Talk:George Eliot/Archive 1

Discussion
I have deleted the website advertisement that this Talk page seems to have been created in order to make room for. :-( Webmaster M. Perry (see History), if you really are the creator of the page, please note that every time you go to create a page, this polite plea is displayed: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Policy)" (emphasis mine). Bishonen 00:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Criminally small article
I followed you here, Bishonen, and I was similarly aghast at what I found. George Eliot is fully as important a novelist, as I know you know, as Jane Austen, Henry Fielding, or William Makepeace Thackery, and such an entry as has been here is a crime. I think this ought to be a Collaboration of the Week. There should be a discussion of her throughout her life, with each novel's context set a bit, including the ones people don't read so much. Wow. Well, I've taken a first stab, but that's all it is. I might well want to summon some of my print sources to see if we can do better. (I know that full discussions of individual novels should go in those articles, but this woman's life is very interesting, complex, and sad.) Geogre 13:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * (Hey, if you think that's a crime, take a look at Joseph Heller). That's great, Geogre, thanks very much, excellent expansion. Actually I came here to re-add the stub boilerplate that Vina had removed, because I don't think being a "stub" is all a matter of being shorter than a certain number of words. But now I won't, of course. After Geogre's edits George Eliot obviously isn't a stub in any sense any more, but before that, I think it was still a stub in the sense that it covered the subject so horribly inadequately in relation to the fame, historical importance and present-day popularity of the novelist. I don't mean to say that you were wrong to remove the tag, Vina, especially since I can't find any real Wikipedia policy, or even discussion, about what constitutes a stub. Many people do seem to assume that all articles of less than whatever number of words are by definition stubs, and articles over that length aren't, but some speak of need for expansion as being the stub criterion. I like the second criterion, but that's me. Btw, for an argument that a very short article can be adequate, and not a stub, if it's about an insignificant subject, please see Talk:William Baylebridge, where I argue that William Baylebridge, rescued from Cleanup, is no stub even though it's so short. Bishonen 16:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You know, Bishonen, I use "stub" the same way: it's not a question of length, but of adequacy.  I'd say that this George Eliot is still right on the border of a stub, because there is just so much that not just could be written about her but sort of must be written about her.  She's one of the most significant British novelists of the 19th century, breaks ground in all directions, has a fascinating biography, and remains popular to this day.  Silas Marner, alone, has been turned to film about six or seven times, including recently by Steve Martin I'm told.  Anyway, you and I are literary types, so we're probably more stung by brevity with literary figures than others are.  I really do want to gather up my print sources and attempt justice by Mary Ann Evans. Geogre 17:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I dunno if it's part of the needed additions (or part of my pathology, see below), but i notice no suggestion of hymn-writing! I notice this by noticing she is probably the source of the expression probably the source of the expression "joined the choir invisible". --Jerzy•t 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested improvements to Literary Assessment section
I think the Literary Assessment section could be improved by removing some of the more evaluative statements. Adjectives abound in this section, e.g. 'masterful, famous, sophisticated, politically astute'. These don't really tell the reader anything concrete about George Eliot's work. A better, more objective article would be built around an outline of main themes, techniques etc. (e.g. social realism), using examples from the novels and quotations from contemporary reception. If there is no defence of the current article within the next two weeks I will start amending. Caitriona, 14.3.2006.
 * The assessment of Romola needs reviewing. Some critics reckon it to be her best and most mature work. DFH 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made the language about Romola neutral for now, which I hope is an improvement. I believe that a high assessment of the novel is justified but should only be introduced with citations of reliable sources (which a willing editor will readily find).  Wareh 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Links in 'Other works' section
The wikilinks that are not redlinks require editing or deleting. They go to pages that are not works by George Eliot. DFH 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strange, after a quick search, I could not find these titles as works of George Eliot. Also, I deleted "Brother and Sister", as it is a chapter of "Mill on the Floss".cult-p
 * Tried a search in COPAC ? Not yet had time myself. DFH 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * COPAC does not list Arion, Stradivarius, A Minor Prophet, The Death of Moses. It does list Agatha, Brother Jacob, A College Breakfast Party and Armgart.cult-p 19:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just tried Google for Stradivarius and found it in Collected Poems of George Eliot. DFH 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggest insert a Poetry subheading, and move individual poem titles accordingly. Let's remove all the links for poem titles. It's unlikely that we'd make a separate page for each. DFH 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Made a start. Please check each title, and move any that are not a poem back to the Other works sub-section. Thanks.  DFH 21:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels
The novels of George Eliot being among the most significant by English women novelists of the 19th century, they are surely deserving for inclusion in the WikiProject Novels. I have therefore created a new Category:George Eliot novels as a small step in this direction, and have tagged the page Talk:Romola for this WikiProject. DFH 18:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire "assessment" section is a big POV
Why is this section here at all? Wikipedia should cite assessments by notable outside authorities, not the opinion of its own editors. Uucp 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

Could really use some inline citations at this point, though article is tightly written.

See also Awadewit's notes under comments.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacity?
Is the word "perspicacity" really necessary in the first paragraph? Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, not pseudo-intellectually pompous. People come here for information, not to be impressed that you own a thesaurus. Change it to common verbiage.

74.185.105.135 20:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Verbiage, perspicacity...much of a muchness really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.168.254 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad perspicacity hasn't been changed. It's a good word to use to describe Eliot's characterizations, and I feel like people should be challenged to learn new (and better) words if they don't know what they mean, rather than letting themselves stew in ignorance. Marianhighgate (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Real name
GE's real name is variously given as Mary Anna and Mary Ann Evans. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography records her as "Evans, Marian ... known under several names during her life: Mary Anne Evans (at birth), Mary Ann Evans (from 1837), Marian Evans (from 1851), Marian Evans Lewes (from 1854), and Mary Ann Cross (1880)." But never Mary Anna. Tim Riley 12:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The spelling of the name in the opening paragraph doesn't seem right to me. I think it should be Mary Anne, as that was the name in the birth register. Is there a policy on this kind of thing? GlassWhale (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

proposed new external link
I'd like to add a link like: to the External Links section. This links to a list of Eliot works that you can download to read on a cell phone. I have read quite a few from this site and got a lot of value out being able to read the PD texts away from the PC.
 * Free to read on a cell phone - Eliot works.

The texts are Public Domain in the US, just like Project Gutenberg, they are packaged with the reader and available under a creative commons licence (share if (attribution, non-commercial, no derivative) ). The site is non-commercial without registration, subscription, or advertising. The texts as packaged together with the reader as a java program that runs on cell phones, this is a way for people to access the authors work that adds to the range in the existing external links (hopefully translating to more reading going on).

I checked WP:EL and the link seems appropriate: Filomath 00:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What should be linked: '...should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.'
 * Links normally to be avoided: it seems only #8 might apply; 'Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content...'. The site lets you download java programs that only run on a J2ME environment, this means most/all current cell phones. So although they are limited to being read on a phone they do add an access method to all the others in the existing External Links, in the same way that LibriVox adds a format but requires an mp3 player.

Marmalade Brompton cake
Someone, at some point, added some "info" that George Eliot had invented the Marmalade Brompton cake, which subsequently became fashionable. This "info" has been copied widely. However, no amount of research seems to pull up a source for this assertion, or a recipe for the cake. I don't want to spend an hour or so going through the article history to see who added this "fact" -- is there a short way to discover the original poster? Wikiscan? How is that used?

If anyone here knows of any sources that would substantiate this claim, please add the sources to the article. Zora 21:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Until this claim is documented, I have removed it. It has been widely and uncritically repeated. This is another potential egg in the face for WP. Zora 07:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Spinoza's Ethics
I have changed the assertion that Eliot never completed her translation of Spinoza's Ethics. According to Hughes (the source I have to hand), this was completed in 1856. Haight's biography asserts (so far as I can recall) that Lewes had a disagreement with the publishers, and shelved the project. Dr. Davidson (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Lewes
Amazed to find that the WP article on Lewes (based on the 1911 Britannica) contained hardly a whisper of her - surely things had gotten more broad-minded by 1911.... Have remedied that with adapted material from this article.--Straw Cat (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)