Talk:Pride and Prejudice

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

Plot Summary???[edit]

You do realize what "plot" and "summary" means? I think this article is way too long... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the summary more consisely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations and thank you---Anon/s 86..34 and 86..107--btw, are you one & the same?---for the excellent work, especially the BOLD 'chop' on the overlong Summary; the smaller ratio definitely improves the reading of the article; |>>now, if we could only get a concensus strategy on how to (respectfully) 'hold the line'. Regardless---again, thanks for the great work and a good move!--Jbeans (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, they were both me... I should probably create an account and get involved properly. I'm glad my first foray into Wikipedia was welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The plot summary is still very long, nearly 1500 words. Charles Dickens long novels have shorter summaries on Wikipedia. Is there any consistency required on the length of summaries of famous novels? Wikipedia suggests four paragraphs and fewer than 800 words for novels in general. I am glad I did not come on the summary when it was longer than it is now. It seems easy to trim, as so much detail is left in, that is not needed in a summary. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Periods after personal titles: be consistent[edit]

This article contains a mix of personal titles with periods, as in “Mr. Darcy”, and without, as in “Mr Darcy”. We should pick one style and use it across all the Pride and Prejudice-related articles. I tend towards using the period, as American English always uses it and British English sometimes does. Thoughts? MacMog (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The period should be used because that's what's used in the book (AFAIK—that's what's in my copy and in what I can find online). If there's no opposition, I'll change the article in a couple days. Computergeeksjw (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Looking at it again a little later, it looks like a big project to change most of the article to MacMog's suggested style. I agree with his suggestion as before, but I want some other input before I make a change. Please, any other thoughts/opinions? Computergeeksjw (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The Manual of Style (MoS) says almost (but not quite) what MacMog suggested, that a period is more usual in American usage, which is not the same as, "American English always uses it". The MoS also says that, "Use of periods... should be consistent within any given article, and congruent with the variety of English used by that article", which means that if the article is written in American English then American punctuation would be preferred, and vice versa. My own preference (I am British English) is that if the article is not noticeably written in American English it should not be punctuated in American English. This article, Pride and Prejudice, would seem to be written (as is common on Wikipedia) in a mixture, containing words like center, favorable, humor, and rumored that are American English but also coloured, favourable, favourite, favoured, harbours, neighbourhood, and rumour, that are British English. The British English spelling seems to predominate, as does the terminology; I can't imagine an American writing, "amused by his obsequious veneration". On balance, I think the article should be converted to British English throughout, not just with the abbreviations MacMog queried. Cottonshirtτ 05:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems like the honorifics should include the period to be match the text of book. It's disconcerting to read "Mr. Darcy" in the text and "Mr Darcy" here. The spelling convention should probably be British for a British book though. Ahsen (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Renditions of the original text of the novel place a period after the title, e.g. "Mr. Darcy". See, for example, the Gutenberg rendition. User:HopsonRoad 21:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


The main section of the article Consol (bond) says that P&P contains mention(s) of consolodated annuities (financial instruments contemporary to the novel).

I think it would be nice to be able to follow a reference from there to the relevant specific passage(s) of P&P, but I don't know what they are, myself. Could some trufan with a head for high finance possibly be so kind as to add one or more precise references in that article? (Ideally, to a popular online hypertext of P&P). Thanks in advance. AHMartin (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Literature section - need to set standards[edit]

The "Literature" section contains many published books that began as fanfiction, and that are repeated in the List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice article. Similarly, the Mansfield Park page has sections for "Related works" and "Notes" that contain some blurbs for published fanfiction.

I think that the Wikipedia editors should establish guidelines, so that pages for novels such as "Pride and Prejudice" and "Mansfield Park" do not become cluttered with lists of spin-offs. I'm not opposed to spin-offs or published fanfiction; I just think they belong on separate pages. Look at the Star trek page – all the books are on List of Star Trek novels, instead of sharing the Star Trek page.

Comments, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by June w (talkcontribs) 09:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr Darcy's wealth[edit]

There's been some widespread discussion recently about what Mr Darcy's fortune is equivalent to in modern day terms, but there's a wide range of possible figures, and all are equally valid in their own context. I've attempted to cover that while still making clear that he was very rich in his day, but I may just be confusing people by an overly pedantic insistence on accuracy.

Oh, and the source I added is largely irrelevant, but does discuss the different ways of calculating the modern day equivalent of £10,000 a year. I hope that's OK. (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Me

Set in England in the early 19th century[edit]

Is it? It was written in 1796 to 97 and presumably set in the contemporary present day, so surely it's set in the late 18th century. No? (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies[edit]

In literature and film adaptations, is it appropriate (or "proper") to mention Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, book and movie, which faithfully follow the Jane Austen story but add the further difficulty to marriage endeavours by adding zombies, and avoiding the social faux-pas of accidentally marrying one before they fully manifest? It's a rollicking comedy. You don't have to use 19th-century standards of propriety to decide this! (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The zombies have already taken over the literature section (or at least a paragraph of it). The film, television and stage section is holding out for faithful adaptations, which I think appropriate, though cinematic brain cuisine is mentioned in Jane Austen in popular culture#Looser adaptations. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive lead[edit]

What we have now is beating the same beats like a dead horse:

Pride and Prejudice retains the fascination of modern readers, consistently appearing near the top of lists of "most-loved books" among both literary scholars and the general public. It has become one of the most popular novels in English literature, with over 20 million copies sold, and paved the way[specify] for many archetypes that abound in modern literature. Continuing interest in the book has resulted in a number of dramatic adaptations and an abundance of novels and stories imitating Austen's memorable characters or themes.

I'd prefer the following:

Pride and Prejudice retains the fascination of modern readers, consistently appearing near the top of lists of "most-loved books" among both literary scholars and the general public, and has been widely adapted in print and film.

If something needs to be said about "zillions of archetypes established" (e.g. the Hamburgler), a second (substantive) sentence is my suggestion. — MaxEnt 02:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree. In reality the whole page needs adjustments but that's a good point. Justmeonhere (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Quotation syntax, opening paragraph[edit]

I put the famous opening line between left and right double quotes, as swiped from my word processor. (I'm not sure of the actual characters, in HTML they would be “ and ”, respectively.

Should I have used the HTML character entities or does it work as is?

TIA. MartinRinehart (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat weirdly, Wikipedia's Manual of Style demands straight quotemarks; see MOS:QUOTEMARKS, and User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register#Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Plot Summary is NOT too long.[edit]

I think the warning re Plot Summary length may be a leftover. I was thinking about writing a shorter one so I decided to first look for a "correct" length. What I found was this:

Length, in words, of Wikipedia plot summaries of five novels by Jane Austen (as counted by Libre Office Writer 6 June, 2017):

Sense and Sensibility, 924 Pride and Prejudice, 1059 Mansfield Park, 1173 Emma, 844 Persuasion, 898

average, 980

The P&P summary is slightly above average, but shorter than the Mansfield Park summary, which has no length warning.

I conclude that the warning is now in error. I'll leave this here for a while in the hope that someone with more Wiki edit experience than I will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart (talkcontribs) 12:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Original title[edit]

I have heard that the original article of the title was not going to be "Pride and Prejudice". The article does not state what the planned original title for the book was going to be. Vorbee (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You'll find the original title mentioned overleaf at § Development of the novel. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)