Talk:Bonnie Prince Charlie: A Tale of Fontenoy and Culloden

Henty is a rather obscure writer these days, it's not clear everything that he wrote is inherently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. He is almost forgotten and moreover the sheer mass of his output rules out that all of his works comply with certain standards of quality. In German terms he was a "Vielschreiber" which means his oeuvre is characterised not by quality but by quantity. Writers of this kind are known for copying either others or themselves while dwelling on clichés. In case any work of such a writer (avoiding the term "author") can be chosen to be notable after all, the question arises if we ought to look for an exemplary work (saying "If you know one you know all") or if we should try to find a text which is (in comparison to the bulk of his production) somehow "outstanding". By the way, I consider this very novel as mere French-bashing propaganda, just in case my contributions to this article could possibly be misunderstood. I wished this novel would never have been written, let alone published. Nordhorner II (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 11:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually ended up just redirecting it to G.A._Henty. There really isn't anything out there to show that this is independently notable outside of its author. He's notable despite being obscure, but this looks to be one of his works that just hasn't gotten anything truly in-depth as far as coverage and sourcing goes. It doesn't help that the bulk of the article was one person's personal opinion about the book as a whole. Don't get me wrong, it looks like the editor is a knowledgeable enough person, but they didn't use any reliable sources to back anything up, making it just WP:OR- which we can't use. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Tokyogirl, the bulk of this article was written by myself. Please notice:

Based on this please tell me: Nordhorner II (talk)I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 21:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did study "Literaturwissenschaft" (German science of of literature) and I can prove it.
 * As the internal links show I used only specific terms which are defined by Wiki articles.
 * I have read the novel three times.
 * All my quotes can easily be found and verified. Check the page numbers if you like.
 * My comments point out the obscurities and the quotes and page numbers always follow.
 * What is your qualification in regards to literature?
 * Where was any specific term used in an unfit way, based on the according Wiki articles?
 * Did you read the novel and can you tell the differences between the two versions?
 * Have you verified any of the quotes and found any mistake? Can you name at least only one?
 * Can you tell me a specific example where I uttered within the article "personal opinion"?


 * if the prod is challenged, it is challenged, and I've removed the tag. Though his novels are not automatically notable, any one of them may well be.   If a novel, minor or major, has been the subject of significant published criticism it is notable. His novels were extensively reviewed in his day, there is bio writing about him, thee are probably some modern studies of his works, so  there should be sufficient criticism available   to pass notability. Wikipedia is not an abridged encyclopedia, we cover minor as well as major authors and their works is they meet NBOOK and there is sufficient material to justify an article.

However, the article does need rewriting--We do not limit an article to a plot summary. See WP:FICTION. The criticism and discussion has to be based on sources, not original analysis. tokyogirl is completely right that this is personal opinion, though  we normally call it Original Research. Original research is necessary in academic writing, to show one;s understanding and ability to think independently. this is different--at WP we are making a summary of already published research. The work itself can be used for the plain statement of plot, but not for interpretation--not even the motivation of characters, if not explicit in the work itself. You've presumably read some of this material, if you so interested in the work--now you have to cirte it. BTW, we also do not normally break up a plot summary into chapters--that's more a textbooks style than an ./ec style, but discuss the events in the book in connected prose, not a table.

I think this might also benefit from comparison with earlier historical novels, for how it fits into the development of the genre. (for example, your "Moreover it has to be considered that this book has been re-written many times. According to its title it was supposed to be about "Bonnie Prince Charlie" but Prince Charlie appears only in the second half of this book. Instead we have a hero called Ronald who in many ways is an alternative draft of him. Ronald, who eventually makes his peace with England does get his father's lands back, lives eventually a happy life and has grandchildren. (Prince Charlie, as history knows, was less lucky in every respect.)"  As my own understanding, because we can discuss our own views on a talk p., tho not an article,, this pattern is traditional in historical novels and is characteristic of many of Scott's novels--and also Thackeray. In particular, they each wrote famous novels on precisely this period  Henry Esmond & Waverly) In both , the Prince doesn't come in till near the  the end. ) You do not have to do a comparison, but I think it shows why we do not put conclusions of our own in WP articles--we would end up debating the various aspects of the novel ,; we instead present what others think about it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is leading nowhere. I want this discussion to disappear from the Wikipedia. I wished I'd never touched this article. Rather an end with horror than a horror with no end. Just delete it. Nordhorner II (talk)I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 15:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)