Talk:Persuasion (novel)

Untitled
Now has info box; i removed tag ---

See also Talk:Persuasion, for discussion of edits made before this was spun off into a separate article.
 * Just read this book, and this is in my opionion most romantic from the books by J. Austen I already read. Przepla 14:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is good ~ "Often dull heroine"? What now? Boo hiss. Perhaps not the most, ah, /unjudgemental/ of opening statements. Character interpretation [particularly unaccompanied by /any/ *coff coff* textual evidence] should be shoved elsewhere than the intro. . . Especially since the beginning of this article now reads like "OMG I hated this [expletive] person, icky book." Pretty please, someone with more literary-crit approp. turns of phrase, resolve. E-hugs in advance :) 65.95.34.175 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lady Russell
"While far more sensible than Sir Walter Elliot, she too has a great concern with rank and does not think Wentworth is good enough for Anne because of his inferior birth." was just added and I think this is an oversimplification -- if memory serves me right, it wasn't necessarily his inferior birth (though she did have hopes Anne would marry someone of rank) it was more that he seemed too impulsive and unstable. Her prejudice in seeing him through the lens of class made her jump too quick into judging him as not being stable, etc. plange 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right in calling it an over-simplification.  Lady Russell had other objections besides rank, as noted in chapter 4 of the novel. BellyOption 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"in her first youth"
The tone and diction of this article are a little askew. Can we find a better term for "Persuasion is the first of Austen's novels to feature a woman who is no longer in her first youth"? I had to look the term up on google to see that it wasn't just made up by the author--it wasn't, but hasn't been used once since Austen's times, if not before. --Mrcolj 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"More than seven years were gone.."
Please explain your reasoning for "more than EIGHT years". The author clearly states: "More than seven years were gone since this little history of sorrowful interest had reached its close;" (Chapter 4); and it seems the various calendar 'pegs' (placed and implied — by the author's narrative) indicate that she 'got it right'; ie, there doesn't appear to be any inconsistency with "more than seven years", AND, it does appear that "more than EIGHT years" doesn't fit the calculus of those calendar pegs. >>Do you know of language in the novel that shows the time setting (of the novel's opening) is greater than eight years after the demise of Anne and Wentworth's engagement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeans (talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (Sorry, missed my sign-off).--Jbeans (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The start of the book, it is about 7 years since they ended their engagement. But time passes in the novel, and in the note Frederick Wentworth left for Anne at the hotel, he says 8 and a half years, in this quote lifted from the Project Gutenberg version of Persuasion –
 * "I can listen no longer in silence. I must speak to you by such means as are within my reach. You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hope. Tell me not that I am too late, that such precious feelings are gone for ever. I offer myself to you again with a heart even more your own than when you almost broke it, eight years and a half ago. Dare not say that man forgets sooner than woman, that his love has an earlier death. I have loved none but you. Unjust I may have been, weak and resentful I have been, but never inconstant. You alone have brought me to Bath. For you alone, I think and plan. Have you not seen this? Can you fail to have understood my wishes? I had not waited even these ten days, could I have read your feelings, as I think you must have penetrated mine. I can hardly write. I am every instant hearing something which overpowers me. You sink your voice, but I can distinguish the tones of that voice when they would be lost on others. Too good, too excellent creature! You do us justice, indeed. You do believe that there is true attachment and constancy among men. Believe it to be most fervent, most undeviating, in F. W."
 * Perhaps 7 or 8 years ago in this article? Or pay heed as to whether the start or the end of the novel is meant, for times references to the broken engagement compared to the "present" of the novel? --Prairieplant (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Where's the Austen?
This section —"Explanation of Title"— is challenged: it shows no source of JAusten's thoughts, drafts, or finished writing indicating she had any such title or theme(s) —persuasion— in her mind for this novel; indeed, the current revision states clearly, (1) that she had another title in mind, and (2) her brother supplied the title "Persuasion" (although no source citation is provided for either of these critical facts). Instead, in this section we are scribbling original exposition and speculation that envisions (fantasizes?) a theme, plus variations on that theme —when we have the obligation to be reporting what reputable scholars say that JA said.

So, what did Jane say? And, where are the scholarly connection(s) to Jane Austen's thoughts on this matter? Please provide details below —and/or your comments. Thank you.--Jbeans (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I found another article on Wikipedia covering analysis of all of Jane Austen's novels, complete with references and inline citations, called Reception history of Jane Austen. I added that as the Main article under Literary significance section, which section seems like Original Research, without any citations. Is it allowable to take the parts most pertinent to this novel, and simply bring them, with references, to this article? Pondering. I learned why the French Wikipedia has better articles on her novels -- they understood them before the English speaking audience did. Amazing. If cutting up the main article is bad form, is it reasonable to delete what is there, all without citations for eight years, some or all of it, and simply leave the link to the Main article on the reviews of all her novels? --Prairieplant (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of title --Variation on a theme?
I rewrote and replaced the section "Explanation of Title" because the (previous) version is without basis for the claims made and implied: that the author, —the magnificent Jane, she of 'irony-full' and error-free— herself wrote —the great theme of persuasion, 'with variations on the theme'— into' her (masterpiece) story: of Anne Elliot with addled family & kin, and —not least— of Anne's bedraggled dreams for her (most un-Hamlet) hunk, Captain Wentworth, currently of HBMRN.

By "without basis" I note there are no scholarly sources cited that speak of any evidence —among JA's papers, letters, notes, etc., or others' records— that JA wrote such; pls see above section: "Where's the Austen?" Without reliable and independent sources these claims should not be reported to the world by wikipedia as Jane's work —or even as her sly writerly intentions.--Jbeans (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

'Tighten-up'? Plot Introduction
Regret to revert this good faith rewrite of 'Plot Introduction', because: 1. By intent, the type and amount of information written to a "Plot Introduction" is very restricted; because it is to be kept small and purposeful. 2. Adding details that do not directly explain the Plot Introduction should absolutely not be done there --somewhere, maybe, but not there. —>>(Examples:   1)...(she)... "lives at Kellynch Estate"  2) "Her mother is  long dead"  —this repeats the same infomation already stated in a more (plot-introduction) meaningful context. 3)  Anne...  "has all but resigned herself to a meager, spinsterish existence..."; 4)   (he) "..and treats her coolly when they finally meet again. This pains Anne deeply: however, his presence gradually sets her life in motion." —>>((( All of these:  somewhere else, maybe?, but, not here, not in the small space!))) 3. Agree —a Plot Introduction or Plot Summary can always be 'tightened-up'  —>>e.g., "due to" can always be 'improved out' —But 'tighten-up' should result in less, not more words.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeans (talk • contribs) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC) (Sorry! I keep forgetting my sign-off ID here; sincerely,--Jbeans (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Images
For the record, I've ordered a nice C.E. Brock Persuasion from 1909. Images shall be had in abundance shortly. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible merge?
I think that a merge with the main persuasion article would be good since it already has a main character section. RH - (rosscoolguy) (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Humor in this novel
This article is shaping up, but what I notice is there is almost no mention of the humor/humour that marks Austen's style and certainly is present throughout Persuasion. I hope there is a reviewer out there we can quote who speaks well of the humor/humour as well as the concise writing, no words extra in her sentences. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

With a Biographical Notice of the Author -- what is in that?
The title page for these two novels has the usual anonymous author (by the author of her earlier books, and her first book says, By a Lady), but also has the phrase, with a Biographical notice of the Author. What is written under that heading in the very first edition? Did the public learn her name in that notice, or that she had died? In the Northanger Abbey article, it says the copyright for that novel was bought back from the publisher who never did publish it while Austen was alive, unaware it was by a successful author, who published anonymously. We all know Jane Austen is the author these many years, but when were her novels first published with her name given as the author? Just curious about this small historical detail. --Prairieplant (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Belated reply - now have a source at hand to answer the question. In December 1817 John Murray printed Persuasion and Northanger Abbey, dated 1818 (this was typical then, the books were published early for the end-of-year gift buying trade), in a set of four volumes. They included Henry Austen's "Biographical Notice" in which he revealed his sister's identity - See page 136 of Gilson, "Editions and Publishing History". The Jane Austen Companion. Ed. J. David Grey. New York: Macmillan, 1986. ISBN 0-025-45540-0. 135-139. Victoria (tk) 19:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Literary significance section is getting so long, repeats itself
I see that you have added much to the Literary significance section. The whole section is long, and seems rambling to me. I made an effort to delete exact duplication, but that is hardly noticeable. Lady Russell need not be called the substitute mother each time her name is mentioned. Some of the repetition is due to citing one author, then another in a different paragraph, saying pretty much the same thing. Some of the topics covered seem more like themes in the novel, not Literary significance or criticism, but I am no expert on that. If some could be worked into Themes, each theme could have a subsection title. Perhaps you can look over the article now that you have added from every page of Irvine, to see how it fits in with what is already there. If several authors agree on a point, why not make it once and give it several references? If they differ, then point out the differences in one sentence or paragraph. I broke up some paragraphs as they were getting very long and covering far more than one topic. I leave it to you. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Prarieplant, thank you. I'll go over this page this weekend. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Reconcile those differences
British English likes an object with reconcile, which is an active verb. These are two on line sources on specifically British English, or English versus American, on which I relied. I hope these and the change in the sentences satisfies the British English speakers and we reconcile our differences. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi - re the use of reconcile, we do not use reconcile in this way in the UK, as this shows: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reconcile. We say 'were reconciled'. This is standard British English. I appreciate it is used in the way you've used it in the USA, but this is a British article on a British subject, and so should use the British form, which is to say they were reconciled. Over here, "they reconciled" just sounds odd. 195.188.42.194 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Your rapid reverts are not much fun. Have it your way, but I hope you learn to to use the article's talk page in the future when you revert multiple times, to settle the issue. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"last completed novel" contradiction
This article starts with the sentence: "Persuasion is the last novel fully completed by Jane Austen" (no citation). However our article on Emma says (first sentence) that Emma was "the last of [Austen's] six novels to be completed" (with citation). If someone could figure out which one is correct (with citations) that'd be great.--Philologia (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , the first sentence of Emma is "Emma, by Jane Austen, is a novel about youthful hubris and the perils of misconstrued romance and was the last of her six novels to be completed, written while she was in Chawton[2]." It is a tricky sentence that may warrant a revision, given the confusion it caused you. In the article about Jane Austen, near the end of the long section titled Published author (before its first subsection), are these sentences: "In mid-1815 Austen moved her work from Egerton to John Murray, a better known London publisher,[k] who published Emma in December 1815 and a second edition of Mansfield Park in February 1816. Emma sold well but the new edition of Mansfield Park did poorly, and this failure offset most of the income from Emma. These were the last of Austen's novels to be published during her lifetime.[128]


 * While Murray prepared Emma for publication, Austen began The Elliots, later published as Persuasion. She completed her first draft in July 1816." The fine point is that Emma was published while Jane Austen was alive, and Persuasion, written while Mansfield Park and Emma were in the process of being published (or republished), was published after she died. It seems too fine a point for an opening sentence to me, but many of the editors who write on Jane Austen have these fine points as being of first importance in their minds. Persuasion is the last novel she wrote. I do not believe a source is needed, but if there is one, that is fine too. The publisher's note, discussed above on this Talk page, revealed her name to her readers. I cannot recall if it indicated that Persuasion was written later than the novel first published with it, but written years earlier. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I just changed that first sentence in Emma and moved the point about last published while she was alive to the end of the lead section. In my description of the edit, I point back here, to this Talk page. I do not know if my change will stand, but it is there now. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for fixing the Emma article & thus removing the contradicting claims. (For the record it didn't "cause [me] confusion", I simply noticed the contradiction between the two articles. Obviously, both novels can't have been the last that she "completed" - publication dates aside - and now that's fixed; hooray.) Kind regards, --Philologia (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

New Edits
Hello all! I am going to be editing this article for the next few weeks, and I would appreciate any help/guidance/conversation about the edits I plan to make. I am going to be focusing on the organization of the content, language usage, the plot summary, and the "literary significance and criticism" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse R Long (talk • contribs) 21:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please do remember to sign your posts and describe your edits. I hope you have sources for your changes, especially in the Literary significance section. The themes section could be expanded, in my view, with good sources. I have judged the plot summary as good, so I hope you do not plan to lengthen it. At any rate, I hope you have read the other articles on Jane Austen and her works, and do not introduce contrary statements to what is in those articles. Jane Austen and the articles on each of her other novels, plus Styles and themes of Jane Austen and Reception history of Jane Austen are some of the main articles. You can find titles and links to each article in the navigation box visible at the bottom of the page when you open the article on a Desk top or lap top computer. The navigation boxes do not show up on a smart phone, alas. Better writing and newer sources are always welcome, of course. Many editors have been involved in writing about Jane Austen and her novels on Wikipedia. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Organization
I reorganized the layout of the article the the following order: plot summary, main characters, themes, development of novel, publication history, literary significance and criticism, and adaptions. This organization more closely mirrors that of other articles about novels, and the organization follows a more sequential order of events concerning the creation of the novel itself. The themes section needs a bit of work as the information about the novel's title could be included in the "publication history section." This section also seems slightly argumentative with the wording of "certainly the idea of persuasion runs through the book..." I think this section could be improved by taking a more neutral approach to the subject matter. Jesse R Long (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That order may match the other articles on novels by Jane Austen, but I would not stick my neck out and say it is the order in all articles about novels. Take a look at the Good Articles, Novels on this page here, and you will find variety in the section titles and order of them. I do not aim for Good Article status, rather it is a reasonably short list of examples that some committee of editors rated as good. You can also start with The Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens and click to each succeeding novel, to see variety in the organization of what is presented in the article. None of those have Good Article status, but some have had a lot of work put into them. Novels seem to suggest variety in writing an article about each one that captures the important elements unique to each novel.


 * Before you drop out the phrase about the theme of persuasion in the novel, I think it wise to check the source, as that whole paragraph is sourced to Le Faye, Deirdre (2003). Jane Austen: The World of Her Novels. London: Francis Lincoln. p. 278. ISBN 978-0711222786. The words that bother you as sounding argumentative and not neutral (why is neutral important when discussing themes?) may be a paraphrase from Deirdre Le Faye, who is a reliable source. Further, if you look at the French Wikipedia article on this novel, you will find the Thémes section there opening with a discussion of use of the words 'persuade, persuasion, persuaded,' throughout the novel, and the discussion is sourced to Marianne Eismann, who wrote her remarks in English; that her brother selected the title is discussed under the section Titre which means Title in English. (The French Wikipedia article on Persuasion gets Article de qualité rating, so it is a good place to look.) The remark about the origin of the title can be made in several contexts, I think, as the reason to speak about it is mainly that it is not a title clearly chosen by the author, unlike her previous novels. This one was chosen by her brother. He left no notes as to why he chose it, leaving an opening for wondering, why did he choose it, does it match a theme in the novel? It is also part of the publication history, and sometimes the title can have its own section in an article about a novel. Listen to me! I was never an English lit major, but I do spend my time on Wikipedia mainly on articles about novels. Such pontificating. Ah well. I am recalling another editor who greatly improved this article on Persuasion, with lots of good sources and interesting perspectives, and other editors tore that work apart and pretty much insulted the editor, who stopped working on Wikipedia as far as I know. One of many reasons I suggest editing with care and attention to sources, and to the other articles in Wikipedia about Jane Austen and her novels. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * PS You can reach the French Wikipedia article on Persuasion by looking at the left edge of the English version, scroll down to the word Languages, and then click on Français in that column. That takes you directly to the article written in French, by French editors.  --Prairieplant (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback and the resources for other articles. I appreciate your advice, and I will be sure to look closely at the sources.Jesse R Long (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Cinderella Story
In the final paragraph of the literary criticism section, the last sentence makes a claim about other's considerations of Anne's wants and wishes. This claim is not sourced in the references of the article. The claim isn't inaccurate, and I think it could be reasonably argued, but I wanted to know if anyone knew of a source that backed this claim or had any advice about editing the sentence to present a more neutral point of view before I change anything. Jesse R Long (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This points up a lack in this article, a list of best or definitive editions of the book, with preface by an editor, or annotations. I think the text you mention is referring to this book, Persuasion, Jane Austen, Penguin Classics, editor Gillian Beer, ISBN 978-0141439686, 2003 or later printing. If there were such a list, then there would be a full citation for the Penguin Classics edition. I do not have that edition at home, but might be able to get it from the local library, and learn what Gillian Beer said. Good catch! --Prairieplant (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Character Descriptions And Repeated Information
I was reading through the plot summary and character list, and I noticed some of the descriptions have information that could potentially be viewed as "un-encyclopedic" in tone. For example, the article states "He was clever, confident, ambitious and employed" when describing Captain Wentworth. This is not incorrect, but I think the tone of the writing could be improved by removing the adjectives and simply stating that his social status was the reason for his broken engagement to Anne. What would be the best way to go about editing these statements?

The character list has repeated plot information. Should I consider removing this information from the list, making the list simply a description of each character's relationship to other characters and the story as a whole rather than detailing each interaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse R Long (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , You have already made the changes. Of course the Character descriptions will include some of the plot, as these characters are important because they are part of the novel. The description of the good points of Frederick Wentworth when Anne first met him seems logical to me -- why else did she fall in love with him? "He was clever, confident, ambitious and employed" is a short sentence. It is not essential for all the text in a Wikipedia article to lack useful and concise adjectives. Keep in mind that there is an article about Captain Wentworth, as well as his description in this article, because he is a well-know character in fiction. Not describing him is giving short-shrift to a main character. This article needs a list of definitive editions, and will benefit from comments that well-known literary writers, like Gillian Beers, said about the story in those definitive editions. Free-style editing is not the primary need. I do discourage you from shortening the descriptions of the characters. Even if you do not read French yourself, you can see the length of that article, and see the names used in the Reference list. Plus it is easy to copy a chunk of the French text into Google translate to get a reasonable idea of the topic covered in a section where you cannot guess the topics. And it is still necessary to sign your posts. The bot does not always catch the unsigned posts and add sign for you. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input! I can go back and revert the changes I made back to the original wording; I was working with some potential changes to see how they looked, but I appreciate the feedback you gave. I will keep this in mind moving forward. Jesse R Long (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Psychological Study
In the literary criticism section, Robert Irvine is cited as a source for the idea that overhearing conversations is a key component to the plot. This is well written and cited correctly. However there is a line that is problematic in relation to the overall focus of the paragraph.
 * "As Captain Wentworth fears a second rejection by Anne, much of the novel is concerned with incidents that bring the two together and relies upon relating Anne's psychological state as she comes close to the man who once proposed marriage to her, making more of a psychological study."

I'm not sure how this information connects to the overall idea of overhearing conversations. Does anyone have any comments on editing this sentence, the relevance of the statement, or what changes should be made hear to include this in another section. Jesse R Long (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I cannot say either how relevant the remark is, but the information is cited to John Wiltshire, who is quoted many times in this section. Wiltshire, I found, is known for the study of psychoanalysis and literature, and I added the page from the Jane Austen Society of North America where I learned that as an inline cite where I mentioned his name. I broke that section off to a new paragraph, as it seems a new topic from overhearing conversations, as you pointed out. I also condensed the many cites to the same page in the Cambridge book mentioning Wiltshire, and added an isbn to that book. See if that looks any better. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Free-indirect Discourse and Maturely Written Novel
In the lead section, there is mention that Persuasion is Austen's most "maturely written novel." Is there a source for this claim? And would the claim be more useful in a different section? Austen's use of free-indirect discourse mentioned in the lead section, but no other section focuses on this technique. Should this be removed from the lead? Jesse R Long (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article on Free indirect discourse now carries this title Free indirect speech and a wiki link to Free indirect discourse is redirected to that article. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This sentence with reference is taken from here:


 * "Austen uses the narrative technique of free indirect discourse to represent Anne Elliot's consciousness in Persuasion. Indeed, the portrayal of the heroine's subjective experience is central to its narration. "


 * So there you have it, free indirect discourse, which is wiki linked in the sentence prior to this one. Please do read the other articles about Jane Austen and her works. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Lady Dalrymple
Lady Dalrymple is included in the character list, but she is not mentioned in the plot summary or the remainder of the article. Could this information be removed?Jesse R Long (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If you are insistent that every character be mentioned in the Plot summary, then add Lady Dalrymple to the plot summary. She should not be deleted from the character list. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

First Drafts
In the early drafts section, it is stated that all of Austen's earlier novels were written in the form of first drafts. Is there a source that I can cite for this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse R Long (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You can sign your own posts on a laptop or a smart phone by typing this ~ four times in sequence. It is not wise to rely on the bot catching your error. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not delete any of the remarks you say have no source. Did you check if a source was provided at the end of the paragraph, and then check that source? The lead is supposed to be highlights of the article, not a unique source. The original source for that comment may have been deleted from the article a while back, when there was a bit of a dust up on the editing of this page. The statement in the lead is true, so I suggest looking for a source for it, and not deleting it. Then it can be added to the main body of the article as well. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Read those other articles on Jane Austen to learn that she wrote from very early drafts and then revised the stories often years later when publication was considered. Get yourself educated on the other novels. I do hope, sometimes assume, that you have read the other articles on Jane Austen and literary criticism of her novels (all of them considered in one article) in Wikipedia. If you have not read them, please do, looking in particular for these points where you want to remove something true. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the list of themes in the French Wikipedia article, translated to English by google translate.
 * 3 Themes

3.1 Persuasion 3.2 Social gravity and mobility 3.3 Status of women 3.4 Social life in Bath 3.5 Royal Navy 3.6 Cordiality and spontaneity, or prudent reserve? 3.7 Second chance

4 Style and literary treatment

4.1 Stylistic discrepancies 4.2 "Autumnal" novel 4.3 Characterization of the characters
 * And those are reasonable subsection headings, the themes, not plot and characters. It is not essential to write the exact same article as in French Wikipedia, but at least as good as that article is a reasonable starting point. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Reference formats two types going now
Your change to the article on the novel Persuasion by Jane Austen here is introducing two different referencing formats, which I do not think is consistent format, looking at the rest of the article, specifically the Reference list. Using harvnb with short ref formats was dominant, and I changed the Pinch references to use that, matching other inline citations in the article. For reasons not clear to me, you changed my work to use the rp template, showing page numbers in the article. I have nothing against the rp format and have used it in some articles. But not in articles that were using short format with harvnb for most of the citations. It seemed a waste of energy for you to make the change, when harvnb was in place, and recently done for purpose of consistent format style. Many prior editors resisted the ref formats of any type, but they have not been showing up lately, so I am glad to see the short ref method used. The next step, in my mind, is not to add rp templates, but to make a Bibliography with the long version of those inline citations that use the short format, as is done in several other articles about major novels. I did not revert your changes, as I thought we should use this Talk page to attain a consistent format. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for giving me an opportunity to explain my reasoning. I don't see the problem with having two different types of ref format going on in this instance, harvnb for books, rp for journal articles (Kindred, Pinch). Harvard short-cites are generally suited to book citations because the cited author is responsible for the entire subject of the citation (i.e. the book), and rp tags are more suitable for journal citations because the main citation indicates a specific article published over a range of pages within the full journal publication, and the cited author is not responsible for the entire subject of the citation (i.e. the journal), just one article within it. Looking at this version before I made the change, you have ref.9 as the main journal citation for Pinch, but it does not specify the page range of the article within the journal (97–117), just the single page (98) that applies to the tagged text. I therefore saw rp as a better solution as it allows full page range in main citation, with rp tags off it. It would be preferable to link to the full (book and journal) citations in a Bibliography section, as you have suggested above, in which case journal citations would be laid out in full with relevant page ranges, and then harv-linked from Refs section just the same as the books. So I agree with you on that. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I never put the range of pages for a journal article. I see it only rarely in the Reference lists for the Wikipedia articles I read. I think having the page citation for the statement is all that is needed. Both journal article and books have an author, a year and an exact page number, so I do not see the logic of two ref systems in the article. Every book has a total number of pages also, and that is not included in the citation for a book. I was glad to get rid of the page range of the journal article when I used harvnb. So we see that exactly opposite as the article is now. Perhaps I can start the Bibliography section and use harvnb for anything cited more than once. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I made the change to a Bibliography section, and added short refs. I think the pages are included for the journal articles, please check it over. Refs to Beer, Litz, Morgan, Tave have no page number in the citation -- need a page number. Are there other inline citations that should move into the Bibliography list, use short form in Reference list? --Prairieplant (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Use British style and spellings for this article
, your recent changes paid no heed to British spellings and style. I tried to catch a few of them. I would appreciate if you would review your own edits to assure the spelling of words are British style, not American, not Canadian. Another point of British style is no periods after Mr, Mrs, Dr, distinctly different from US style. -- Prairieplant (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I apologize for not being aware of this. Had no intention of "Americanizing" the plot description, just wanted to fix some issues I had with the structure of the original text. I will keep in mind the importance of using proper foreign spellings when writing for certain novels. -- GenesisMaster (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Certain novels means all those by English authors, . Most of this articles have a line at the top of the edit page showing a shortened phrase saying English variation Brit. It is a template, meaning curly brackets are around it. EngvarB|date=December 2020 is the cryptic phrase in the template. Noticing the categories at the bottom of the finished page also gives clues, David Copperfield by Charles Dickens has 1850 British novels as its first category. Template:British English shows other ways to indicate the variation of English and has a link to some of the examples of British spellings that differ from American or Canadian spellings. Obvious things to notice are the words realise and favourable, as indicating British spellings. You removed realise several times and used the American spelling. Jane Austen is English and every article about her or her novels uses British English and style. The same for Charles Dickens and Agatha Christie, as well as contemporary authors like Bernard Cornwell or the late Patrick O’Brian. Changing to American style means every British reader of the article will be doing small edits to spell words correctly. I like many British authors so I have been learning it. It is to the point where Mr looks correct now, and Mr. does not. - - Prairieplant (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * See also this Wikipedia page, template:EngvarB. - - Prairieplant (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the information. I didn't mean to sound condescending, if that is what you are implying. Will use this information for future edits. - - GenesisMaster (talk) 1:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Film adaptation 2021
I reverted the addition of a 2021 film in the article, as the references for it and the others I found on first look indicated the filming had not yet begun. Now I found a review in The Guardian here that says that the film Modern Persuasion was released on digital platforms as of February 8, 2021. If someone wants to add it into the Adaptation section using the article in The Guardian as the citation, making clear the film is available to be see, go ahead. The review does not much praise the film, for what that is worth. Here is a quote from the review: "the biggest crime against Austen, and the film’s fundamental flaw, is turning woman-of-substance Anne Elliot into yet another romcom thirtysomething cat lady sighing dreamily at the Manhattan skyline while waiting for Mr Right." -- Prairieplant (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloom
I deleted from the lead section the line about Anne being "in her second bloom" when she meets up again with Wentworth, and I explained that it contradicts the novel. The line was restored by editor, who asked me to discuss it here. So here's my explanation: Austin describes Anne in chapter 17: "Twelve years had changed Anne from the blooming, silent, unformed girl of fifteen, to the elegant little woman of seven and twenty, with every beauty excepting bloom, and with manners as consciously right as they were invariably gentle…". Anne’s "bloom" doesn’t get mentioned again. Two chapters later, chapter 19, Wentworth and Anne famously meet up again, and there's no indication that Anne has regained her bloom. I have deleted the line again, and any editor is welcome to discuss it here. Wikisource has the text of the novel, and chapter 17 can be found here:, and from there you can click on to chapter 19. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to be so slow in replying to your well-put comment. I had to re-read the novel, taking notes, to find where I developed the strong notion of “second bloom” for Anne in my own mind. I have copied text from the Project Gutenberg HTML version, mainly chapters 12 (the trip to Lyme in November) and 13 (with Lady Russell), as where the notion was impressed upon me, and her “glow” in Chapter 20. Chapter 12 is the time in Lyme when her cousin appears in person in the story and she is outdoors with friends. Chapter 20 describes her at the musical performance in Bath. I do not know that the lines in Chapter 19 undo the changes in her, with Captain Wentworth in her life again; the quote in Chapter 17 is contrasting her and Mrs Smith, who had not seen each other in 12 years, meeting before Wentworth comes to Bath, still single. Is the “bloom” or “second spring” visible only when she knows Wentworth has not married another woman? Lesser remarks about her appearance were made by women in Bath in February who thought her more attractive than her sister after she parts with her Elliot cousin from the shop (Chapter 19), and by her superficial father, who said she looked better (Chapter 16); he was convinced she was using some product called Gowland on her skin, which she was not. I did not copy that text. Anne’s thought about her chance of being “blessed with a second spring of youth and beauty.” after Lady Russell noticed the change in Anne, after “bloom” was used to describe her in Lyme & noticed by Wentworth, and “glow” was used in Chapter 20, were the basis to use the term “second bloom” in this article in my view, once she had Wentworth in her life again, as the two slowly came together again. Her looks are described as improving, once Captain Wentworth is again in her life and she begins to relax in his presence. You are correct about the word “bloom” specifically; after her looks change and Louisa is promised to Captain Benwick, the novel focuses on the encounters and the feelings, not the looks, of each in the encounters.


 * Chapter XII


 * When they came to the steps, leading upwards from the beach, a gentleman, at the same moment preparing to come down, politely drew back, and stopped to give them way. They ascended and passed him; and as they passed, Anne’s face caught his eye, and he looked at her with a degree of earnest admiration, which she could not be insensible of. She was looking remarkably well; her very regular, very pretty features, having the bloom and freshness of youth restored by the fine wind which had been blowing on her complexion, and by the animation of eye which it had also produced. It was evident that the gentleman, (completely a gentleman in manner) admired her exceedingly. Captain Wentworth looked round at her instantly in a way which shewed his noticing of it. He gave her a momentary glance, a glance of brightness, which seemed to say, “That man is struck with you, and even I, at this moment, see something like Anne Elliot again.”


 * Chapter XIII
 * (Anne is with Lady Russell)


 * There was some anxiety mixed with Lady Russell’s joy in meeting her. She knew who had been frequenting Uppercross. But happily, either Anne was improved in plumpness and looks, or Lady Russell fancied her so; and Anne, in receiving her compliments on the occasion, had the amusement of connecting them with the silent admiration of her cousin, and of hoping that she was to be blessed with a second spring of youth and beauty.


 * Chapter XX


 * Anne saw nothing, thought nothing of the brilliancy of the room. Her happiness was from within. Her eyes were bright and her cheeks glowed; but she knew nothing about it. She was thinking only of the last half hour, and as they passed to their seats, her mind took a hasty range over it.


 * Does my assessment of the novel persuade you to allow the reference to Anne’s improved appearance with her second chance with Wentworth? Describing her second spring of youth and beauty, her glow, to be called a second bloom, in this article? - - Prairieplant (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I stay with what I said above. Jane Austin’s description ("Twelve years had changed Anne from the blooming, silent, unformed girl of fifteen, to the elegant little woman of seven and twenty, with every beauty excepting bloom…") stands.  I read your comments, you write very nicely, and I admire you for taking this as an opportunity to reread the book. -  GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)