Talk:In the Cage

--85.255.232.231 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC): The article seems, to me, to be not entirely devoid of bias and impartiality..

Aldunbar (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC): This page was marked very correctly by the above user in 2016 as biased, and certainly requires quite dramatic updates. At present it is largely comprised of groundless comments on the nature of the work and the characters, such as (of the telegraphist) 'her final decision to marry her unexciting but reliable fiancé shows maturity and common sense' and 'The young lady has read perhaps a few too many ha'penny novels'. These constitute little more than the superficial readings of the original author (and completely lacking any citations), and have no place on Wikipedia. What makes this even more egregious is the significant amount of secondary academic writing that has been dedicated to this text (cf. Menke 2000, 'Telegraphic Realism: Henry James's In the Cage'; Galvan 2001, 'Class Ghosting "In the Cage"'). I intend to come back and update this page with substantive revisions and a more fleshed out (and properly cited) discussion section in the future, as in its current state it is wholly inadequate.