Wikipedia:Peer review/The Diary of a Nobody/archive1

The Diary of a Nobody

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. This Victorian novel, in diary format, is one of the great treasures of comic English literature. Since its first publication in book form in 1892 it has not been out of print, and has been acclaimed by leading critics for a century. It is the forerunner of a number of modern fictional diaries (e.g. Adrian Mole, Bridget Jones), and its central character is the ancestor of numerous heroes-manqué of our present age (Alan Partridge, Mark Corrigan, others who cannot see themselves as others see them). I hope you will enjoy the article, also that it will inspire you to read the book if you haven't done so previously. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Preliminary observation: initials of names – for people who use two initials, like Gilbert, Priestley, Wells and Forster you need to be consistent about whether there's a gap between the two initials or not. WSG and Priestley have no gap. Wells and Forster have one. I think it looks cleaner with a gap, but over to you. More soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious few comments. These are all I could find:

• Authorship and origin
  • provincial institutes and Literary Societies – not sure why the latter qualify for capital letters if the former don't.

• • Caps removed

• • Not wild about "mini-opera". What about "one-act opera"?

• • Someone got there before me

• • "In between the London runs of the operas" – I don't think this is quite true. Most of the operas from Pinafore to Yeomen went on within a day or so of the closure of their predecessor. During his D'Oyly Carte years GG did his own stuff mostly in late-night shows elsewhere in town after the curtain had come down at the Opera Comique or Savoy.

• • Ssilvers, below, makes this point and has helped to reformulate the prose accordingly

• Synopsis
  • "Mr Pooter is a City clerk" – link City perhaps?

• • Linked

• • "occur on a regular basis" – in the days when I worked for a living I was notorious for throwing to the ground and biting the neck of any colleague caught using the "on a so-and-so basis" construction. Wouldn't "regularly" do the job?

• • Of course. I consider my neck deservedly bitten

• • "impressions of Sir Henry Irving" – not "Sir" until 1895 – too late for The Diary.
  • "a shrewd shares speculation" – not suggesting you change it: it's absolutely fine on the page, but it's in the "quick-witted cricket critic" class as a tonguetwister.

• • Now that you've pointed it out, I can't bear it! Changed "shrewd" to "timely"

• • I wish to protest most vigorously about the omission of the red bath incident

• • I have posted you about this

• Early indifference
  • "The placing of the quote box is unfortunate: the enthusiastic review sits ill immediately underneath the section heading, which it directly contradicts. Your text explains all, but the reader will have read, with some puzzlement, the quote box before getting to the text.

• • You are right. I have replaced the quotebox content with something more appropriate

• Acclaim
  • "but, less charitably, saw this" – a touch of editorialising perhaps? Borderline if so.
  • "similar effusion" – unexpected noun. Perhaps "enthusiasm"?

• • Dealt with both of these.

But no mention of John Major? See this. I prodigiously enjoyed your article, as you can imagine. You cunningly manage to be scholarly without being solemn, and I chortled aloud at several points. I will probably re-read just for the pleasure of it, and if so will report any further points that come to mind. Tim riley (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I will find a way of working in a mention of John Major (can't think why I left such an obvious target out, really). Thank you indeed for these comments, most of which have been acted on as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Added a mention of Major. Don't want to overdo the examples. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Excellent work. I shall make a point of reading the Diary.

Lede

• "by its contemporary readership" what need readership? Isn't readers sufficient and simpler?
• "provided later generations with a glimpse of the past that later became fashionable to imitate" Later than later generations? Hmm

Authorship

• "He was nevertheless dissatisfied" I would not begin a second successive sentence with "He" if it can be avoided.

• Can't see a way that doesn't mangle the prose unacceptably

• "bringing the Holloway troupe back to "The Laurels" on several evenings" Why "back"? Had they been there before?

Synopsis

• "a shrewd shares speculation." suggest slicing the "a".
• " Lupin's stockbroking firm has collapsed entirely and its principal has fled" You had earlier stated that Lupin had been engaged by a "firm of stockbrokers" which implies multiple principals (assuming you do not poetically mean "principal" as a la the money needed for operations has mysteriously headed for the ports, see, e.g., Jon Corzine.

• In Britain, "firm" does not necessarily imply partnership or multiple ownership, it is a general term for any commercial undertaking, including those with a single principal. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Growing reputation

• "cabinet post" I imagine you're choosing not to cap this?

• I think it's OK, along with "cabinet minister" etc. the collective body, the "Cabinet", would be a different matter. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "A generation later, A.N. Wilson commented on the extent to which the late 20th-century English middle classes had adopted the aesthetic tastes of the Pooters as they sought to acquire or preserve Victorian features in their period homes. Thus the Pooters were truly the triumphant class of the Victorian period." This passage seems a bit unclear, including its conclusion. Examples might be good.

• I have revised the passage. The point being made is that the lifestyle and home background of the humble Potters has in recent years becoem increasingly desirable, if not unattainable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It strikes me that the prose in the "Literary and cultural influences" could be tightened a bit. At present, the various references strike me as a bit random and unconnected. (Adrian Mole was slightly after my childhood, so I have never bothered to read it)

The examples are connected either by being the subjects of fictitious diaries (Lorelei, Crisp, Mole, Jones), or mentioned as Pooterish types in the media. Some of these may be unfamiliar to US redaers, though the links may help. I have added a line or two on John Major, who may be better known.

"Waterhouse's alternative "Mrs Pooter" test of 1983" Test? (I understand why you might have "tests" on the mind, but this is confusing from this side of the pond.)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Typo for "text". I am looking to tighten/clarify the prose in the influence section. Otherwise, I have dealt with or commented on your points, above, for which many thanks. Do read the Diary – there are several online versions. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Final note: I have reorganised and revised this section into what I believe is a more logical arrangement, which should lessen the impression of randomness. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ssilvers comments

Authorship and origin

• I clarified some items about George and filled out the information on Weedon, who had a very successful theatrical career that spanned more than three decades. It should be clear that his own quote is humorously self-deprecating. Note that George's solo career was like Tom Lehrer's: he performed comic sketches and songs, and told jokes, from the piano, both at private parties and on tour. It seemed easier to make the changes myself and let you review them. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can find more references if you want to add more, but between the Tony Joseph ODNB piece and the obituary in The Times (and the other refs I added for specific statements), I think all of the statements are covered. You may need to conform my citation style to yours. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for these additions, in general most helpful. I will deal with any ref format issues. I just have a couple of concerns:

• The figures you amended in "writing 18 operettas, around 100 piano sketches, some 600 songs and short piano pieces, and three books" are cited to Grossmith's Times obituary, yet the reflink is to a website that doesn't mention the Times or the obituary. Do we have a link to the actual Times obituary? The figures are somewhat different (specially the "18 operettas") from those given in the ODNB and the Grove articles. If several different sources are giving different figures, my inclination is to generalise rather than offer specifics; the article is not basically about George, after all.

Sorry for the confusion. There are *two* cites in that ref. The first one is to his Times obit, which does not have an online link that I know of; Tim can probably get you the Times obit -- I no longer have it. The second is to an article at the G&S Discography that specifically says: "All told, Grossmith wrote 18 operettas, nearly 100 musical sketches, some 600 songs and piano pieces, and three books". The G&S Discography has been accepted as a reliable source, for example in the Noel Coward FAC. We put together a page about its reliability. See this, which is cited with approval near the bottom here. If you read the article on George Grossmith, you can count Grossmith's operettas mentioned, with references, and see that it is 18, not 8. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• While I appreciate you providing it, I am not sure we need Findon's encomium to Weedon, which I think properly belongs in his WP article rather than this one. The point that he was a reasonably successful actor-manager has already been established, and the article's main focus has to be on the diary rather than on the writers. I've left it for the moment for further pondering. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that the way it was written before mischaracterised Weedon's stage career. I don't care about the quote, specifically, but I think you need to be clear that he had a long and successful stage career. Certainly, the book brought him more enduring fame, but he made his living as an actor for 32 years, and created many roles in the West End, often playing in long-running and very successful plays. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Does "fictive" mean something different to you than "fictional"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• It means the same as "fictitious", but you're right to query it. It is an affected, little-used alternative, and I have got rid of it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I enjoyed reading the article, and it makes a great case for readers to read the novel. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving this your time. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(Later): I have kept the Findon ref, though I've reduced the wording a bit. On the number of operettas I've decided to avoid a specific number. This will prevent later nitpickers pointing out that other sources give different figures. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well done, Brian! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)