Talk:Alan Garner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The bibliography section is redundant, and appeared to be a list of worksGarbledLecture933 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Those not yet used as references could be moved to a further reading section, but a properly constructed bibliography is still important. Nev1 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I assume you were referring to this, but I do notice that some of the sources included in the bibliography haven't yet been cited so could still be moved to a new further reading section. Nev1 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys; just a note to say that I was the editor responsible for expanding the bibliography as a part of my plan to gradually improve this page over the next few months. All of the sources that I stuck in the bibliography will prove useful in doing so, so I'd ask that they be left in situ if that's okay ? By all means help out on improving the page too! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC))
Eighteen months later. As those sources have not yet been cited two other editors have deleted them today, among major revisions of section Works as well as the footer. For "Owl" and anyone else who may be interested, those are eleven online sources "Retrieved 20 August 2011" that appear consecutively in the "Bibliography" version 2013-05-20 --in which those listings are substantially identical to Owl's last work there 2011-10-15(differences).
--P64 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"privately run" manchester grammar school[edit]

I'm going to remove the 'privately run' from 'Manchester Grammar School', since it confuses rather than illuminates. When Garner was there the school was a Direct grant grammar school, where virtually all funding for less well-off children was paid for by the state, and where at least a third of governors were appointed by the local education authority, and where entry was entirely based on the results of a competitive examination. Cooke (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Folktales series: reception[edit]

In the United States, Kirkus gave Fairy Tales of Gold, Garner & Michael Foreman, the harshest review I have ever read, albeit I haven't read many. (book one, 1981-11-01 review).

And Kirkus gave A Bag of Moonshine, Garner & P. J. Lynch, an exceptionally good review. (book three, 1986-09-15 review).

Although the text by Garner gets more attention than the illustrations by Foreman and Lynch, these remarks pertain to both. Others agreed broadly with Kirkus, I infer from the drastic change in format, from 200-page picture book of merely 4 tales to 160 and 144-page illustrated collections of 21 and 22 tales. (Reviewer #3 strongly approved Garner's part in book two, it is clear, with no implication about its illustration.)

--P64 (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


{{Authority control}} in the article footer links LC and other catalog data. For one, WorldCat provides data on translations into other languages (albeit incomplete).

1967 winner at Carnegie Medal Living Archive (2007?)
—This itty-bitty promotion shouldn't be worth mentioning re a biography of this length, but it happens that we give The Owl Service least-adequate coverage of any item. Before departing I will look for more from CILIP ...

Anniversary Top Ten press release 20 April 2007
Anniversary Top Ten "Talking Points" (The Owl Service, pp1-2)

The website evidently provides no materials contemporary to Garner and The Owl Service winning the Medal (1968). --P64 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment I am able to search numerous U.S. newspapers via ProQuest. 'owl service alan garner' hits no notice of Garner and The Owl Service winning the Carnegie Medal or Guardian Prize. It does hit one review of the U.S. edition, a remarkably positive review.
  • Maples, Houston L. [Review of The Owl Service]. Chicago Tribune; Nov 3, 1968; p S12.
--P64 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

External links[edit]

User:Spanglej just pruned the collection of external links per WP:LINKFARM so I've saved a copy here in case we might want to put any of them back in as proper citations.


I hope that's ok. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nic, that's ok. It's also possible to make them available conveniently (altho less conveniently) via the edit history. Link one section of a past version or link differences between two versions. I have done both today, #Bibliography. --P64 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just looking through these in the light of the Wikipedia:External links guideline article. I suppose counts as a blog; fansites are out; the Warwick and HarperCollins links are dead; the relevance of the Blackden Trust site might not be obvious. The Guardian and the Rochester links seem fine to me: my guess is that they have been removed as they fall foul of "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The key to restoring these would be to use them to support something in the (improved) article and then use them as references. Of course everything will still be available on the page's history. Tigerboy1966  07:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I replaced the Guardian book reviews with a Guardian link to all articles about Garner. We try and keep ELs of broad relevance, rather than, say, reviews of one book. Span (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I've found where they moved the Warwick interview podcast to - it's here. I'll put it back into the main article as a reference. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The Internet Archive (Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine) covers many websites (not all blogs and forums, i feel sure). I think it's best always to link a specific relevant page at a site and to make it a formal reference --in a wiki biography, especially something like a publisher or university biographical blurb on one of its writers or faculty members. Some editors are very good at re-linking "dead link" content. --P64 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

British, English, Brythonic[edit]

Here we cite 2010 praise from British novelists, fantasy writers, etc. We actually call three of four "English" in the lead sentences of their biographies. (Susan Cooper, Philip Pullman, Neil Gaiman; contrast David Almond)

In the lead we mention "British folk tales", later British folktales (one word); one of Garner's titles is ... British Fairy Tales'. Do these refer to "recent" and English material --middle, early modern and modern? Or clearly Brythonic material in some sense? The Owl Service basis is Brythonic in all three senses of our disambiguation, I understand. Years ago I understood the Alderley Edge novels to have Brythonic basis, without secure knowledge. Now that I check a few of our articles, I see that the Morrigan has Irish roots and Brisingamen Norse. (Are there genuinely Irish and Norse elements in Alderley folklore, or only in name Garner borrowed?)

Bottom line: While covering The Owl Service book awards here, I have not changed "British folk tales" or anywhere wikified "British". But I wonder whether we can do better and pass it on here. I have uncertainly added the Portal:Mythology shortcut, suspecting that there is something more appropriately Celtic/British/Welsh but I don't know the Garner or the portals well enough.

--P64 (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


Thought it was worth a source dump for Boneland before it is started:

  • [1], Fourth Estate page


  • [2], The Guardian
  • [3], The Scotsman
  • [4], The Independent


  • [5], The Guardian
  • [6], The Independent on Sunday
  • [7], The Independent
  • [8], Daily Telegraph
  • [9], The Herald
  • [10], Daily Express

Anything else? (Emperor (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

ISBN columns[edit]

Not convinced of the value of ISBN columns in the tables. They take up room, and they are uninformative to the point of being misleading, as every edition - even of the same text by the same publisher (maybe it's some tiny format change) - seems to have a new ISBN. Since we should either list all or none of them, and all is essentially hopeless, I suggest none. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the tables add nothing. Span (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography again[edit]

The bibliography still looks to be a bit of a mess. It seems it started out as a source list for the references but editors have since added publications about Garner. Some of the items link to the ref section; much of it seems like a collection of external links. Span (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. Should separate actual 'Sources' from 'Further reading' then. And external linkoids should either go to the ext section or get a decent burial. PS - it's your turn. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The changes to the bibliography and the intro of the table of works seem to be made by Midnight Blue Owl in 2011. It's a bit of a puzzle. I'll have a go. I vote for - sources, further reading and a decent burial for the rest. Span (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The deleted sources, not yet used in the article, are eleven online sources "Retrieved 20 August 2011" that appear consecutively in the "Bibliography" version 2013-05-20. (more information above, #Bibliography). --P64 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree these might be useful in the future development of the article. They are not 'sources' as they do not source anything yet, if I understand rightly. More 'pre-emptive sources'. The word 'bibliography' is a bit ambiguous to be useful in WP as it just means 'book list'. It is variously used to mean the publications of the subject, books about the subject and sometimes sources used in the article. The headings refs, sources, works, further reading and external links, I think, make matters clearer. Span (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Alan Turing[edit]

Is Garner's acquaintance with Turing worth a mention? I think it probably is.

Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and have added a sentence into the article mentioning this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)