Talk:Tolkien's Art: 'A Mythology for England'/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 16:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks!

The image is appropriately tagged. Earwig finds no issues; sources are reliable.
 * Noted.


 * "Tolkien scholars including Tom Shippey and Verlyn Flieger, while noting some good points in the book, roundly criticised Chance's approach, seeking to fit his writings into an allegorical pattern which in their view did not exist, and disagreeing with points of detail." I think this should be "roundly criticised Chance's approach as seeking to fit his writings" (or some other rewording); as written it is the scholars who are the subject of "seeking".
 * Done.


 * "They note ... Others commented": inconsistent tense for the critical comments.
 * Fixed.


 * "noted the appropriateness": "note" is best reserved for statements of fact; I think this is enough of a matter of opinion that we should find a different verb.
 * Reworded.


 * "From the 1970s, Tolkien scholars including Paul H. Kocher, Jane Chance, and Tom Shippey began to mount a detailed defence of Tolkien." Not necessarily a problem for this article, but Literary hostility to J. R. R. Tolkien says the defence did not begin until the turn of the century.
 * Not quite so, that article indeed mentions Shippey's pioneering 20th century work; and "began" is right in the passage you quote. But things definitely gathered pace in the new millennium.


 * Multiple uses of "note" in the "Reception" section; I think at least a couple of these would be better as verbs of opinion.
 * Fixed.


 * 'In his view, Chance rightly set out to find the "seeds" of Tolkien's "mythology for England" in the medieval: and it was "regrettable that it fails".' Suggest "regrettable that [her attempt] fails"; "it" has no referent.
 * Done.


 * 'states that Chance's reading of Tolkien's activities "as roles", a sort of "complex psychological warfare in Tolkien's conscious and subconscious mind".' Something wrong with the syntax here.
 * Fixed, and glossed what the activities were.


 * A lot of quoting is justified in a reception section, but I think there's too much here. I copied the text to a Word document and did some highlighting, and I would guess around 40% of the text in the "First edition" section is quotations. I think that needs to be reduced.
 * Well, yes; when we're reporting how scholars and critics received a book, it's pretty reasonable to let them speak in their own words: and none of the quotations are long. But I've added some glosses and done some paraphrasing.

Spotchecks:


 * FN 3 cites "Jane Chance (formerly writing as Jane Chance Nitzsche) is an American scholar, from 1973 at Rice University, specializing in medieval English literature, gender studies, and Tolkien." Verified.
 * Noted.


 * FN 8 cites 'Leslie Stratyner, writing in Mythlore, notes that Chance "asserts that the enemy 'functions primarily as a symbolic perversion of Christian rather than Germanic values'". Stratyner objects that the One Ring, embodying the nature of Sauron, can be read in terms of the Anglo-Saxon practice of giving rings to loyal followers, "twisted to his dark purpose"; his loyal thanes are the Nazgûl, and they serve him not "because they love him, but because they are the slaves of the rings which Sauron has given them".' Verified.
 * Noted.


 * FN 2 cites "His fantasy writings were severely criticised by the literary establishment. From the 1970s, Tolkien scholars including Paul H. Kocher, Jane Chance, and Tom Shippey began to mount a detailed defence of Tolkien." The source doesn't mention Kocher or Chance as far as I can see.
 * Fixed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, reviews do need a lot of quotes, but I think we were a bit over the line here. Looks good now. The other fixes are all fine; the rewrite of the "complex psychological warfare" sentence really clarified it. Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)