Talk:Jane Austen/Archive 6

Pronunciation
I don't think I've heard the pronunciation [ɔːstən]. Is that American English? To my knowledge, Austen is a rare spelling of Austin [ɔstin]. There was actually a British TV series "Lost in Austen"; the name has the pun that "Austen" rhymes with "lost in". Here's pronunciation by Emma Sayings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-r3zb6ALeQ - clear enough? Piechjo (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Was also wondering about this... does seem to get both of the vowels wrong. Any reliable sources on pronunciation though (esp. from 200 years ago)? If not, would probably be best to remove. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 18:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I searched further online and found several audio files. It seems the British pronunciation is [ɔstin] while Americans say [ɔ:stin] or [ɑːstin], but I didnt' find any [-ən] endings. To me it seems there's modern consensus of how to pronounce the name, and learners of English should find it in Wikipedia. How about we just change it, and if someone brings contrary evidence, it's their burden of proof..? Piechjo (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good! &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia article on Cot-caught merger. Both [ɔːstɪn] and [ɒstɪn] (in terms of symbols used on Wikipedia) are found as British pronunciations. In American pronunciation, [ɪ] would often become [ə] and the vowel of the first syllable would lower/unround (but this would not be written according to Wikipedia conventions).Churchh (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Spelling Correction
The spelling of Keira Knightley is wrong on this page (end of fourth paragraph).
 * Fixed. Rothorpe (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly you noticed the nice comment at the end made by the reviewer at the GA nom which I think included reference to your help edits. Perhaps you get to put a GA star on your Talk page now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The article's lead
The lead of this article was apparently changed during the GA review. I've looked at this, and with all due respect I think the reviewer went about things completely the wrong way, asking that key points like Austen's social commentary and literary realism be removed, rather than insisting that they be covered in the article body (as indeed they should be). It's baffling that after the changes he concludes "The lead and its relationship to the main text will now pass muster", when the new lead completely neglects the article's section on Jane's life. It is not representative of the main text, it is only an overview of the "Reception" part of the article. I suggest that the previous lead be reinstated, as it was far more informative (both of her life and writing style) and better written. Any information that isn't covered in the article can then be added with a "Themes" section, which would greatly enhance the article. --80.43.205.25 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pride and Prejudice is mentioned four times in the lead, once in each of the four paragraphs. Contrast that with one mention only on 28 March. Rothorpe (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Worse - it's actually five. Do you support my suggestion? --80.43.187.189 (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The fifth is actually Pride & Prejudice, so I discounted it. But yes, please do revert. Rothorpe (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which revert are you supporting. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was comparing it with the previous lead mentioned by the IP above. Rothorpe (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tim Riley's comments at assessment were quite extensive stating:

These points in the lead do not come up in the main text to any important degree:
 * Austen's literary realism
 * Her works contain biting irony and social commentary
 * Her plots are acclaimed
 * Austen is part of the transition to 19th-century literary realism
 * Her plots, are fundamentally comic
 * Her plots highlight the dependence of women on marriage (facsimile of Tim Riley comments on lede from assessment)

Does it make sense to consider some option since Tim Riley's comments were extensive about the old version. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Enhancement of article to include a Novels section
It was suggested at GA assessment that a Novels section be added to the article. It is posted here on the Talk page for any editors who would like to participate in trying to improve Wikipedia by expanding the article as suggested during GA assessment. I am in general agreement with the assessing editor's comments and am placing the enhancement as a separate section directly below this one, while I am requesting to make comments, critiques, and suggestions in this section for possible discussion. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence is not good, even when the missing word is added. Now:"F. R. Leavis's and Ian Watt's did much to establish Austen as being among the leading British novelists coming after Henry Fielding and Samuel Richardson, and leading up to Charles Dickens.[1] ". Better: "Though Austen's novels had always been extremely popular, they had been rather looked down on by academics of English literature, until a reassessment by F. R. Leavis, Ian Watt and others in the mid-20th century placed Austen as a serious and foremost figure in the development of the English novel, coming between Henry Fielding and Samuel Richardson, and before Charles Dickens.[1]" Or something. I expect the source will support that.  Whether we need this point here, rather than in the critical section, I'm not sure. There are some other problems, but I think it would be ok to add these and allow normal the improvement process to follow for a while.  One might add bits about the relative popularity, which should be easy to source and seems fairly constant as: P&P, E, P, then the others some way behind. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * More words in your version though it reads nicely and is added now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the new section: Novels
Hi; per my comments here, I have a few comments on the new addition:

Introductory preface comments
 * "coincidentally co-published with Persuasion after Austen's death" What's coincidental about it?
 * The dates of the authorship of the two separate and distinct novels has now been added. The authorship of each of the novels was separated by over a decade. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "is sometimes added to her list of leading novels even though it was written at a time" I'd like to see a source for this claim
 * Northanger Abbey was written over a decade before Persuasion. All four of Austen's other main novels were written between the completion of Northager Abbey and Persuasion. The dates of authorship of the two novels are very different. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sense and Sensibility
 * "Adam Stevenson's "Life and Love" (1785)" Google's throwing up very little about this; I'm surprised, if it was an influence on Austen, that I can't find more about it. Anyway, why quote marks and not italics?
 * There is added material on Sense and Sensibility in the new Themes section below. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "a relationship that was not meant to be" Is this a little colloquial?
 * Changing wording to: "Adam Stevenson's autobiographical essay titled "Life and Love" (1785), in which Stevenson had written about himself and an unfortuitous relationship...". Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could open the discussion of each of the novels with a one-line plot summary? "Sense and Sensibility is a comedic romance novel following the affairs of two sisters as they [whatever]", perhaps? For example, I note that you mention Willoughby and Brandon without really introducing them.
 * The size of this section has increased the size of the article by twenty percent, and the addition of a new section now on Themes has increased it yet another twenty percent. Perhaps a selective indication of which novels would benefit from a short summary would be useful, if you believe the summary for S&S would benefit from including one. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice
 * Could you provide a link to our article on Holford? I'm assuming it's Margaret Holford or possibly Margaret Holford (the elder)?
 * It is the elder Holford, and she was the author of three novels Fanny, Selima, and First Impressions. It is the last one in this list which shares the same title as the one Jane Austen used for the first version of P&P. The article for her at Wikipedia is only a stub or start article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Pride and Prejudice section seems to have a bit more background on the novel and a bit less by way of analysis. Not necessarily a problem, but it doesn't help with the concern about the lack of literary theory in the article.
 * There is now a new "Themes" section added in the article now and some of this material is covered there. Elizabeth Bennet is a favourite character among many literary scholars who have studied this novel and there is ample published material if needed here. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Mansfield Park
 * "difficult to sympathise with" Do you mean empathise? Also, ending with a preposition is sometimes described as something to avoid.
 * Wording adjusted and the sentence now closes with the words "privations of her childhood." Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "But Tomalin reflects the ambivalence that many readers feel towards Fanny" Is this OR? Or do you have a source that says she is here reflecting ambivalence and/or a source that says that many readers are ambivalent?
 * Some would have reservations on the reading of Tomalin's words though the article's comments here do not contain WP:OR but are Tomalin's material. Tomalin states: "More is made of Fanny Price's faith, which gives her the courage to resist what she thinks is wrong; it also makes her intolerant of sinners, whom she is ready to cast aside." Readers agree or disagree with this reading, and both opinions are reflected in the research literature. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Austen's historical time-frame put her at the center of much of the debate concerning slavery in her own time" Slightly clumsy
 * Now specifying the time-frame as "time-frame during the Regency period" and shortening the end of the sentence. Better to specify the time frame. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Said was relentless in his attacks against Austen" Hyperbole/editoralising
 * Mansfield Park is the most controversial of Austen's novel following her addition of the slave trade material. The late Edward Said was outspoken in his opinions on controversial matters and had a strong reputation for defending his colleagues and taking public stands against literary opponents. Said may have taken his position from his thought that Austen could have been more outspoken against the slave trade. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (I like the stuff on the slave trade. That's fascinating, and exactly the kind of literary criticism I want to see in an article of this sort!)
 * (As your background is in philosophy from your User page, it seems that you are drawn to Austen's most controversial novel. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC))


 * "This is a great departure from Austen's other novels, in which the quest for marriage and financial security are often important themes in the stories." This is the kind of thing I want to hear more about- themes in Austen's work as a whole.
 * A new "Themes" section has been added for your comment-critique-update review. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Emma
 * "in contrast, are bleak. In contrast" Repetition
 * Repetition is removed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Where's your source for all the stuff in the Emma section, by the way? You can't source a load of analysis to the novel itself- that's paradigmatic original research.
 * The Emma material has been expanded somewhat in the new Themes section below. I shall revisit the prefatory material in the Oxford publication cited and possibly supplement the citation. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Her fancy for Frank Churchill represents more of a longing for a little drama in her life than a longing for romantic love." Tone?
 * Adjusting sentence to specify her affections more accurately. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Persuasion
 * There is now a sentence added in the Persuasion section to specify the 4-vol format of the premiere printing of this novel. The publication together with Northanger Abbey is almost as if someone were to look at Shakespeare and decide that one of his early plays like Romeo&Juliet should have been co-printed with one of his late plays like The Tempest. A publication of these two Shakespeare plays together to the exclusion of any other of Shakespeare's plays would look odd. I have referred to this type of co-publication as "coincidental" co-publishing in this Austen article, though other phrasing may be possible. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Northanger Abbey
 * "As for Northanger Abbey, published at the same time, it was probably her brother Henry who chose that title as well." This is clumsy and doesn't belong where you've put it. I think the first half of the paragraph needs to be reworked; there's the issue of the title, but also the issue of the theme. They're related, of course, but you run them together, I feel. (As above, make sure all your analysis is sourced.)
 * My rewrite addition was to include the information of the relative dates of authorship for the two separate novels. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to shift citation styles in the Persuasion section. Also, you lean quite strongly on one particular theorist; even if she is particularly noted for her work on Persuasion, there are surely others.
 * There is much to that. Admirers of Persuasion appear to be more in number that those who support Northanger Abbey. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "coincidentally co-printed" Again- what's coincidental about it?
 * The relative dates of publication have been added to make it easier to identify their different years of authorship by Austen. Printing them together when their authorship was separated by over a decade was not something Austen herself ever indicated. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, in Northanger Abbey, there seems to be a lot of unsourced analysis.
 * The two authorities on this section of the Novels are the main biography (Tomalin) on Austen referenced there and the linked article there discussing the relative position of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey. I have added the dates of the respective years of authorship for the two novels. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this section quite plugs the hole that was raised at GAC and FAC. In particular, the unsourced/undersourced analysis and the lack of discussion of overall themes seems to be problematic for FAC purposes. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are stating that it is necessary for the article to have a "Themes" section if it is to be further improved for the assessments you refer to above. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe; that or "Literary analysis" or similar. The featured article on Honoré de Balzac, for example, has (what appears to be from a quick glance) a detailed analysis under the title of "writing style", while our articles on Kafka and Joyce incorporate this kind of analysis elsewhere. I'm not convinced that there's necessarily a right way to do this, it's just important to ensure that it is done, I would say. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree - the lack of "literary analysis" was one of Tim Riley's first comments at the start. Certainly this would be a necessity for FAC. In some ways, since Austen's novels have a lot of similarities, it should be relatively straightforward here. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The new Themes section has been added for comment-critique-review in the sections below. They'll likely affect the way that the items in the list of Josh Milburn's comments above are answered, which I have formatted by title and answering them may take two to three days. Some preliminary responses are added in the above comments. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Enhancement of article to include a Themes section
The comments of Josh and Johnbod in the section above have been persuasive. A new Themes section is place directly below this section for the comment-critique-update of interested readers and editors. It may take me another day or two to catch up with the other requests Josh has made on a separate section though I'll try to get to them over the next few days. Interested editors are asked to place their comments in this section here concerning the Themes section which is included directly below this section. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm the same person who commented during the FAC. I've been busy and forgot to return to this. Firstly, Fountains, thank you for attempting to make these improvements but I'm still concerned. I'm also not sure why you're posting huge swathes of article text here; we can have the discussion without them. Anyway, getting to the point, I have to be honest: practically none of the stuff you have placed in the newly formed "Themes" section actually discusses the themes of Austen's work; sorry but I'm wondering if you understand what the word means. All it contains is more and more information about her growing legacy, broken into historical periods, even though we already have this in the huge "Reception" section. There is already a whole, high-quality article to help you with this: Styles and themes of Jane Austen. See how it is broken down into subjects, not time periods? That's how it should be here, though just with one condensed section, and a paragraph for each topic. Ideally you would then also do a section on "Writing style". As for the "Novels" section you added - it's very long, and I'm not even sure it's beneficial in this form. There may be some interesting new information about the writing process of each book, but that would be better placed in the main biography section. We don't need to add 300 words about each book though because they all have their own article. I've never seen a system like this on an author article (that I can recall). It's far more important that we have dedicated style and themes sections. Please look at these excellent literary biographies for examples: Ernest Hemingway, Kurt Vonnegut, Honoré de Balzac, Emily Dickinson, Evelyn Waugh. As for the lead, I see this still hasn't been changed so I am going to go ahead myself. It is far better at summarising Austen life and work. All you need to do is make sure everything therein is written about and sourced in the article, which it will be as long as there's a proper "Writing style" and "Themes" section. --80.43.182.105 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I am not able to edit the article as an unregistered user. I had an account in the past but I prefer not to use it anymore. Please, I urge one of the editors watching this page to restore the previous lead (as it was at the start of 2016). Rothorpe, above, agreed with me that it is worth doing, so I hope that he/she sees this and makes the change. The article can then be built around it. --80.43.182.105 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Tim Riley's comments at assessment regarding the old lead section were quite extensive stating:

These points in the lead do not come up in the main text to any important degree:
 * Austen's literary realism
 * Her works contain biting irony and social commentary
 * Her plots are acclaimed
 * Austen is part of the transition to 19th-century literary realism
 * Her plots, are fundamentally comic
 * Her plots highlight the dependence of women on marriage (facsimile of Tim Riley comments on lede from assessment)

Does it make sense to consider some option since Tim Riley's comments were extensive about the old version, with similar comments from User:Johnbod and User:Josh Milburn. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence
You're doing great work, Fountains-of-Paris! But I was taken aback to see that the article's first sentence states categorically that Austen is "known principally for her five major novels which interpret, critique and comment upon the novels of sensibility of the British landed gentry at the end of the 18th century". My italics. Is it a mistake..? She has some commentary on the novels of sensibility, sure, but IMO it's only Northanger Abbey that comments notably on a genre and that's on the Gothic novel, not the novel of sensibility. (And the commentary on the Gothic novel is more of a joke, really — Northanger Abbey is mainly a love story.) Should the lead really imply that the central theme of Austen's novels is commentary on other novels? I don't think that's true, and it's not in the body of the article either. A search for the phrase "novels of sensibility" finds solely the comment that Love and Freindship mocked popular novels of sensibility. So it did, but that's a very marginal thing. ("Novel of sensibility" gets no hits at all.) And you could say that Sense and Sensibility mocks the cult of sensibility, but the novels? I hesitate to change it myself, since it's been there for some time and many people have edited the article without protesting about it. Still, I think it must be a mistake, and it should surely be changed. Something like "her five major novels which interpret, critique and comment upon the life of the British landed gentry at the end of the 18th century"? Bishonen &#124; talk 17:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Your version is shorter and more to the point, and it is now included. My own similar thoughts to your own are that her literary place chronologically following Richardson and Fielding is important. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the "themes" section [JM]

 * The historical approach is a little surprising to me; I'm certainly not an expert in literary criticism/literary theory, but (thinking aloud, now) I wonder if it has more of a story-telling quality than an analysis quality. The rise and fall of her favour among literary "elites" on the one hand and the general public on the other is certainly interesting, but it's not really about her themes.
 * There seems to be something in the wording of this where your reference to 'historical approach' was primarily intended to be more of a chronology of the literary critics and literary theorist who analysed Austen writings with each passing generation following the end of her life. By encountering the chronology of criticism and analysis it is hoped that readers can have a starting point for selecting for themselves which chronological entry point is of most interest to them for their subsequent reading. Its more of a chronology of the different thematic studies of her writings than an historical approach. An article giving a simple outline of several themes in Austen can be found in the article for Styles and Themes in Jane Austen. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Another general comment: Long paragraphs can make for tricky reading.
 * Your paragraph division points are well targeted as you have placed them in the article and are all being retained now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Following the years of the disposition of her estate, by 1821 a second period of the literary analysis and criticism of her writings was initiated which lasted for nearly fifty years between 1821-1870. This was followed by several decades of scholarship concerning Austen following the international reception of her novels which were being translated into multiple foreign languages during the 19th century. The Modern era of scholarship and analysis of her literary themes began at about 1930 and continues to the present day in defending her as being among the most accomplished British authors of international fame." Sources?
 * The sources for each of these sentences is given in each one of the subsections directly below those summary opening sentences which you just quoted. If might be nice to copy some of these to this introductory preface for convenience of readers even though do appear in the main subsections directly below it. Either way sounds like it works for the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "the longest and most thoughtful of these reviews" Which reviews?
 * It might be nice to include some of these citations again for this sentence. Maybe one or two cites re-added would work well for clarity. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)




 * "Readers of the Memoir were presented with the myth of the amateur novelist who wrote masterpieces: the Memoir fixed in the public mind a sentimental picture of Austen as a quiet, middle-aged maiden aunt and reassured them that her work was suitable for a respectable Victorian family. James Edward Austen-Leigh had a portrait of Jane Austen painted, based on the earlier watercolour, softening her image and making her presentable to the Victorian public.[132] The engraving by Bentley which formed the frontispiece of Memoir is based on the idealised image." Do we have this image? It'd be nice to include it, perhaps?
 * When Tim Riley did the original assessment he felt rather strongly that secondary materials should not be included in the article. The main original portrait of Jane Austen is generally accepted as being the one done by her sister which is already included in the article. Drawings and portraits made of Austen after her death, as Tim had point out, are often criticised for inaccuracy and were not included in the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You could include it but add a critical note in the caption; especially if it's in that section. Given that the portrait is explicitly mentioned, it could (just a suggestion!) be a valuable addition to the article. 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are two images which might offer a choice if useful. One of them is a companion full length portrait done during Austen's lifetime by her sister. The other is the "prettified" or "air-brush" version of the portrait done some fifty years after her death. Any preferences for include or exclude? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Among the most astute of these critics were Richard Simpson, Margaret Oliphant, and Leslie Stephen." What's your source for this? There are a few other examples of claims like this; I'm sure you do have a source, but it reads like OR.
 * It might be nice to add some of the citations or anthologies which include these critics of Austen for the convenience of readers since they are recurrent names in Austen literary studies. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps, but we need a source to say that these were the most astute. That kind of editorialising would be comfortably into OR territory without one. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure its worth preserving "astute" and changing to "notable" for now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you really need the "main articles" links in every subsection?
 * The preference is either to include them in each of the subsections or to leave them all in one place at the start of the main section title. Either approach seems to work and as long as the same approach is used for the other sections as well. Either approach is fine. Which approach to the section links would readers prefer to see. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Is "The Modern era" really an appropriate title? Austen is a modern author, surely? You refer to "the start of the Modern era in the early twentieth century"; are we using "Modern" in a way I'm not familiar with?
 * It is tricky since the use of the technical reference to "Modern" is different in literary studies than it is in philosophy. For literary studies Strindberg and Chekhov are seen as the start of early modernism in drama, while James Joyce is often credited as writing the first modern novel. Austen's place historically seems nearly identical with the Romantic poets of high British Romanticism and her novels are often referred to as being in the tradition of British Romanticism. I am changing the title of the section to "Modern period" for consistency with the other subsection titles in the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The last sentence of the first paragraph of the modern era section is a bit tricky.
 * It is my plan to reword this for added clarity. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Related, I think, to my first point: You really don't have much contemporary analysis. You finish by talking about Nabokov when there are literally whole journals devoted to Austen. What are the key currents of today's Austen scholarship?
 * The two principle discussions already in the article are the Nabokov section and the Edward Said section dealing with colonialism and minority issues in another section of the article. It might be possible to re-group these together into a separate section if it would be preferable to do this. There is already a separate article for Jane Austen in Contemporary Society, and added comments on contemporary research trends in Jane Austen studies might be better included in that already existing article if they are not already covered there. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The comments you've made here were both useful and well-directed, and it may take me another few days to attend to some of the more detailed requests. If there are any points of emphasis you might like to add then I'll look back here for further comment/critique/ananlysis for commentary. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Request to Edit
Hey hi howdy. I'm requesting to edit so I can hold true to my word on copyediting it, as requested by Fountains-of-Paris. I'm doing this for GOCE, so I have a smidge of credibility there.

ɯɐɔ (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Most of the editors have been placing their proposed edits on the Talk page here first for added comments. Possibly you could mention which of the Austen novels have made her of interest to you. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This article has been re-listed on GOCE as the previous editor appears to be on Wikibreak and is not signing-in for over a week. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)