Talk:Under Western Eyes (novel)

"...and captures the reader's heart." Looks like an opinion to me.


 * Looks more like a copy-paste from a review or English literature schooltext to me. Legis 12:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree: totally unencyclopedic language. Even in a stub article like this it warrants deletion.

Removed sentence
I have removed the following sentence from the "Plot summary" section: "The story ends with atonement for Razumov and lives scattered amidst the despondent glare of revolution, and people who are caught inextricably within it, many times, without their consent." No offense intended, but I've read this three times, and can't make any sense of it, after "The story ends with atonement for Razumov." Perhaps someone else could straighten out this text. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Added Section on Narration
Added a paragraph on Conrad's extraordinary use of an unreliable narrator. User:killersax June 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Filled out article
Rewrote summary by adding parts and more detail. Added cast of characters. More to follow.

RobertGuiscard 01:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

POV opening
The header for this article currently includes this phrase: "Writing to Edward Garnett in 1911, Conrad said « ...in this book I am concerned with nothing but ideas, to the exclusion of everything else »;[4] It follows that any analysis of the book must address not the narration, characters or plot, which are of interest or importance only in so far as they convey his themes, but the ideas Conrad wished to explore."

With all due respect, no it doesn't. There are different schools of textual criticism, so I suppose you're welcome to ferret out authorial intent if you're so inclined, but that's not what you "must" do. Followers of the New Criticism or structuralism would engage with the substance and forms of Conrad's text, regardless of what Conrad personally thought one should make of the book. Now, I'm reluctant to make substantive changes to a long-standing article header, but the way it currently stands strikes me as profoundly unencyclopedic. It is someone's personal opinion, based on a highly subjective vein of criticism. The offending phrases that I've highlighted here could probably be struck from the article entirely and it would be only the stronger for it. Any objections? Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree the statement ("It follows that any analysis of the book...") sounds very odd and peremptory. Conrad wrote a novel, after all, with characters and a plot, various settings that are important etc., not just ideas. The statement needs to be replaced.Campolongo (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Father
Prince K "..it is also implied he is Razumov's father." It's actually made explicit in the novel that Razumov is Prince K's illegitimate son. See "his aristocratic and convinced father..." I will change it if no one objects. Campolongo (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic here, but that is exactly what I meant when I wrote "implied". Prince K. is not explicitly named as Razumov's father. It is a conclusion that we draw by the fact that a) his father is said to have been an aristocrat, b) he himself is described as having an aristocratic bearing and c) Prince K is his sponsor. Therefore, an implication, albeit an obvious one. RobertGuiscard (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarify, please
A second audience read it after the Russian Revolutions of 1917, which changed the reader's perception of the author's insight.
 * Odd statement. Does it mean that Conrad's cynical view of politics was seen to be justified after 1917? I think this needs referencing anyway. Valetude (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)