Talk:Little Lord Fauntleroy

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


It was a commercial success for its author, set fashion trends and also set a precedent in copyright law.

what precedent?Pedant 01:02, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
good question--clarified in article; see Frances Hodgson Burnett for more Quill 07:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also see Encyclopedia Brittanica Online 2009 which mentions the copyright precedent in passing Frances Hodgson Burnett." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. 18 Apr. 2009 < Victorianezine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC).

"Still popular"? I read Little Lord Fauntleroy when I was about nine— and was wise enough already to be repelled by its saccharine tone— but I'm quite sure few of you have! A book that was already so utterly faded and stale during the Eisenhower administration can scarcely be rivetting the depleted attention spans of today, no? The book is not popular but notorious, to be perfectly frank: everyone has heard about it. But none of you have read it!--Wetman (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What a bizarrely personal response--why the assumptions and the over-the-top criticism? ("Utterly faded and stale" and all the !!!!!s) Actually, I have read it, as have my siblings. Sure, it's an old-fashioned story, with little of the more complex characterization of A Little Princess or The Secret Garden but still very sweet, with a worthwhile message--high expectations are a powerful motivator. Undoubtedly this is why the story continues to be adapted for film and TV. (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This book IS overly sentimental. But the facts that it is still in print AND that it has several film versions shows the basic Fauntleroy story still appeals to people. I have read the book both as a child and an adult. I personally liked it even tho the big crisis is solved through an incredible coincidence. The 1936 film starring the great 1930's child actor Freddie Bartholomew had an "A" list cast and producer (David O. Selznick who also did "Gone with the Wind")...and is still good (except for needing a technical cleanup of pictures and sound).Victorianezine (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)victorianezine

The article on fashion has a reference cited but the note about "no references" is still there - the Encyclopedia Brittanica is also cited concerning the copyright issue. Why are so many editorial notes posted on this article? Victorianezine (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Positive influences from the book Little Lord Fauntleroy?[edit]

This book, which is still in print, is considered by some a minor classic, despite its slightly over sentimental tone and the incredible solution to the story's crisis.

I no longer have access to some of the articles online (in journals which now CHARGE for usage) on the positive effects of this novel (which was a major HIT in its time both as a book and as a play).

It is said this book (written by a British born woman now living in America) helped to bridge the gap between Britain and the US.

I don't have current sources, so my comments are put into "discussion". But the article seems to only dwell on the fashion influence of the book.

Am hoping some English scholars can check this article.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Am hoping someone with access to more 19th century sources can add scholarly depth to this article about the minor classic "Little Lord Fauntleroy".Dnadazzles (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The originality of this work?[edit]

Am I the only one who has noted the close similarities of the plots between Little Lord Fauntleroy and Dickens’s A Christmas Carol? The Earl is Scrooge while Ceddie is the three spirits of Christmas rolled into one adorable tyke? I am certainly not accusing Ms. Burnett of plagiarism, but the similarities with the scenarios are stark enough to merit mention within the article. I have to believe there had been at least considerable influence. (There are several points of striking similarities by way of parallels.)

I also feel that the merit of the book is somewhat diminished by this factor as well. I could take, for example, the plot of Gone With the Wind and rehash it in a different time period with a different scenario while retaining its essence. If I did that as a writer, I wouldn’t consider myself all that creative or my hypothetical work all that meritorious regardless of its other virtues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Probably the old man who later shapes up (Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" and The old Earl in "Little Lord Fauntleroy") is the biggest similarity between the two books. I personally do not think there is much other similarity. The general concept that the strong (i.e. Scrooge or the Old Earl) should care for the weak is embodied in both books, but is played out in quite different ways.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

LITTLE LORD FAUNTLEROY - and a REAL LIFE Earl who may have inspired this minor Classic![edit]

The appeal of LLF still goes on...If you search the net, you will find many positive reviews...and even this article notes the many remakes of the story. Loving the fact that the RUSSIANS (of all people...) made a version of this novel!

This article lacks DEPTH...and a discusion of LLF's effects on society (other than "fashion") is needed...along with references...which I currently lack...

As I don't have VAST submitting this as a section in the Discussion. Perhaps a scholar of that era can adapt (or amend) my conclusions:

LLF - a wildly popular Victorian novel - would have been BELIEVABLE to many Victorians...because of real life Victorian Lord Anthony Ashley...7th Earl of Shaftesbury...who worked to end child labor (notably labor as coal miners...) and who did many other great works to help the Poor of Britain. After his long productive life working for the poor, he died fall 1885 (when this a serial in the popular youth mag "St. Nicholas" started appearing). Probably many late Victorian readers would recognize this Earl's example of a powerful man using his power to aid the young Cedric's kind actions towards the poor. They could easily believe that Cedric would grow up and become a fictional Earl of Shaftesbury who agitates in Parliament for the poor and who actively works to make their lives better.

Charles Dickens' novels concerning the oppressed poor were one earlier example of using literature to stand up for the weak and oppressed. Note that in Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" he has nasty pre-ghost Scrooge quote nasty real life Rev. Malthus...who wrote around 1797...that he wanted the excess human population reduced. Scrooge repeats this cruel phrase...and DICKENS slams this cruel thought back into Scrooge's the "excess human population" becomes beloved Tiny Tim.

The theme of "excess population vs human WORTH" is repeated in "Little Lord Fauntleroy". It's hinted that "Dearest" mom to possibly born out of wedlock; certainly she had no real "background" (considered important in that era) as Captain Errol meets her at the home of a rich US home where "Dearest" is a paid companion verbally abused by her employer. No family of hers is EVER mentioned. (In that era, one might suffer permanent scorn if born out of wedlock--or even if born poor.)

Cedric's friends were all "low born". The snobbish Earl is vastly pleased with his handsome, strong-appearing and well-mannered American born grandson. He apparently is so pleased that he will "accept" Cedric's low-born friends. (Their worth is later established as they solve the plot crisis...) Thus, Cedric builds the first bridge between the powerful, selfish Earl and the poor and others which he has previously neglected or scorned. Other bridges are built...later the old, formerly wicked Earl...repents of his evil behavior. He starts to help others, and is pleased to do so. The old Earl tells his grandson Cedric that he will be a "better Earl than I was...".

Thus, the late Victorian first readers of LLF...would be pleased to see the poor young boy become the powerful and GOOD Lord...and future Earl. And...because of Lord Shaftesbury, they could BELIEVE this novel's premise.

'The strong should help the weak' is still an important tenet of our society. And "Little Lord Fauntleroy" ,despite its overly sweet language and incredible plot solution...pleases many (I believe) because it shows a poor boy of good character SWAY a powerful, selfish become that strong man - like the real life 7th Earl of Shaftesbury - who will protect the weak. Thus, the Bible precept many Victorians learned "A little child shall lead them" was personified in young Cedric Errol...the Brooklyn boy from the US who becomes Little Lord Fauntleroy and later...the next Earl of Dorincourt. Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Country United States?[edit]

This is an English author. Is there any reason, besides the book partially taking place in New York, for it to have the Country as United States and not England? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Burnett was born in Britain but her family emigrated to the US. The book starts out in New York, but ends up in Britain. Perhaps listing both the US and Britain would be more accurate.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material[edit]

Article has been tagged for needing sourcing since 2007. Please feel free to reincorporate below material with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have books of criticism about it; I don't have time to read and incorporate. Please feel free to spend some time looking for scholarly criticism and adding to the page. The information you've added above doesn't have anything to do with literary criticism. It's better the leave the page the way it is and wait for something uselful to the be added. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I did spend some time looking before I moved this, but couldn't find anything (maybe other editors will have better luck, though), and given that the article's been tagged since 2007 I question whether anyone cares enough to improve it. In any case, it doesn't seem appropriate to remove the refimprove template while there is still a great deal of information in the article proper that should be sourced. Doniago (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I care enough. I've written almost all of Frances Hodgson Burnett - but that too needs a section devoted to her works. I removed the refimprove tag b/c the plot section doesn't need it leaving only one paragraph uncited. Rather than tagging, it's better to look for sources for the information. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I've commented out an unsourced para and added a para with sources. Tag removed. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your improvements to the article; it looks much better now! There was a ref that hadn't quite been formatted correctly; I cleaned that up, but please look it over and make any changes you feel may be warranted. Also, please note that I was not responsible for the original tagging (not even sure I was active here in '07); I only took note of it (and updated it from an unsourced to a refimprove), and while I agree that finding sources is better than just tagging, in practice it's reasonable and AGF to assume that editors have looked for sources before tagging, or possibly feel other editors are more qualified/competent to locate appropriate references. Thanks again! Doniago (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Little Lord Fauntleroy/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.

Last edited at 02:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 22:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)