever read Fallen Fairies?  That's far more tedious than JA.  Despite its confusion, JA is rather amusing in many places, don't you think?  -- Ssilvers 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read it. I rather liked it, but that was years ago. I saw the video by Newcastle G&S (they had the first revival - should that be mentioned on the appropriate page?), which didn't do it many favours. Yeah, JA is rather amusing. But it's such a mess. And guess who gets to revive it next October? [smiley] Slfarrell 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I read the synopsis and made a few minor copy edits, but I really could not follow it.  Either it contains a lot of UK slang that I don't understand (and if so, please translate to more formal English, even if it is less humorous), or else it needs a few more clarifications.  Can you please revise?  Regards, -- Ssilvers 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that it really is this bad. I condensed as much as I could without giving away unnecessary details and gags. The plot is a theatrical nightmare. "Plot unsystematic/And very erratic" best describes it. Sorry - there's really nothing to revise. Slfarrell 22:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise "She deflates their joy when she adds that the girls may assume the character of men." Otherwise, though, I think you've done a fairly good job at clarifying what's clearly a bizarre plot. Adam Cuerden talk 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a bold guess as to the end of Act I. Check that's right? Adam Cuerden talk 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, so it's one of THOSE plays. Right. I've tweaked the first sentence: It may be very mild speculation, but it makes things make sense, which is important in such a convoluted work. Also, I was getting these views of Bab in bondage gear with the original phrasing, which probably means I watch too many B-movies. "Deflates their joy" seems to have been a mistake, so I changed it. Adam Cuerden talk 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: I assume that Adam did the background work on the opera - I was just about to do it! I also clarified that little bit about the boathouse. Slfarrell 15:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the background paragraph to the intro, but it certainly could be expanded if you like.  Best regards,  -- Ssilvers 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: I added a NYTimes article quoting a London review.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New review