Talk:Persuasion (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / 19th century (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by 19th century task force.
 
WikiProject Women writers (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

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)

It is good ~ "Often dull heroine"? What now? Boo hiss. Perhaps not the most, ah, /unjudgemental/ of opening statements. Character interpretation [particularly unaccompanied by /any/ *coff coff* textual evidence] should be shoved elsewhere than the intro. . . Especially since the beginning of this article now reads like "OMG I hated this [expletive] person, icky book." Pretty please, someone with more literary-crit approp. turns of phrase, resolve. E-hugs in advance :) 65.95.34.175 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lady Russell[edit]

"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)

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)

"in her first youth"[edit]

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)

"More than seven years were gone.."[edit]

Please explain your reasoning for "more than EIGHT years". The author clearly states: "More than seven years were gone since this little history of sorrowful interest had reached its close;" (Chapter 4); and it seems the various calendar 'pegs' (placed and implied — by the author's narrative) indicate that she 'got it right'; ie, there doesn't appear to be any inconsistency with "more than seven years", AND, it does appear that "more than EIGHT years" doesn't fit the calculus of those calendar pegs. >>Do you know of language in the novel that shows the time setting (of the novel's opening) is greater than eight years after the demise of Anne and Wentworth's engagement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeans (talkcontribs) 08:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (Sorry, missed my sign-off).--Jbeans (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Austen?[edit]

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)

Explanation of title --Variation on a theme?[edit]

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)

'Tighten-up'? Plot Introduction[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC) (Sorry! I keep forgetting my sign-off ID here; sincerely,--Jbeans (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Images[edit]

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)

Possible merge?[edit]

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)