Talk:Miss Havisham

Grammar
"Although it is documented Dickens encountered a wealthy recluse called Elizabeth Parker on whom it is widely believed he based the character, whilst staying in Newport, Shropshire, at the aptly named Havisham Court."

Untitled
This article contains several errors in both syntax and I'm almost sure that in content. It mentions Count Dracula and Miss Havisham's racing cars in another series; I am no expert, but I believe that this is false and should be fixed by someone better qualified than myself in this area.
 * Agreed, this is almost fit for Uncyclopedia... except that it's pretty unfunny. Cleanup is paramount, and admins need attention drawn to the vandals. Rubberkeith 21:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've applied what I feel are the appropriate tags.Rubberkeith 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My edit just goes back to before the vandalism started, as there are still errors. -arfox —Preceding comment was added at 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Miss Havisham's Fire
I propose that the topic Miss Havisham's Fire be taken down. It is created by Dominick Argento; it is not authored by Charles Dickens, therefore it is not canon. Also, I fear that people might be misled as to the first name of Miss Havisham; it is not revealed in the book, and therefore it is not Aurelia.

I'll wait for a couple of days to see if anyone agrees with me. If no one decides to take off Miss Havisham's Fire in a couple of days, I'll take the initiative myself and take the topic down, I suppose.

Ethellion (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be canon; it's still the character Havisham. --DrBat (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing reference to Pockets
The article states that Miss Havisham's will leaves "a considerable sum to Herbert Pocket's father, as a result of Pip's reference." This is the only mention of Herbert in the article. Our article on the novel says that Herbert is Matthew's son. Because Matthew has already been mentioned, why shouldn't this phrase be reworded to "a considerable sum to Matthew Pocket, as a result of Pip's reference"? I haven't read the novel so I'm not sure this is correct, but the current wording certainly must be changed somehow. JamesMLane t c 07:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)