Talk:Tom Brown's School Days

Language

Whoever disputed the neutrality of the "Language" section doesn't seem to have commented on the talk page. I agree that this section needs looking at, the points in it are made as if it is factual rather than opinion (it reminds me of being lectured by a GCSE English teacher). I suggest it is changed or removed. At the minimum I think it should come much further down the article. However, since it seems to have been there so long, there should probably be some debate on it first.

--Lawrennd 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The language section should be cut out entirely. The language is relatively straightforward and not "singularly dense and impenetrable" and the novel certainly isn't the "very epitome of mid-Victorian obfuscation". The entire section not so much POV as complete nonsense. 62.25.106.209 13:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

School Days or Schooldays?

My edition has "School Days", but I see some of those on the Web have "Schooldays". How sure are we of the correct title?

Looking back at the book, I see that the roasting didn't cause Tom to leave school, and that he and East fight Flashman in the first half of the book, before Arthur is introduced. Also, Tom learned boxing and wrestling in the White Horse Vale before going to school, not after being bullied by Flashman. --JerryFriedman

I'm convinced that bullying is not the central theme. The business with Flashman and his friends takes up two chapters and parts of two others, out of eighteen chapters. (You could say that it's also the reason for the fight, which is another chapter, but I see a big difference between Slogger Williams hitting Arthur for "sneaking" and Flashy tormenting boys for fun.) Tom's resistance to bullying is one part of his growth. So the only substantive change I made, in all my reorganizing, is saying what I believe the theme is. --JerryFriedman

?

Why is Tom Brown's School Days hated by some? J. Michael Reiter

That line isn't in the article any more (though I'm thinking about putting something back in somewhere about the strong feelings the book arouses). I think the main reasons are that it's preachy, it defends fighting among schoolboys and only mildly criticizes birdsnesting, it approves of the highly stratified society of the author's childhood, and some people were forced to read it as children. —JerryFriedman 16:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tom Brown's School-Days and bullying

I stumbled across this discussion whilst trying to ascertain the identity of "F.D." as quoted in the preface to the edition I possess. (Tom Brown's School-Days [sic] by Thomas Hughes edited by Howard Marshall. Purnell and Sons Ltd 1963) It is a while since I have read the book but as an ex-public school boy in mid-life coming to terms with his past I found Thomas Hughes' preface illuminating. He addresses correspondence he had received regarding a previous edition (which one is not stated)referring to the topic of bullying. It appears that some of the author's contemporaries had taken him to task for not dealing sufficiently with this topic. An eloquent letter from "F.D" (introduced as an "old friend" - who is he?) is quoted in full and, in my opinion, makes some telling points. Hughes appears to rebut these. He has an optimistic nature, faith in the system, those who uphold it, and the triumph of good over evil. I suspect that many who survived even later manifestations of the public school system, under less inspired leadership than Arnold's, would strongly identify with "F.D."'s criticisms.

John Hicks

book cover

Curiously the boy on the book cover appears to be playing softball/rounders/baseball. It doesn't look like a cricket bat and it certainly isn't a normal stance for cricket. How did that happen? Jooler 15:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Rounders and a game called "baseball" (see British baseball) have long been played in England.GordyB (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie versions: table

The "film adaptation" section is useful; sadly one cannot say the same of the sub-section "Changes to the story in movie versions". Since "Movie 1" is not identified, and, to judge from the last entry (result of Arthur's illness "not known") has not been watched all the way through, it should be removed. --Javits2000 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-Opening the "Schooldays" vs. "School Days" Question

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Aervanath (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Tom Brown's Schooldays → Tom Brown's School Days – Relisted. Will leave a note at WT:NOVELS. Favonian (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC). Before seeing it thus on this page, it'd never occurred to me to spell it as one word. The images of the book cover and movie poster both use two words. The linked scan at the Internet Archive similarly eschews the single word spelling. (I'd argue that the tilde separating "School" and "Days" on its cover is indicative of a space, but I'd be willing to entertain arguments that it's hyphenation.) I'm most curious from whence the single-word version emanates. I include the requested move as a means of elevating the question. Czrisher (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support - The article name should match the book name as precisely as possible. The current location can remain as a redirect. Green Giant (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - On second thoughts, and after looking through several online copies purported to be first editions, I don't think this distinction is really that important. As long as one spelling hosts the article and the other spelling is a redirect, I don't think we should expend too much energy defending one or the other style. Green Giant (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The book has often been printed with "Schooldays" in the title and often referred to that way. I think I'd support using the way it was printed on the first edition. The oldest version I can find at Google Books has "School Days". On the other hand, a search for "Tom Brown's Schooldays" finds some books dated to 1857, but with no preview, so I can't tell how old they really are. Covers of supposed first editions such as this (one of which we should rip and use in the infobox) seem to have "School Days", but if we want to go by the first edition, we may need to look into it more carefully. (Somebody at abebooks is selling a "first edition" printed in New York in 1890!) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • On the other other hand, here's a Google ngram result that indicates that in the 1930s, "Tom Brown's Schooldays" became the more popular spelling. I suppose yet another thing to do would be to look at booksellers' sites to see which spelling is used more in titles. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. corresponds to the correct English spelling of the work. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How did you determine the correct spelling? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The two images both use two words, as does Project Gutenberg, Bibliomania, and Encyclopedia Britannica. I can't say what the original usage was, but reliable contemporary sources seem to favour two separate words. --DeLarge (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• And comment: ironically, if you look at their respective page histories, "School Days" existed first on WP, before having its contents merged into "Schooldays". Not that this means anything, but if it's purely a style issue, then I say the two-word version gets dibs on the article. --DeLarge (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Characters

Might want to flesh out the "Characters" section with a brief description of each character. The last three listed aren't even mentioned anywhere else in the article, so in my opinion it's fairly pointless to list them unless they have at least a brief description (no spoilers necessary). Also: Could delete the last three characters in the list and re-title the section "Main characters". Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree SoftLavender with your second suggestion and would delete the last five so that only the four hyperlinked remain. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's wait and see if there any other opinions. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Outline of Flashman

What is this article: Outline of Flashman, which "Flashman" links to in the character list of this TBS article? From the non-wikified title to the confusing lede to everything about it, it seems to stem out of nowhere and ramble in a rather coatrack-y fashion. What should be done about or with it? In its current state I don't think "Flashman" should link to it from this TBS article. Softlavender (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No. It's a mess and I cannot see the need for this article. If we have a link for Flashman it should take us here — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I re-named the article in question, and re-framed the lede. I personally do not think the Hughes character "Flashman" should even link to the Fraser character of Flashman -- especially since Flashman is never given a first name, much less a middle name, in TBS -- except in the "References to other works" section. That is, however, a judgement call, as I'm not familiar with Fraser's novels or the character in them. Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, in terms of "I cannot see the need for this article": Upon close examination, I think a lot of it should probably be divvied up and the component parts moved to the specific articles they concern. If anyone wants to AfD the article, I will suggest that. And I would even willingly move the parts to their respective articles myself, even though I am unfamiliar with the topic. I'm not however really interested in personally initiating an/the AfD at this point. Softlavender (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all you say. Shall we remove the wikilinking to Harry Flashman? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, except where we are actually referring to Fraser's Harry Flashman -- as opposed to Hughes', who has no forename. Softlavender (talk)

Okay, I'll do it. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Though Fraser's Flashman is intended to be the same character as Hughes' Flashman, Hughes' Flashman is not intended to be the same character as Fraser's Flashman (if that makes sense). It would be appropriate for pages on Fraser's Flashman to link to pages on the Hughes character (as in Frasers universe they *are* the same), but it is only appropriate for pages on Hughes' Flashman to link to pages on the Fraser character when specifying it as a spin-off or derivative character (and not an authorial continuation), as in the Tom Brown universe Fraser's development of the character does not exist. Essentially: Hughes' Flashman is canon in the Fraser-Flashman universe, but Fraser's Flashman is non-canonical in the Tom Brown universe.

For what it's worth, there's also The Flashman Papers article, which seems to cover the same ground as Outline of Flashman. At the moment I support Softlavender's divvying up proposal. I also recommend reading the Flashman books; they're excellent. The Dancing Badger (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There, have divvied up the content between The Flashman Papers and Harry Flashman. Will AFD Outline of Flashman when I have the time (unless someone else wants to) The Dancing Badger (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as this delete now seems uncontroversial have proposed deletion - if anyone disagrees I'll nominate for AfD discussion when I have the time The Dancing Badger (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the creator of the article is going to be happy if it gets prodded -- he wrote the FA on The Flashman Papers. I think AfD would be a better venue if you believe it to be deletion-worthy, but I'm not going to contest the prod. Softlavender (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tom Brown's School Days/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

From Professor Max Blythe: In the Wikipedia article on Tom Brown's Schooldays there is a photograph of the DVD cover of what is said to be the 1940 British film of the Tom Brown story. However, the headmaster shown on this DVD cover looks more like Robert Newton of the 1951 British film. It does not look like Sir Cedric Hardwicke, who it is said to be.92.2.22.18 (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)