Talk:The Awakening (Chopin novel)

Novels: 19th century Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Novels portal 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.

{{WikiProject United States|class=start|importance=low|LA=yes|LA-importance=low|NOLA=yes|NOLA-importance=low}}

Put Plot before characters

I believe the plot section needs to be put before the character descriptions, like other articles about novels. It does no good to know the inner thoughts of a character if you don't know what they do in a novel. If you disagree, simply revert my change. --65.9.23.67 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in disagreement about what is posted currently and will be adding points and altering things over the next week or so. Please comment or refer those who are freshly familiar with the work.

Move article

Should this article be titled "The Awakening (novel)" to keep with Wikipedia standards? This article should be moved. Singingwolfboy 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

content discussion

that was an accurate comment about arobin. what a disgusting character This Title is perfect leave as it is. and there shouldn't be any references or concerns about what to do with this TITLE. LEAVE AS IT IS.

Please sign your comments. There is no such thing as "leave as it is" when it comes to Wikipedia. If people want to add information, or correct information, that's their perogative. See WP:OWN. 23skidoo 18:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the entry on Robert Lebrun should be altered at the end. He doesn't leave her because he doesn't want to subject her to an affair, but because she refuses to either have an affair with him or be "given" to him by her husband, as both these options conflict with her new sense of agency and independence. She clearly tells Robert that she would laugh at both of them if Mr. Pontellier sought to hand her over to him because she is no one's possession. Emln50 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could see that point being argued, but it seems to me that she's expressing how she is free to make her own decisions, and to give her love to whomever she chooses; she is not his property, and therefore he cannot control her actions. I think she's perfectly willing to have an affair with him, and Robert is aware of this. The best solution to this dilemma would be to just put the actual text of his letter, without any commentary - it isn't the place of Wikipedia to interpret the facts, that's the reader's task. 67.159.136.190 (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of one learned scholar, Edna is quite simply a "crazy feminist."

This entire page is terrible. I could write better off the top of my head. Alcee wants to have sex with Edna 'all night long'??? Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.43.3 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Wikipedia standards? What about giving a source for that quote? Anyway, I think this final paragraph about Edna is a shame, as it is, in two lines, judging a much more complex character, without backing it up in any way. I personally think that Edna Pontellier is a much more difficult and interesting character than a "crazy feminist". JustusvV 08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm very surprised it's included in this article, especially without a citation. An analysis like that - if said by a "learned scholar" would have to be greatly elaborated on and that wouldn't be fit for an encyclopedia article. I feel it should be removed Marty Donakowski 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an unverified claim that a "significant majority" of readers hold a certain opinion. The speculative statistics, mysterious "scholar" and misspelling all compelled this user to remove the paragraph. 125.237.68.53 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article reads like a poorly-researched 7th grade term paper. I suggest we delete everything under the plot summary and re-write it from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.135.67 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

I appreciate all the attempts at improving this article but I guess there's still a long way to go.

Why has it recently been renamed The Awakening (literature)? What's wrong with the Wikipedia standard The Awakening (novel), which is now a redirect?

Someone mentioned this point years ago, but why do the character sketches still appear before the plot summary? What's more, reading that "Robert [Lebrun] acts as Edna's vacation lover" is certainly misleading.

<K F> 04:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Someone please put a warning sign, people who read the summary can be spoilt, knowing the end.