Talk:Styles and themes of Jane Austen

Sandboxed

This article is being built in pieces. See here for notes and here for a messy draft of various sections of this page. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Messy first draft is now complete. Awadewit (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Question re Terminology

The last sentence of the first paragraph under "Gender" uses the phrase "traditional radical Jacobin novels of the 1790s". The juxtiposition of "traditional" and "radical" is jarring on first (and second) reading. I understand what is meant, and if that is the terminology Claudia Johnson in fact uses then I'm fine with it. Otherwise, can we substitute for "traditional" something like "the tradition of" or "the stream of" or can we say that "Austen's novels were strongly influenced by the radical Jacobin novels of the 1790s" or "Austen's novels followed in the tradition of the radical Jacobin novels of the 1790s"? Simmaren (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"tradition of", "strand of", "thread of" - yes - that is better Awadewit (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

This is very well done, a nice synthesis of the sources. Very well-written, too. To answer an earlier question, "Religion" after "Morality" to provide topical progression. More later. Simmaren (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've taken a stab at "Religion". Simmaren (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll read it closely in a few days - at first glance looks a bit long compared to the other sections, but that is easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I've read it. I think it was too detailed and too esoteric for the average reader, so I've taken it down a few notches. Let me know what you think. Awadewit (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I like what you've done. It's more condensed and more accessible. I made a small organizational change. I'm only sorry to lose the reference to "cant" in the Waldron quote — such an "Austen" word! Simmaren (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have a question concerning the use of technical critical terms, which I think leads to the question of the intended audience. In the lede, for example, there appear "foregrounds social hypocrisy", "paternalistic ruling other" and "interiorized novel character". Various similar terms are used subsequently. The use of this terminology may be necessary to convey academic seriousness, but I'm concerned that it may alienate the "common reader". What do you think? Simmaren (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• We'll have to find a balance. As this is a first draft, I was just using what came naturally to me. :) Really, this whole thing is just thrown together. I want to smooth everything out, replace a lot of the quotations with paraphrases (which will help with the jargon), and work on the transitions between paragraphs. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lede: "often through a process of rereading". See what you think of my changes. Feel free to scream. :) (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• You placed a "citation needed" marker after the first sentence of the first paragraph under "Realism". I'm not sure a citation is needed, because the debate is evident in the discussion that follows. (Note the first sentence under "Gender", which is not footnoted.) Of course, if there is a critic or historian who says exactly this, we should cite her. But I'm not embarrassed to go without. Perhaps we can do what we did in the text at notes 13 and 14 of the "Reception" article, which discusses realism as one aspect of Austen's work? That might cut the knot. Simmaren (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• The citation is for "most hotly debated" - I agree it is rather obvious, but I feel like someone will challenge that phrase. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed the tag - your argument makes sense and we shouldn't have to cite the obvious. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the "Reception" article (under "1812-1821"), there is a nice bit about Scott's description of Austen as a realist, followed by a comment by Galperin. Would it be worth doing, at the cost of some extra words, to embed Scott's view in some form immediately before Galperin's comments in the second paragraph under "Realism", since Scott is the lead-in to that paragraph and Galperin seems to have reacted against Scott's view, at least in part? Because of the cost in words, I'm going to refrain from doing this for now? Simmaren (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Let's try it out and see how it works. In terms of length, I would like to keep this article between 40 and 50 kB of readable prose (preferably closer to 40). Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a handy tool with which to measure "readable prose"? I've just done it the old-fashioned manual way (copying and pasting into MS Word) and find that the article is now at about 7,150 words of readable prose. This includes the text of main body of the article (including headings and FN numbers) and omits the text of notes, the bibliography, the text in the text boxes and picture captions. I'm not sure how this translates into kB of prose, but it is well within the word-count limit in WP:Article length. Simmaren (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a great tool for that - no more cutting and pasting! User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js. Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, this is great. Simmaren (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I will fiddle with Scott later today. Simmaren (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Eek

I noticed that one Duckworth quotation has migrated outside quotation marks and into the main text! Just a heads up, I think that you and I have a different idea of how many words we can take from a text without quotation. I am very hesitant to take more than one or two. I see that you sometimes take whole phrases. As this is often a matter of judgment, we're going to have to come to sort of agreement on that. Awadewit (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Point taken. I've reverted back. Let's agree on what proper practice is and I'll follow. Simmaren (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• I've checked my edits on this article and I could find only the one instance. Simmaren (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• The reason I bring this up is because your notes were taken differently than mine - I noticed this the other day when I was rereading one of the books. You didn't include quotation marks around every quoted word, so I think we'll have to go back through the article and check to make sure everything is quoted appropriately. Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think the place to start is checking the notes, since they have been and will be the basis for several articles, then looking at how the notes were used in the article(s). My job, I think. I'll get on it. Simmaren (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To do before peer review

• Smooth out and clarify prose
• Paraphrase many of the quotations
• Work out a linking strategy for literary terms and the names of the novels (once in the article, once per section, once per subsection?)
• Check to make sure all words and phrases that should be quoted are
• Look for better quotations for quote boxes
• Find a better illustration for the "Genre" section
• Create articles for red links
• Add material on the male mentor

Please add more! Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Below are the sections of the article and what improvements they need before peer review:

• Lead - Needs to be rewritten - it is my first slapdash effort. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Revised a bit. Wadewitz (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Parody and burlesque - I believe this section is ready for peer review. Let me know what you think, Simmaren. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Irony - We need an example of structural irony from Fergus' book - our notes don't have this, so I'll go to the library and get the book again. Otherwise, I'm happy with this section. Awadewit (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Free indirect speech - I believe this section is ready for peer review. Let me know what you think, Simmaren. Awadewit (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Conversation and language - We need to make an article for Catherine, or the Bower. I'm still not happy with the quote in the quote box - it is too long. I would like some of the banter between Elizabeth and Darcy - suggestions? Otherwise, I'm happy with this section. Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Realism - This section needs work. We need to reduce the number of quotations and make the three paragraphs cohere as a section more. Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Genre This section needs work. The paragraphs don't flow well and we need to reduce the number of quotations. We also need to create an article for Nature and Art. I originally thought the image was a low-quality scan, but it isn't - the drawing style just makes it look that way. Thoughts on keeping this illustration? Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Education and reading I believe this section is ready for peer review. Let me know what you think, Simmaren. Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Morality This section needs some work. The paragraphs needs to flow together better. Awadewit (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Religion This section needs some work. Too much information is quoted and attributed to critics (readers are interested in who said the stuff). Information in the "Morality" section is repeated here. I'm wondering if we should create a "Morality and religion" section. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Gender - The prose in this section needs a bit of smoothing out. It would also be nice to paraphrase more of the quotations. The biggest job, though, is to add the paragraph on male mentors. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Politics - The prose in this section needs a bit of smoothing out and the number of quotations needs to be reduced by utilizing paraphrase. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Wadewitz (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Property and class The prose in this section needs to be smoothed out and the number of quotations reduced by paraphrased. Awadewit (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Wadewitz (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Individual and society The prose in this section needs to be smoothed out and the number of quotations reduced by paraphrased. Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Wadewitz (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please add what you feel needs to be done, etc. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Illustrations

I'm working on getting more title pages and scans of illustrations from later 19th-century editions. Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a series of illustrations. Any donations to offset the cost would be welcome. :) Awadewit (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

See these illustrations from Sense and Sensibility and these from Emma. I'll be adding some from Pride and Prejudice in a few days. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also added some from Pride and Prejudice now. Awadewit (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Claims an editor fixed her rubbish spelling and lack of style

This Oxford University professor of Lit suggests that her work was heavily edited, bringing at least some of the style she is known for. I'm not in a position to incorporate it, but it surely merits inclusion [1]. Onanoff (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)