|WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Women's History||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Hello, have I missed something or isn't there any analytical literary criticism of this novel cited in the references? I'm sure I've read that it's notorious for the one dimensional characters, only snobbish, or vulgar, or good, or whatever? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Kinraid 03-29-2014
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said, 'Evalina'. I've heard it's supposed to be the best, but didn't E M Forster point out the flat characters in that? It'd take me a while to track down the reference, though. Kinraid 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 03.31.14
I agree that Evelina is the best. Have you read the page on it? It seems to me to cover the book quite well. If you want to include E. M. Forster's critical comment you will need a reference.Bmcln1 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That was the whole thing, I read the page, but unless I'm being obtuse - not impossible _ I couldn't find any discussion of the shortcomings of the work - only an uncritical exposition of the work, list of characters, etc. I thought a couple of remarks such as 'Johnson [and some quote about wherever he said it] greatly admired the work, as did So and So, but some modern critics (Forster and so on) find the characters stereotypes, find some of the comic scenes unpleasant, etc) would improve the article? For that reason,it doesn't seem balanced to me as even Shakespeare is criticized - unless I missed something? I see there are references to books on the work which no doubt take on some of these issues, but I thought it would add to the article to have some opinions quoted in the main body. I can dig out the references to works that take on some of the defects in the works and in 'Evalina', though it'll take some research; that's why I was hoping the experts would do it, as they must have read a fair bit of the criticism of her stuff and know where to find the references, whereas I've only read a bit? [Kinraid 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC) 04.1.14
Definitely spelt Evelina, not Evalina, if you want to Google up references. I agree that comments about her work from literary names such as Samuel Johnson and E. M. Forster would be good if properly referenced. I think they might cover various works and be most useful on the Frances Burney page rather than any pages for individual works. I look forward to seeing the results. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I've got a mental block about the spelling, 'Evelina'it is; I'll look them up; it might take a little while but I'll be back in time. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Kinraid 04.03.14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I am attempting to change the name of the Fanny Burney page to Frances Burney.
According to the Wikipedia Help Page I must do the following:
"With the correct page displayed, click on the "Move" tab near the top of the page. You'll be asked for a new name for the page, and given the option to also move the page's talk page. NOTE: Unless you know what you're doing, it's safest to say yes."
I cannot understand what these instructions entail, and I wonder if there is help available through the Talk pages?
What's in a name?
I am bringing this up here because the subject has the potential to be inflammatory so I don't want to just do an edit without explanation. But, with reference to the first line of this article, Burney is no longer "usually" known as Fanny. "Usually" implies something ongoing and that is not the case here: a glance at anything published about her in the last decade or two would make that clear. Certainly she was known as Fanny to her circle, and certainly she was known as Fanny to scholars until fairly recently. But without getting into a discussion of what using a diminutive of her name in a professional context may mean -- for there be dragons -- the fact remains that the way most of the scholarly community now names Burney has changed, just as it is now common usage to regularize the names of women authors in general (to drop the "Mrs."; to drop the husband's full name; &c). Some may deplore such changes and they might have a point -- the argument to respect the name by which the author was known in her own time is a reasonable one -- but an encyclopedia should reflect the actual terrain, surely?
SO. I would like to throw this out here, and depending on any ensuing discussion, propose to edit the line back to read "also known as." It seems the most neutral formulation. scribblingwoman 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I agree...("also known as Fanny") Keep sleeping, little dragon!--FlammingoParliament 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Beauty! scribblingwoman 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I find it weird that any successful published author should appear in a Wikipedia article under a different name from the one she chose to publish under. Mhkay (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)