User talk:Simmaren/Sandbox/Draft Reception and Literary Criticism

Questions and comments

 * How do we turn off the sinebot? Awadewit | talk  04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * sinebot - I'm not familiar with this. Simmaren 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's what added that little "previously unsigned comment added by..." bit above. Helpful on talk pages and what not, but not here. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm realizing the nothing we read has anything about JA's reception or influence outside of Britain and America. Awadewit | talk  06:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the publishing history and the article on translations in JA in Context (I think...they all begin to run together) touches on this. Otherwise, you're correct, our sources haven't really covered this. Simmaren 11:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm noticing that you quoted from Litz's book and an essay. Usually books are better than essays - any way to quote only from the book? It would be easier for the reader to check the sources, anyway. Awadewit | talk  23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I promise "it will get worse before it gets better". :) Sorry for the current derangement of the article. Awadewit | talk  03:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What about modern popular reception? We have nothing on that, as of yet. Jane Austen fan clubs, for example. Awadewit | talk  05:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got something on the fan clubs now.


 * So, the article is in a rough draft shape. Let me know what you think. I'm going to start refining and reorganizing now. Awadewit | talk  23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I redid the bibliography so the notes are easier to read (I'm about to redo the notes). However, there is some missing information that we need for the bibliography. You'll see it. Awadewit | talk  00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's start with "I like it." It seems to me to be pitched at about the right level of sophistication and detail. I have some comments, of course, and might change some wording here and there, of course. Thanks for your hard work on this. Simmaren (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Might change some wording?! I would hope so! It's a rough draft, like I said. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My initial reaction on reviewing the footnotes was that Southam is too prominent. On reflection, however, it appears that we have a good selection of other sources, and Southam is critical to any consideration of these issues, so I think we're o.k. If we have time and energy, we might want to double up a few of the references from the summary articles in the various companions. My earlier version of this material had some of those references. This should not IMO have priority over other matters, however. Simmaren (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I deleted any of your references - I just added Southam in. Southam seems to be the authority on this issue anyway. We should check the notes to see if everything is doubled and tripled up. However, most books I read kept referring to Southam anyway, so I don't know how necessary that is. In effect, it would be referring to another book that referred back to Southam anyway. Some of the material that I removed that you had included, for example, were quotes from Southam included in other works! :) Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. Those references were circular, something to be avoided, ordinarily. One issue occurs to me - are we vulnerable to charges of original research by quoting directly from primary sources (i.e., the reviews in Southam) rather than secondary sources quoting Southam? If this is raised, we may need to come back and restore the circularity, here and in the main article. The history will allow us to recover what we need if we need it. Simmaren 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be stretching OR beyond all meaning, I think. I am one of the strictest interpreters of WP:OR I know and I think we are on safe ground. :) Awadewit | talk  18:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments on the Lead:


 * "During her own lifetime, Austen's works brought her little fame..." This was because (by her choice) she published her work anonymously during her lifetime, not because her work was poorly received. I don't think we want to get into this very far in this article but it should be mentioned.


 * What I meant here was that JA's books were not wildly popular like they later became - I emphasized the wrong thing. What about "During her own lifetime, Austen's works achieved modest fame..." or something along that line. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "a path from modest fame to wild popularity." Because of the last point, I would substitute something like "from self-imposed obscurity" for "modest fame."


 * I'm speaking of the works here, not her. The whole thing needs to be redone - the opening was very hard to write. I usually do it last. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "her works became visible to a wider public." Not only her works, but a personality ("Dear Aunt Jane") became visible (not an accurate one, thanks to the conventional reticence of her descendants) and formed the basis for the Janeite cults. [This is covered well in the article.] Adding this idea here will provide a transition to the next sentence. I think it would also help to add the idea that her works began to receive sustained critical attention.


 * Add away - that is why this is a rough draft! Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "With the advent of a professionalized professoriate, the criticism of Austen became an increasingly esoteric function..." I understand what you mean - these are words I would be tempted to use - but the average reader (particularly not native speakers) will glide right past this and miss the sense. Simmaren (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do start revising! I don't think we need to discuss every change - the writing process will be interminable. Why don't we just adopt a policy of revision without discussion, unless there is something to discuss. If either of us disagrees with a change, we can then bring it up. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments on "1812-1821: Contemporary Reviews":
 * "No more serious Austen criticism was published until the late nineteenth century: Whately and Scott had set the tone for a century." This ignores George Henry Lewes, whom I take to be a serious critic. As for "setting the tone," is it true that critics until, let us say, Bradley and Ferrars uniformly (or predominately) followed Whately and Scott? Perhaps the relevant period of time is a half century? Simmaren (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, but this is what Southam and others say. They don't take Lewes that seriously. The relevant quotations for this can be found in my Southam notes, I think (isn't it nice to be able to refer to those now?). Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See my internal question on the number of reviews, by the way - we have an issue there. Awadewit | talk  05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the number of reviews for Emma to seven, which is supported by Waldron, "Critical responses, early" in Jane Austen in Context. Of course, Southam is her source. :) Simmaren 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments on "1821-1870: Discriminating Readers"
 * I suppose we are required to be sober, but I like the following title for this section: "1821-1870: Caviar for the discerning few"
 * That's wonderful, but we will never get away with it, I'm afraid. Too much artistic license. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Although Austen's novels were republished in 1832 by Richard Bentley in the Standard Novels series, they were not bestsellers." They were not best sellers but they were steady sellers and remained continuously in print. Perhaps we could add this thought to the FN?
 * Add away. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Internal question was: 1832 or 1833? I have sources that say both. Awadewit | talk  06:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know at what point we might want to discuss international sales and reactions. Simmaren (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any information on that, but we need it, I agree. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments on "1870-1930: Discriminating Readers"
 * "Memoir"
 * The sentences on Chapman - As I understand it, his work belongs to the period 1920-1955. I think this material is out of place here and should be moved to "1930-the Present: Modern scholarship"
 * Go ahead and move. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this subsection covers both the Memoir and the Family Record, perhaps it would be better titled "Memoir and Family Record" or "Family Biographies" or something like it.
 * Agreed - change away. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Criticism"
 * "...the debate between the British critic William Dean Howells and the writer and humorist Mark Twain." The text presents Twain's side of the debate (through a quote) but not Howells' views. Should perhaps be expanded by a clause or a sentence.
 * I thought Howells came up later. I'll work on it. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Janites"
 * " It is at this moment that readers started to develop a personal identification with Austen." It's not clear to me what "this moment" is. The aftermath of the publication of the Memoir?
 * Yes - after the publication of the Memoir - will make clear. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I take it that Henry James appears here rather than under the "American" discussion under "Criticism" because of his identity as a British/Continental author. It makes sense to me to have him here to contrast with Ferrars, but someone else might object later.
 * James was hard to place - what do you think? Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "which has been called by the best single introduction to her fiction.[47] Southam has described it as a Janeite piece without the worship." The Southam comment jars when seen against the preceding Litz comment and the following description of Ferrars as the first of the "Jane Austen as subversive" critics. The term "Janeite" is derogatory and ties back to the "good Aunt Jane" caricature, which is not Ferrars at all. Should we expand the Southam reference to provide more context or indicate conflicting views? Simmaren (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Janeite" is not derogatory until now - it is a positive comment at the turn of the century - those literary elites who used it among themselves. I'll work on this. Awadewit | talk  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Status
Are we still working on this version? Given the greater detail here, is this a candidate spin-off article for later? Simmaren 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I am still working on it. :) I just didn't want to post it without the go ahead from you. It is definitely what I consider a "fork" article. The "Reception" section in JA is only supposed to be a summary of this. Awadewit | talk  18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I intuited that. Good. I will help on this one as I can. Simmaren 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There are still one or two things to be cleared up - Kipling's role, for example - but this article is ready for prime time. I appreciate that you waited until I could look at it. I like it very much. Do you mind taking care of posting it and adding the link to the main article? Roger Davies, of course. We're making progress, and that feels good. Simmaren 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the refinements can be made later. Taking live now. Awadewit | talk  10:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the resources available to me at home and found a couple of references to the Kipling story (i.e., it exists) but no discussion of its content or significance.Simmaren 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)