Talk:Nero Wolfe supporting characters

MV!

Overall, nicely done. Suggest however that you limit yourself somewhat. Telling when characters die is unfair to a reader. Not all the Wolfe books are easily found. Some are out of print.

Personally, I don't care that you describe a death of a minor castmember of a book I'm just now reading.

But I didn't want to know about Marko beforehand; I haven't read that book yet. He isn't minor.

BTW, go check out Steven Brust's LiveJournal for 9-June-06 [link on Wiki]. You may be amused.

- Chica

Anderson and Archer

There has been confusion on this page, I see, dating back to its earliest versions. In Fer-de-Lance the Westchester DA was Fletcher M. Anderson (chapter 3). In subsequent books (such as The Second Confession), it is Cleveland Archer. I don't know when the voters of Westchester County saw fit to replace Mr. Anderson with Mr. Archer, but because of the different names, and to forestall further confusion, I have deleted this article's reference to Fer-de-Lance, as well as the note concerning the bet with Anderson. TurnerHodges 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

There are no links from the main Nero Wolfe page to this page, or vice versa. Should there be? Much (but not all) of the content on this page is repeated on the main page. Some isn't (there is a list of 'associates' which omits Cramer and Stebbins, and other law & order folks...). I would think that either this info should be included on the main page, OR the links between these two pages should be strengthened.

Integrating content into main Nero Wolfe article

I've begun integrating text from this article into sections of the Nero Wolfe article. I believe that a separate "supporting characters" article may no longer be needed. — WFinch (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. — WFinch (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hombert Hombert

An earlier version of the Hombert discussion mentioned, I believe via footnote, that in The Silent Speaker Wolfe has a chance to humiliate Hombert and help Cramer in the process. I think that the editor might have been confused: there's a scene in And Be a Villain in which Wolfe has an opportunity to humiliate Deputy Police Commissioner O'Hara. At any rate, I find nothing in The Silent Speaker to suggest that Wolfe was in a position to humiliate Hombert, and I've removed the reference. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me. TurnerHodges (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting

I think I have made my first successful redirect, bringing the Lily Rowan article here. If I didn't foul up too many things, I'll do the same (in time) with the individual articles for the other Nero Wolfe supporting characters, since we're consolidating all the information here. Athaenara, please pardon my removing the internal link you placed here today. — WFinch (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any thoughts about placement of the categories that are present on the individual articles? Lily Rowan was the easy test case for a redirect, since the only category present on her article was "Nero Wolfe characters." Arnold Zeck's article, however, also has the category "Fictional criminals." Inspector Cramer and Purley have the category "Fictional police officers."

Maybe it's not such a problem, after all, because that's it. If these two categories don't make the leap to the Nero Wolfe supporting characters article, you'll understand. Add them if you feel it's a good idea. — WFinch (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blathering on, it's all done. There are now only three articles in the category Nero Wolfe characters: Nero Wolfe, Archie Goodwin (fictional detective), and Nero Wolfe supporting characters. I see now that this article has as a second category, "Lists of television characters," which I feel inclined to remove. — WFinch (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Questions, re:the Purley and Cramer Descriptions

I can't tell who contributed these curiosities, or when, because the reorganization has of necessity wreaked havoc on the History. Citations and/or opinions, anybody?

PURLEY -- Questioning the assertion that Purley resents Archie for being better paid.

While there's ample textual evidence that Cramer resents Wolfe for earning oodles more than Cramer does for solving crimes (e.g.,"Idon't have a Fritz" and frequent cracks about Wolfe always having a "client"), I don't recall Purley expressing the same kind of resentment toward Archie -- in fact, it would seem to me to be out of character for him, but that might just be my own take on Purley, whom I adore.

CRAMER -- "Cramer occasionally enjoys twitting Wolfe by rising from the red leather chair without using his arms for leverage – something that Wolfe cannot do."

I don't remember this from the books, only being dumbfounded by it in a recent viewing of the 1981 TV series, which substituted this 'look ma, no hands' gimmick for Cramer's signature cigar (it's even in the opening credits for each episode).

Possibly Archie mentioned this once and then forgot about it because Stout didn't consider it worth continuing? That's just a guess, but even if there is a lone reference to this supposed Wolfe-twitting trick, it very definitely isn't something for which Cramer is known (other than by fans of the 1981 TV series).RRRRowcliff (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TurnerHodges here, and I made the contributions. I will have to do some research. My memory has it that it was Archie, not Purley, who speculated on Purley's reasons for helping to keep their relationship a testy one (and if that's the case, I will revise to indicate that it's a speculation by one fictional character about another one). I think I can find that, if indeed it exists. I agree that it would be seriously weird for Purley to say so. I may have difficulty with the business about getting up from a chair: I have only about half the corpus on my shelves -- the rest have grown legs. I remember watching the Conrad - Horsley series when it first appeared and being delighted that it was faithful to the books to the extent that Cramer stood up using his leg muscles only (but my delight didn't last long). So I had read it somewhere -- problem is that I no longer know where, it may be in a book I don't have, and now I'm asking for some help. I further agree that the standing-up jab isn't a running bit, it may be a one-off, and could therefore be removed without much pain. TurnerHodges (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had a hunch and for once it paid off. I find this in PB, at the end of chapter 14: "[Purley] knew that my take-home pay, considering that my home was with Wolfe, was at least four times his, and he wasn't going to sponge fried clams off of any goddam plutocrat." There's more, both immediately before and immediately after. I admit that the quoted portion does not directly translate to "Stebbins resents Archie, largely because Archie is paid much more money," but it's close. I also believe that there are other relevant citations, but I'm not looking for them. I have a life, and right now I have to polish my spats. TurnerHodges (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Knowing now that it was you, I'm sure there was some basis for those character comments. But there's really no practical way for anyone to dig out whatever evidence may exist to support the assertions; it would have to be left to chance, i.e., the lot of us keeping the questionable comments in mind during re-reads.

Re: Purley -- The quote you came up with sounds more to me like Archie projecting how he would feel in Purley's postion. And I could easily believe that Archie would prefer to believe that Purley resents him for something other than just being a pain in the tail.:-)

Re: Cramer -- I actually did do a search of sorts through some NW forum archives and on the internet. The only thing that popped up for a 'look ma, no hands' type thing was a passing mention, uncited, in an essay on NW by a fan on her son's website; she might have gotten it from a book, the 1981 TV series, or, for that matter, from the Wiki entry.

RRRRowcliff (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll soften the description of Purley's attitude toward Archie. As to Lt. Rowcliff and stuttering, that's another instance of a possible one-off. Somewhere, Archie says that he tries to gauge exactly when Rowcliff will start to stutter, and then to anticipate Rowcliff by stuttering himself. Nevertheless, your implication is correct, I think, that Archie more frequently comments only on Rowcliff's stuttering. I find that I feel a little uncomfortable talking about this at all, but thirty years after his death we know that there was very little PC about the esteemed Mr. Stout. TurnerHodges (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

For some reason, the edit summary did not pick up my comment on restoring "likable" from the change to "likeable." My Random House Unabridged prefers "likable," while giving "likeable" as a variant. OTOH, the SOED prefers "likeable" and gives "likable" as a variant. It appears to be an issue of British vs. American spelling. However, I'll rely on a British source, Fowler's Modern English Usage: When a suffix is added to a word ending in mute "e", the mute "e" should be dropped before a vowel, but not before a consonant, unless it is needed to indicate a soft "g" or "c" preceding. TurnerHodges (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cramer's Son

I just noticed the mention in the Cramer article that Cramer's son fought in the European theater in WWII. I may be forgetting a reference, but the only mention I recall of Cramer's son is in Not Quite Dead Enough, beginning of Chap. 9 (Farrar & Rinehart, War Edition). Archie has just given his report about Ann Amory to Wolfe and Cramer, and Cramer says, "I had a headache and now it's worse. My son's in Australia with the Air Corps. He's a bombardier." Is there another reference indicating that young Cramer also fought in the European theater? Amy Duncan (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed through what I think would be the likely candidates (Booby Trap, Black Orchids, The Silent Speaker, Instead of Evidence) and found nothing on point, other than your citation from NQDE. In Booby Trap there is a reference to Colonel Ryder's son, who had shot down four enemy planes in Europe. Possibly the contributor who wrote that confused the two (or maybe it's really there, somewhere unexpected such as A Family Affair). TurnerHodges (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your two Cramer citations and raise you one. :-). No, seriously, I think it was a good idea to put a citation tag on Cramer's getting up from a chair without using his hands because you contributed it and have some recollection of seeing it in some book. But in the case of Cramer's son, we don't know who contributed "European theater" and we do now know for a fact, per Amy Duncan, that he did serve in Australia, so I'd vote for Amy to go ahead and change his service venue and include her citation; if the European theater contributor or anyone else comes across a reference for that one, he can put it back in.RRRRowcliff (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rowcliff

"Rowcliff is the only character acknowledged by Stout to have been consciously modeled and named after a real-life person" -- is this true? It seems to me that there's an old photo of an Archie Goodwin in McAleer's Stout bio, an Indiana (?) police officer who once did something helpful for the Stout family, perhaps investigating a burglary or some such. This is a very vague recollection, but if I'm right then it may be that the "only character" comment might have to be softened. TurnerHodges (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, unless there's another case of Rex Stout ever acknowledging such a thing. I've amended the Rowcliff citation to include McAleer's question to Stout about Rowcliff, which he prefaces with the statement, "You've said you've never modeled a character on anyone you know..." — WFinch (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz and Archie

I've deleted a recent edit of the discussion of Fritz Brenner for several reasons. The principal reason is that little of the added matter pertains to Fritz. But it also claims that Archie "often" sides with Fritz and "often rags on Wolfe. . ." -- implying that Wolfe and Fritz often disagree regarding food and its preparation. But they don't. "Cuisinal" is not a word. As to the starlings, Fritz did not "add a new sauce," he replaced sage leaves with tarragon and a little saffron. These latter two issues are minor, of course, and the principal reasons for the deletion are that the material was only marginally pertinent, and that its basis -- frequency of occurrence -- just isn't accurate. TurnerHodges (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I can find only two other actual disagreements between Wolfe and Fritz regarding food. ("Disagreements" as distinct from "discussions," as in Cordially Invited to Meet Death, where they are said to discuss how to manage corned beef, removing its dryness without making it greasy.) One is in The Doorbell Rang, in which Wolfe prefers three juniper berries to four in a marinade; and the other in The Mother Hunt, in which Fritz wants to put onion in a casserole with shad roe, and Wolfe does not. It's worth noting that in neither of these situations does Archie side with Fritz or rag on Wolfe.TurnerHodges (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletions

I don't find Rettetast's explanation for the highhanded and unilateral removal of the images on this page at all convincing. I hope that someone with a fuller understanding than I have of the nuances of the NFC policy can explain why the rationales supplied for their use are inadequate -- or, better, why they're not. TurnerHodges (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, look forward to the explanation for their deletion.Fish Man (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TurnerHodges again. I have placed the following message on Rettetast's user talk page:

Recently, you removed several images from the page referenced in this note's subject line. I want you to know a bit more about what you have done.

Your action may be defensible, under a hard-line, inflexible interpretation of NFCC. However, it's worth noting that you took it on yourself to remove the images without any apparent consultation. You left behind a cryptic, terse reference to a policy -- a policy whose own page states that it is in dispute, and whose discussion page provides considerable evidence of differences in opinion among administrators.

Particularly in light of the fact that broad consensus on the policy does not exist, you should have taken a more conciliatory path. A less highhanded and unilateral approach would have been to question the use of the images, point to the policy, and request that the user who posted the images either show how they are in conformance, or remove them.

The user who provided the images is one who has found and provided many others, including book jackets and magazine illustrations, long out of print, most of them quite beautiful, and unquestionably compliant with fair use policies. She has put up with careless and uninformed edits of her work on Wikipedia for years, and I have nearly always found that the editor/administrator who questioned her submissions backed off when he or she took the trouble to look a little more carefully.

In short, she has been a valuable resource, and not at all thin-skinned. However, your action in removing the images, based on a policy whose details are in dispute, and whose guidelines are arbitrary at best, has finally caused her to quit in disgust. I don't blame her, although I've expressed a hope that she will return.

Way to go, guy.

While I'm at it, I might as well tell you that I find the chart of administrator statistics on your user page in bad taste, in particular the count of users you've blocked. It makes you look like a strutting little martinet. I'm sure you don't want that.

Because at least one other user has expressed interest in the issue, I have also posted this on the Nero Wolfe supporting characters discussion page.TurnerHodges (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marko

Someone hiding behind an IP address added a reference to Marko's death. I deleted it, and added a snarky comment about people who repeatedly add spoilers. I've now reverted my deletion, because I see to my embarrassment that the same spoiler is present on the main NW page, and has been for at least 9 months. I think it should go, though, in both places, and I invite comment. It seems to me that someone complained about it long ago on a discussion page -- she had not yet read The Black Mountain, did not realize that his death occurs as early in that book as it does, and felt that the spoiler took away some of her pleasure and anticipation of reading it. TurnerHodges (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it from the main Nero Wolfe article — I'm a spoiler-remover, myself. It's implicit if Wolfe was running the restaurant that something has happened to Marko, and let that be a mystery. Who died when, in which book, and whodunit... Why. — WFinch (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And already I've restored it. I've consulted the Wikipedia:Spoiler policy, and unless information is incorrect, it shouldn't be deleted. — WFinch (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good, it hadn't occurred to me to consult a spoiler policy. (It should have occurred to me that there might be one.) But I don't read it as you do. To quote: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, Wikipedia:Lead section). However, when including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." That's a typical example of indifferent writing. Suppose that a spoiler, well, spoils a novel's carefully crafted exposition, but that including the spoiler would fail to serve an encyclopedic purpose. Surely the policy's author would prefer to have written ". . . simply because you think it spoils the plot."

And that's the situation with the Marko spoiler. It does spoil a prospective reader's enjoyment, even if only slightly. But that's not the point. The point is that its inclusion is not material to the article.

That said, I can see how you interpret the policy differently. Which says more about the quality of thought underlying Wikipedia policies than it does about you, me, Marko, or the person who included the spoiler. TurnerHodges (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starlings/pheasant

There are recent edits to Fritz's section in this article which disagree about whether the dish that caused the spat between Fritz and Wolfe in chapter 1 is starlings or pheasant. My copy (a paperback, alas) of TGS states that it's starlings, and so does the relevant quotation in the Nero Wolfe Cookbook. So I have, perhaps temporarily, reverted the article to starlings. However, I wonder if this might be another one of those inconsistencies between an earlier hardcover and a subsequent paperback, and perhaps someone with a hardcover edition can check that. TurnerHodges (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starlings in the first edition. — WFinch (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TY. Let's stet it at starlings. TurnerHodges (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about being the editor that set it back to "Pheasant" the other day. My copy of TGS was lost in the hurricane Katrina flood, and it's been years since I read it. It had been "pheasant" in this article for, as far as I could tell, years so I assumed the sudden switch to "starlings" was an error. Again, sorry about that. Fish Man (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The difference between starlings and pheasants is nothing to grouse about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to give a virtual pat on the back to Proofer1st, the new contributor who made that initial edit. What sharp eyes! — WFinch (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany regarding Orrie

Most likely because several editors have contributed to Orrie's section over the years, a few minor issues have cropped up and I'd like to request comment.

There's a paragraph which appeared in October 2011 and has not been challenged, but I've been uncomfortable about it. It begins by noting that Wolfe often calls on Orrie when an attractive female is involved and Archie is not available.

Stout may have said so somewhere in one of the 'teer intros, but I don't recognize it, and I certainly can't come up with any instances of Orrie being so employed. I've requested a citation.

That entire paragraph seems superfluous.

Agreed and now removed, including its first sentence which was never given a citation. TurnerHodges (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of instances of multiple links in Orrie's section (Champagne for One, DoaD). I'd like to remove subsequent links. But the first Champagne link occurs as part of the introductory quotation, not in the main body of the section and therefore might require different treatment.

I'd also like to unlink other second and third references (which may well appear on this page but outside Orrie's section); however, it's been a while since the issue of overlinking was discussed in the NW talk pages and I'd like to make sure that those of us who are substantially involved with the edits agree on removing subsequent, same-page instances of a given link.

TurnerHodges (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in general and Cather and Durkin in particular

Wondering about the proper handling of spoilers in such articles, but I actually came today in search of information about the fates of Cather and Durkin. In my fuzzy recollection (but I read the books many years ago) both fates were bad, but in different ways (since I don't know if I should give even a partial spoiler here). Shanen (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPOILER notes "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." ThaddeusSholto (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]