Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oroonoko

Oroonoko
From the hand that brought you A Tale of a Tub! Let Geogre guide you through the most famous British prose work of the 17th century, Aphra Behn's supposed "anti-slavery" novel of 1689, and show you its real politics in a harsh world of espionage and revolution! (By no means a self-nom, though I think I added a paragraph at one stage.) --Bishonen | Talk 08:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Fascinating subject, scholarly treatment, brilliant prose, excellent article.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 10:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Very good article, interesting, scholarly, and a good use of illustrations. I added the date of birth (month and year) and date of death, which I got from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I've included the citation in the references section. However, if Geogre believes the EB to be unreliable on this point, feel free to delete. SlimVirgin 16:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also added a couple of points to the talk page. SlimVirgin 17:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The reason I didn't put in the birth date is that, quite simply, it's unknown.  There have been three identifications of Aphra Behn's maiden name.  The first made her a noblewoman, and so, with that guess in hand and information from 1698's fictional biographies, the 1911 put in a birth date.  The second identification was made by Maureen Duffy in the 1970's.  It has her as the daughter of a barber in Kent.  We don't know the date of birth of this girl, but we know the year (i.e. from census and taxation records, but girls weren't always listed in parish records for christenings).  The third is another "Eaffrey" who is well born but not noble.  The most recent biographer accepts Duffy's premise, and I tend to agree that it's good information, but the truth is that we just don't know.  Therefore, it's no more unlikely than likely that the date the old 1911 gave is right.  There's no reason to say it can't be then, since no one really knows for sure.  I could only object to the addition if I thought I knew when she was born.  Geogre 20:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Support &mdash; Well written and fascinating, with good references and images. Gareth Hughes 16:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Definitely FA material. Great references and superb use of images. KingTT 20:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's really close. There are some clumsy wordings, though. I fixed one, but consider, "The question of whether or not the narrator of Oroonoko represents Aphra Behn or, if so, tells the truth cannot be answered by contemporary research." I really suggest a good, independent copy edit before we approve this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: user:Niteowlneils has independently done a proofing. There were some spellings he caught that I was unaware of, and he changed the order of the modifiers in the sentence you quoted.  For whatever it's worth, most of the phrasings that are giving others trouble were conscious on my part and had reasoning behind them.  It's fine, though: a failure to communicate is a failure of authorship in an encyclopedia.  Geogre 04:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. BTW, is there any consistent rule on calling her "Mrs. Behn"? I know that was common in her time, but I notice we use it a bit arbitrarily in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * There isn't really. I switched back and forth to give some variety, but there are some interesting things.  First, Aphra always signed herself "Aphra Behn," and she was signing that way from the first time we have a signature, so, even though she apparently despised her husband and was only married for 3 years, she has been, professionally, always "Mrs. Behn."  She signed her name so consistently "Behn" that we have a scholarly dispute over what her maiden name is.  There is, however, something a bit peculiar in the usage "Mrs. Behn" in the 18th century.  People who liked her said "Aphra" or "Astrea," and people who wanted to put her down for smuttiness distanced themselves from the "filth" of her poetry by using the "Mrs." and no human first name.  In my case, though, it was just to avoid boredom.  Geogre 00:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Reserve judgement for now. The introduction spends too much time talking about Behn and not enough about the work.  And what was the opinion of slave-holders themselves? RickK 08:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand the concern over the lead, but, unfortunately, it is Behn herself that has made the novel so studied today, as information on her makes people interested in the novel. Also, the novel is actually very short.  Her Love Letters Between a Nobleman and His Sister is a much better novel, and her poetry is even better, but Oroonoko is easy to teach in a sophomore survey class, being only 70 pages long, and it raises all sorts of issues that make it a good teaching text.  I'm not sure I understand the other question: opinion of the slave-holders to the novel?  In the 19th c., slave holders tended to ignore the slavery angle and focus on the love story, and abolitionists focused on the slavery angle.  Personally, I think you have to really stretch things to make the novel an anti-slavery work, but people have wanted to save this novel from "Mrs. Behn" for a long time. Geogre 13:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Support - well-written and structured article, as always. Filiocht 08:32, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Suport Ganymead 01:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)