Wikipedia:Peer review/Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell/archive1

===Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I think I would like to take this article to FAC. Please evaluate the prose of the article. In particular, I would like help reducing the length of the plot summary. Awadewit (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell/archive1.

Brianboulton
Brianboulton comments: I had been looking forward to doing this review and I wasn't disappointed. Although many of the points I have raised in the long list below are relatively trivial, there are three general issues which I think need some careful attention:-
 * An editorial voice is clearly present at times. I have identified particular instances where I believe this to be the case.
 * Most of the points you identified are spots covered by footnotes in the next sentence. My voice certainly isn't present in this article, since I disagree with most of what these reviewers say! :) Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The language is sometimes inaccessible to those without an academic literary background. Again, I have highlighted the occasions where I think this is so.
 * I don't think that it is the language so much as the off-hand references. The reviewers of the novel assume a rather literate audience and don't explain themselves. It is hard for me to add to their reviews without engaging in OR. This is part of the problem of having only reviews to work from - they have severe limitations. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is possible over-reliance on direct quotations, some of which are very lengthy; the one that ends the Reception section is over 80 words long. There are opportunities for more extensive use of paraphrase.
 * I agree and I've been trying to cut them down. I'll try to do some more work on this. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are my detailed points:-
 * Lead
 * I wonder why you have reversed the name order when you first mention Strange and Norrell in the text?
 * I listed them in the order they appear in the novel. Does it sound too strange? Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it raises a query. I'll leave it to you Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "among others" at end of the lead is surely redundant - it is implied by "longlisted"
 * Two awards are listed here: the winning of the Hugo and the nomination for the Booker. I think we still need to say "among others" to indicate that there were more. Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Point misunderstood by me. I thought "among others" referred to other names on the Booker longlist. It might be clearer if "among others" became "among other literary prizes" or some such. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah - I see. I have clarified the sentence. Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've only just seen this, after I'd removed "among others". Phrases like this, which was also used at the end of the Austen and Dickens sentence, sap prose, in my opinion, and are uninformative. Either the "others" are important enough to be mentioned in the lead or they aren't. qp10qp (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Plot summary
 * Vol I: "Vinculus later encounters Jonathan Strange". A brief description could precede this sudden introduction of Strange, e.g. "a young gentelman of property, from Shrewsbury".
 * Added "a young gentleman of property" Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Vol II: "The popular Strange" - why is Strange popular, and with whom?
 * An over-industrious reduction of the plot summary caused this. He is popular in London and with the Cabinet. Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Vol II: Who is "Arabella"? Again, a brief introductory description is required
 * Someone else fixed this, I think. (I think someone was editing the plot summary while you were reading.) Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Vol III: Childermass takes the bullet - mention this is not fatal?
 * Clarified. Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Vol III: 'Strange begins strenuous efforts to rescue Arabella, his letters to his friends appeared crazed and he is soon surrounded by "Eternal Night"'.
 * "Appeared" should be present tense.
 * This has already been fixed by someone. Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I am not sure about the punctuation via a single comma. The statements in the sentence are not obviously a related sequence.
 * This has already been fixed by someone - they used a colon. Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Composition and publication
 * "science fiction writer and critic" reads like a description of a single person, but it appears to be describing two. Some rephrasing should clarify this.
 * Changed to "science fiction writers". Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "All of the students..." I'd just say "Students..."
 * Changed. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Last sentence of second para: the sentence begins with an offer to publish in a projected anthology. Within the same sentence the anthology has been published and won a prize. I'd amend the middle section of the sentence to "which was to include pieces by well-regarded science fiction and fantasy writers." I'd end the sentence there, and add (new sentence) "The book won the World Fantasy Award for the best anthology in 1997".
 * Changed. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Style
 * One of those grammar points I'm unsure about - use of "which" in "Specifically, the novel's minor characters, which include..." It doesn't sound right. It would, if the sentence began: "Specifically, in the novel's range of minor characters..." etc, but as written I feel the "which" should be "who".
 * "Characters" for me aren't real people, so they don't follow under the "who" rule. I see characters as fictional constructions. If the sentence said "caricatures" or "stereotypes", for example, "which" would be appropriate. I see "character" in the same class. Does that make sense? Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the point, sure, but I think fictional constructions can come under the "who" rule if they are recognisable individuals rather than sub-groups (such as caricatures and stereotypes). However, you are an expert in language usage, so I'll leave the decision to you. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "...infused with the eccentricity of the antiquarian". This is elegant phrasing, but it reads as POV. It would be fine as a cited quotation, but otherwise I foresee FAC problems ("language not acessible to the general reader" etc).
 * The best description of Clarke's tone that I could find was the following: "here we have all the defining features of Clarke's style simultaneously: the archly Austenesque tone, the somewhat overdone quaintness ("upon the Tuesday"), the winningly matter-of-fact use of the supernatural, and drollness to spare" - Could you help me find a better rewording? Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly can't find a more elegant wording, but I'm not sure that it really summarizes the quotation that you give. On the basis of this quote I might summarize Clarke's style as "quaintly antique, with studied drollness", but I may be off the mark. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "dry wit infused with a prosaic quaintness"? Awadewit (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems quite close to the source. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "novel proper" jars somewhat. Could it be the "actual novel" or just "the novel"? And the "altogether" which ends the sentence may be redundant emphasis.
 * "Actual novel" and "the novel" are incorrect, as the footnotes are part of the "actual novel" and "the novel". Removed "altogether". Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Word missing: "Michael Dirda his review..."
 * Added. Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the opinion that This extensive extra-textual apparatus is reminiscent of postmodernist works, such as David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest (1996) and Thomas Pynchon's Mason & Dixon (1997)... contained in the Kelly reference at the end of the sentence? Otherwise, as above, it is editorial opinion.
 * Yes. Kelly specifically says that. Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the Keats allusion, but I'm not sure Clarke's passing reference to the cold hillside makes this "clear", except to students (and teachers) of literature. Less forceful but probably more appropriate would be: "as illustrated by the passing reference to "the cold hillside".
 * The source, a review in The Weekly Standard, says "KEATS WAS ALIVE and writing during the period (1806-1817) of Clarke's novel, and although he is not explicitly mentioned (unlike Byron, who makes a few appearances), a passing reference to the "cold hillside" makes clear that his vision of enchantment and devastation following upon any dealings with faeries is very much on Clarke's mind." - Simply following the source there. Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Genre
 * "...has been described as a fantasy novel" etc. Who has described it as these various things?
 * Pick a review. These are the obvious statements that don't need citation. The more specific statements about how JSMR relates to these specific genres are cited in the section. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then say "described by reviewers" Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Last phrase of first paragraph would read better as "and that she loved the works of Austen."
 * Changed. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First sentence, second para: "John Freeman comments that, like Franz Kafka and Neil Gaiman, Clarke’s fantasy is imbued with realism." This suggests a comparison of two people with "Clarke's fantasy". I assume the comparison is between Kafka's and Gaiman's fantasies, and that of Clarke. Therefore I think the sentence should begin: "John Freeman comments that, like those of Franz Kafka and Neil Gaiman, Clarke’s fantasy is imbued with realism.
 * Changed. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Shulman sees fantasy and historical fiction as similar because both must follow rigid rules or else the narrative will break down." Needs a citation
 * Added ref. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Style quibble, third paragraph: sentence beginning with a superfluous "and".
 * Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Themes – Friendship
 * "In her review for the Times Literary Supplement, Roz Kaveney writes that the two illustrate Harold Bloom's notion of the "anxiety of influence" in addition to romantic friendship." Erm, I haven't a clue what this means. Can Kaveney's point be explained more clearly?
 * I could explain it, but it would be OR. Kaveney's point is wonderful for those who know this material (readers of TLS, apparently do). Other readers will just have to wonder, I'm afraid. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that bothers me a little (as one of the "other readers"). From WP:EXJARG: "...most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook." Should that not apply here?
 * I don't feel comfortable expanding on this. Kaveney makes a one-sentence point. To go beyond this and explain what influence Strange and Norrell had on each other would most definitely be OR. Readers who know the theory can speculate on these influences, but I have a feeling that their conclusions would be somewhat different. Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "doubled characters" and "false doubles" are terms likely to be unfamiliar to the general reader, and may need explaining.
 * The sources don't explain these - they assume readers know. Can I just insert my own explanation? I was worried, that again, this would be considered synthesis. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your own explanations will do fine. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just deleted this information as I think it doesn't really fit with the "friendship" theme very well. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rationalism
 * First sentence - the editorial voice?
 * Summary of section. (Not every sentence needs a quote, btw.) Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "And" quibble again
 * Fancy punctuation fix. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Englishness
 * Once again, the opening sentence sounds as though it is an editorial conclusion. What is the source of the three quoted phrases in the sentence?
 * They come from the same source as the following sentence. When two sentences in a row come from the same source, there is no need to repeat the footnote. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was unable to find either of the quoted phrases from the second sentence in ref [21]
 * I had the wrong link there - sorry. Fixed. You can now find the quote. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Who said: "The fairy tradition that Clarke draws on is particularly English"?
 * That is part of the Feeley material, cited a sentence or two later, although that same idea appears in a few other reviews. It is not his alone. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Being Cornish, I can't help myself interjecting here that it is also utter b****x. This whole point got me very angry while reading the article, not that I blame Awadewit.) qp10qp (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Historical otherness
 * This title is cryptic; could it be made more comprehensible.
 * I thought about other titles, but none of them were any better. Do you have any suggestions? Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I raised the point because I didn't understand the title, so I can't suggest an alternate until I know what it means. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is now "History" - not quite as accurate, but perhaps not as confusing. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again I am troubled by by statements that appear as unsources opinion. In particular there is the reference to Gilbert and Gubar's "seminal book". No title is given - is it assumed that general readers will know of it, and appreciate its seminal status? This illustrates the general point about the article's accessibility to the less literary.
 * "The title is given in the phrase "madwoman in the attic", which is linked to the book. None of these statements are unsourced - they all appear in the article on which this section was based. Frankly, this section may not be accessible to everyone - it is fairly abstract - however, it is my understanding that not everything has to be accessible to everyone in an article. I tried to make this section as accessible as I could, but there is really only so much I could do. If readers get the general idea of the section, but miss a reference or two, I consider that a success. Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so long as you can justify this within the EXJARG rule above. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * "However, she criticized the novel..." Presumably "she" is the New Statesman critic - why not name her?
 * Added. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The words "Of course" need to be deleted from the final paragraph.
 * Ha! Deleted. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Film: What has happened since June 2006? If nothing, we should be told, but the section shouldn't end as it does.
 * I believe that the screenwriter has quit the film, but I can't source that to a reliable source. I only have reliable information up to June 2006. I've rewritten the last sentence a bit. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to your responses on these points. Potentially this is a great article, and I see nothing wrong with your use of sources, which seem well-chosen and suitably broad. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Final point: I understand now that some phrases taken by me as the editorial voice are summaries of sourced material. This was not obvious to me, and may not be to others. One way of clarifying this would be to increase the in-line citations—some citations are placed at distances from their relevant material. Another would be to make more use of the "according to X" or "X observes that" formulae. You must decide what to do about that. Likewise, perhaps you should consider again the "accessibility" aspect raised above, to avoid possible chages of elitism. That said, this is a great article and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. (Did you see that Mozart family grand tour was TFA a few days back?) Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For me, one sentence removal for a footnote is not "at a distance", so I don't really consider this a problem. I also think that the article actually suffers from too much of the "according to" construction - it interrupts the flow of the writing, but since so much of the source material is scattered, I felt I had to do this. I also find it funny that this article, which is based on sources written for the general reader, could possibly be inaccessible or elitist. :) Oh, the irony. Awadewit (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Final point You asked for ways in which the plot synopsis could be shortened. Personally I don't see its length as much of a problem, but I had a quick go (which I have not posted) and reduced it by 15 to 20%. See here for my effort. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * compared this plot summary to others and apparently it is in the right ballpark for the length of the book, but I would still like to see your version, as I still think the summary it a bit too long. Perhaps you could post it to the talk page? Awadewit (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you've linked it now. I'm incorporating suggestions from it now. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Qp10qp
Comments by Qp10qp

As the article is being edited a lot at the moment, I'll put up my comments here as I copyedit it.


 * Reason and madness: surprisingly little on this given that the lead says it is a theme. The "madness" of Emma seems little analysed in the article; and I'm not clear whether the issue of madness applies to other characters in the novel or not (Strange is mentioned as crazed at one point; and King George crops up). Perhaps the material on this in "Historical otherness" should bulk up "Rationalism", or the latter small section be dissolved into the whole. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Little is said about any of the themes in the reviews. That is one reason this article is so bad. :( I have moved some of the material from "History" to "Rationalism". Awadewit (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I look at it more closely, the "Rationalism" section seems a little unclear. It is making the point that Clarke is a rationalist. She may be, but is her novel? Surely one doesn't write about fairies and magic only to construct an edifice to their non-existence. If Clarke's fairy and magic world is merely a metaphor for madness or unreason, then I am disappointed. Novels aren't tracts; I'm guessing that Clarke would not reduce the whole imaginative art of the novel, with its created worlds, to an entirely rational process. qp10qp (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the point is ridiculous - I don't buy it at all - the Faber quote I find particularly silly. However, a couple of reviews did mention the rationalism angle and there were precious few themes to mention. Clearly, rationalism is an issue in the book, but it is not nearly as simple as these reviewers made it out to be. Thoughts on what to do? Awadewit (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea. If this is what the reviewers said, then I suppose we are stuck with it. qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As Feeley notes, "The idea of fairies forming a hidden supernatural aristocracy certainly predates Spenser and Shakespeare, and seems to distinguish the English tales of wee folk from those of Scotland and Ireland."[23] In these stories, the fairies are depicted as "capricious, inconsistent in their attitude toward humankind, [and] finally unknowable", characteristics which Clarke integrates into her own fairies.[23] It's not clear to me whether "these stories" refers to the English tales or to those of Scotland or Ireland. Either way, the sources here seem to me confused. Have they not heard of the Tuatha Dé Danann and the Aos Sí? 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified. Also, note that most of the reviews simply repeated info from the press release. This whole experience has been eye-opening. Where are the great book reviewers of today? This was one of the best reviews! Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably the best reviewers do not want to write at length about a fantasy novel, even though—unusually for a book in this genre—it was long-listed (but no more, I notice) for the Booker. Another problem is that the reviewing trade is very incestuous in Britain and everyone knows each other and there's a lot of back-scratching. Books tend to be more thoroughly treated in features, but these usually circle around interviews and so tend to be largely flattering. Most reviewers are not really literary critics: Faber, for example, is a fiction writer and was presumably chosen because he wrote The Crimson Petal and the White, which, along with Sarah Waters's Affinity, was part of the same genre of pastiche/historical/esoteric/faintly postmodern fiction that took the bookcharts by storm at around that time. So he is possibly really talking about himself.


 * Where the reviewers seem to have missed the boat as far as the Englishness theme is concerned is that it is obviously an alternate Englishness that Clarke deliberately constructs. It is no more to be taken literally than the use of magic in the war against Napoleon. I suspect she is writing about the English craving for authenticity, which results from their being, for better or for worse, such a hybrid, absorbent, and rationalistic nation. It's a worthwhile theme. qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did notice that one of the most useful articles was a feature done by the New York Times, but nary a negative word did it utter! :) I agree with your assessment of the Englishness theme - the footnotes cry out for that kind of reading. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I provisionally changed "adjoining" to "supplements", but I can't remember how the notes look on the page (I started the novel and gave up). "Adjoining" is imprecise to me. Later the article says that "At times, the footnotes overtake the pages of the novel proper", and this is also not precise to me. I presume it means that sometimes the notes take up a whole page or more, pushing novel text forward. qp10qp (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about: "At times, the footnotes dominate entire pages of the novel." Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Very clear. I'd wondered if she'd been up to some typographical games. qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the lead: "Romantic literary traditions". I'm not sure if this means much in itself. The paragraph is mainly about diction, it seems. If this refers to that too, then it might need somehow almalgamating with the point about Austen and Dickens. I don't usually think of those two as Romantic, so I assumed a different reference. qp10qp (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Austen is considered a Romantic, however what I was thinking of here was this sentence: As well as literary styles, Clarke pastiches many Romantic literary genres: the comedy of manners, the Gothic tale, the silver-fork novel, the military adventure, the Byronic hero, and the historical romance of Walter Scott. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, but in the lead the point is made in a sort of vacuum and attaches itself by default to the Austen/Dickens diction stuff. qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarified by providing examples. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The plot summary says that Strange returns to the north but it never told us he had come from there. Is the reader not told exactly which part of the north? The first mention of Strange had given me the impression that Vinculus told him the prophecy in London. qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added and clarified. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is "north" a direction or a region here? Shropshire is in the Midlands. qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed to "returns home". Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After he returns, he fails to cure George III's madness, although he manages to save him from enchantment by the gentleman with thistle-down hair. Does he save him from becoming enchanted or rescue him from having been enchanted? qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified - from becoming enchanted. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strange returns and gives Childermass instructions which allow him to free Lady Pole. What from (several things occur to me)? qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified - from the enchantment. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * secretes herself inside her home. Why? Does this mean she is hiding? qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Waiting for Arabella to return through a set of magic mirrors. Should I include this? Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless it would sound too laborious. The thing is that the matter appears unconnected with the rest of the plot, as it stands. qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified, but let out mirror part. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After the spells of the gentleman with thistle-down hair are broken, Stephen becomes the king of his Faerie domain, Lost-Hope. Who does that his apply to?
 * Changed to "the". Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, should Stephen's ethnicity, if it is thought significant, be made clear in the plot summary, as I was unaware of it until the analysis? I might add, though, that "people of color", is not quite comfortable in BE. Does Clarke use that term? I think it would be safe to use it only in a quote (Hoiem isn't British). The spelling difference makes this even trickier (sigh), because if it remains out of quotation, the spelling will have to change, but that still won't make it a British expression. qp10qp (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's gone? I've added a brief description of Stephen Black to the plot summary. Hoiem uses "people of color" to refer to Black and Vinculus - it is a standard term in literary criticism, so I don't really see the need for quotation marks. The marks would also look like scare quotes there. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's awkward, though, in my opinion. Maybe another British person should comment here, but it's an expression that might go down the wrong way in Britain. Even in literary criticism, I suspect it will date very quickly when another term supersedes it, as it surely must. qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarke uses the techniques of an alternate history to revise history and create characters that would not have been possible in the early nineteenth century. In the literature of the time or in the real life of the time? Seems slightly imprecise. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Real life - do you have a good way to reword this? Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Using the techniques of an alternate history, Clarke creates events and characters that would have been impossible in the early nineteenth century." ?
 * Adopted. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Revise history" is the problem bit for me, because it conjours up the idea of revisionist history, which is usually a political rather than a literary phenomenon. I'm not sure that the fiction of alternate history, say of the sort in The Plot Against America, is revisionist in anything more than a speculative sense.qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand - it is good that the word "revise" has been replaced. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done on the article. I would certainly support it at FAC. I don't envy all your work with online newspaper reviews. I admit that I'm only really in my element working from books. qp10qp (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Me, too. This newspaper business has been a nightmare - so little information can be gleaned from each source. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I find that reviews are mostly pretty rushed and short. A friend of mine has done weekly reviews for The Independent, and, frankly, she hardly had enough time to read one novel before the next review was due. And she had limited space. She gave up because it was so unsatisfying. I'm annoyed by the way most reviews just tell you about the plot (or the history), with a couple of critical remarks tacked on at the end. qp10qp (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what most of these were. Most disheartening. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan
Figureskatingfan's comments: Sorry for taking so long to reviewing this article. It's a good one, well-written, well-sourced, and profounding interesting. It makes me want to go out and read the book.

Global comments. I find the whole premise of the book--What would the world (specifically, England) be like if magic actually existed--very intriguing. Perhaps it's because I just saw Watchmen. In the same way that superheroes don't necessary mean the world would be a better place, it doesn't mean that magic would make things better. Often, it makes the world a whole lot worse off. I keep looking for some kind of discussion of this in the article, but never found it. Please, if that's a ridiculous request, ignore at your leisure. The other thing that it makes me think about is something that's been discussed in other science fiction and fantasy: How does the existance of magic affect imagination and technology. See, I think that a world with magic has very little need of either imagination and technology. It seems in this book, unlike Harry Potter, the magic affects the society surrounding it. In Harry Potter, the magic-users worked hard at separating magic from the outside world, but in this book, not so much. So how does it affect outsiders, or history, or English society? I would've liked to see this kind of discussion in this article, if that's possible.

Images. It's too bad there are more free-use images in this article. Is there a reason the book's author is so far down the article? I found myself scrolling all the way down to look for it. I think it's strange that the first photo is of Clarke's promoter.

Quoteboxes. Personally, I like yours. The discussion on the talk page notwithstanding, do not change them. ;)

Sources. Nice job with the sources.
 * I hear you about your frustration with worthless newspaper sources. My suggestion is to set up a Google alert and be on the look-out for new information.  I have to tell you, it gets weird when you find a article that practically plagarizes the Wikipedia article.  That's happened with The Wiggles.  I didn't know if I should be proud or outraged.  ("Hey!  Those are MY words!")  And then you struggle with using a source that has obviously used the WP article.  (I suggest that you don't.)  I'm not sure what I think about including sources that require a subscription.


 * I suggest that before taking this to FAC, you go over the sources once more and see about gleaning more from them. For example, go back to your first source, the article from Variety; I think that you may be able to add stuff from it, unless you cite other sources to support the same information.  In the article from NYT Magazine, there's information about the effect the book has on the genre of fantasy, how it helped take fantasy and alternative fantasy out of children's lit, and I think you should add that.


 * Here's a nitpicker: when you cite a multi-page source, like any long article from Time or the New Times Times, it's more convenient to include the single-page version in the URL.

Criticism section. This article needs one. What about negative reviews?

Prose. Not that I'm surprised, but the prose in this article is exceptional. I have nothing to add that may improve it. Nice work. --Christine (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Like you, I am frustrated by the thinness of this article. There are many themes and generic elements not addressed by it. However, that is a result of the shortcomings of the sources. Most of the reviews say very little about the themes of the novel. Most of the information I included in this article can be found in more than one review - something I was careful to work at, actually. I am loathe to include material that can only be found in one review, although I did make a couple of exceptions (for the illustrations, for example). Reviews are written hastily and are clearly not well-thought out, so I hate to give any one review undue weight. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true. Another source of frustration when depending upon newspaper reviews and articles is that it's obvious that they're all using the same source, to the point that they begin sounding all alike.  For example, when I was working on The Wiggles, there were dozens of sources about Greg Page's retirement, often from the AP.  What do you use?  I decided to use the most reputable sources I could find, MSNBC, CNN, and the NYT.  I also tried to use as many Australian sources as possible when multiple news outlets talked about the same thing.  If a source was simply incorrect about some point, they were removed.  A, I wouldn't call this article "thin" at all.  Sure, it's not gonna be as huge as Shakespeare, but for the most part, you've used the sources well.  In some ways, it's harder to write a FA on a topic with less sources, and you've done a commendable job here.
 * After a certain point, I began to wonder if the same person was writing all of the reviews! Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've switched the images as you suggested. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent suggestion about the linking. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally, criticism sections are discouraged. Negative and positive reviews are mixed together in this more neutrally-titled "Reception" section. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry. I keep learning about WP policies!  I'd reword my feedback, then, to say that there needs to be more negative reviews.  I know, I know, it's hard when the reviewers aren't as thorough as they should be. --Christine (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I've tried to include the most common criticisms. I worry about adding negative comments simply for the sake of it - I've tried to reflect the general tenor of the reviews. Most were generally positive. Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Scartol
Scartol's Yammering

Sorry, sorry, sorry. It's taken me forever to get this done, and I apologize. As always, Awadewit, you've knocked it out of the park, and I found the writing of this article most engaging. Below are my thoughts and questions; as always, feel free to incorporate or ignore at will. (Let me also say that I agree with FSF about the low position of the author's photo.)

Lead


 * An alternate history set in nineteenth-century England and Continental Europe during the Napoleonic Wars... Would it be wrong to use the simpler: "...set in nineteenth-century Europe..."?
 * Well, it is primarily set in England. I think saying "nineteenth-century Europe" makes the book seem less English than it is. I've just deleted the "Continental Europe" part. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. In this and other cases, if I don't respond it should be seen as gleeful approval. (I'm not one to cross off items when they've been satisfied. I hope that doesn't complicate things for you.) Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ...it is based on the premise that magic once existed in England and has returned with two magicians: Gilbert Norrell and Jonathan Strange. I have this thing about using the same word twice in one sentence. Maybe "...has returned with two men..."? (I admit that this is not an error per se, but much more along the lines of "I don't like it".)
 * Changed. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary


 * Yeah, this summary is pretty long. I've tried to figure out a way to trim it, but without having read the original source I feel lost. I will say that it feels disjointed and hard to follow. For example, the sentence: "They immediately clash over the importance of John Uskglass (the Raven King) to English magic." makes no sense to me. I suppose explaining this sort of thing would only make it longer, but the only other option is to leave it out. ("They debate philosophical aspects of magic" or some such.)
 * did a comparison for me - apparently, relative to the length of the novel, this plot summary is not any longer than other FAs. I've added the explanation of the Uskglass debate back into the plot summary. What other parts are hard to follow? Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After re-reading it thrice, I'm pretty stuck on how to respond. I expect the biggest problem is just that the novel itself is complex; therefore an attempt to summarize it fairly must also by necessity be complex. I personally don't have a problem with the length; if it's comparable to other FAs, then maybe we don't have a problem at all.
 * As for the difficulty I have following it: I think part of this comes from the incredible density of names. Are they all absolutely necessary? Obviously in any novel summary, a balance must be struck between giving a comprehensive overview (we don't want to leave out anyone important) and minimizing complexity (we can't mention every single character). I notice that Mr Drawlight and Mr Lascelles are mentioned only once each. Could that sentence be written: "He enters society with the help of two gentlemen about town, and meets a Cabinet minister named Sir Walter Pole."? Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Drawlight and Lascelles actually appear throughout the novel - they are significant minor characters. However, since I don't mention their later exploits, I suppose this has to go. I've used your rewrite. I've looked again - removing any more characters just seems like such a travesty! I anticipate continual rewrites of this section, actually. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the paragraph beginning "While living in London..." is necessary? Suppose we describe the first mention of Strange thusly: "Volume II opens with Jonathan Strange, a young gentleman of property who has begun practising magic, learning of Mr Norrell and travelling to London to meet him."
 * I've left out a lot of the details of Vinculus, but his prophecy drives the story, as is evidenced by Strange becoming a magician after hearting it. This paragraph also introduces Stephen Black. I'm afraid it must remain. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess I didn't realize how significant those characters are. Never mind. Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Learned Society of York Magicians, made up of theoretical magicians... Word duplication. Maybe: "...made up of people studying theories of magic"? (I haven't read the book so I'm shooting in the dark.)
 * The "theoretical magicians" are contrasted to the "practical magicians" throughout the novel. This should remain. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Should this distinction be made in the summary, then? Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added quotes around these two phrases to indicate that this is language from the novel. Hopefully that makes it clearer. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The title of the book seems to leave out the period, but shouldn't the punctuation in the article be "Mr. Gilbert Norrell"? Ditto other men's names.
 * This is a nineteenth-century BE affectation that the book adopts. I feel it should be retained in the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but again.. Should the reader (who, like me, may be confused) be let in on the secret? Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have a source for that, unfortunately. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "magic becomes respectable" is an odd phrase. Could we get an active voice version? Perhaps: "English society accepts magic as respectable once more"?
 * This is a nineteenth-century idea - "respectability". I wasn't really sure how best to convey it. I think the current wording is fine, as we don't really explain which parts of English society accept it (it is also wordier). Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * She complains, for example, of being tired of dancing. I assume she hasn't been dancing – maybe we need to make this clear? Perhaps: "She complains, for example, of being tired of dancing, despite a quiet lifestyle mostly spent in the home." or whatever the truth is in the book.
 * Ah - she has been dancing in the fairy land - she really is exhausted. I've clarified at the end of "Volume 1": Without the knowledge of the other characters, each evening she and Stephen are forced to attend balls held by the gentleman with thistle-down hair in the Faerie kingdom of Lost-Hope, where they dance all night long. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Flora moves with her family to Padua and secretes herself inside her home. This sounds like she's oozing into it. Is this a typo? Maybe a different word choice is needed? Or is it me?
 * I liked this word - it catches the meaning perfectly. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'd never seen (or noticed) it used that way. Ya learn something new every day! Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The combination of real and fictitious people is also confusing, especially the link to John Murray (1778-1843) in the quote box in reference to a fictional book.
 * Would you suggest delinking? I linked because these characters are clearly based on historical originals that readers may not be familiar with. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know how to resolve this, except to ask: Is it necessary to refer to that in the quote box? Is the publication info necessary there? Maybe instead the article could have a section about all the many references and allusions (and inclusions) to/of real people? Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the publication is fictional and the publication info is a crucial part of the quote (the book "was written" by Jonathan Strange). This is an example of the web of fictional publications used throughout the novel. Instead of creating a whole section on the allusions (which will just lead to random stuff being added by avid fans), I've added a sentence in the Genre section on this: ''To create this effect [realism], the novel includes many references to real early-nineteenth century people and things: artists such as Francisco Goya, Cruikshank, and Rowlandson, writers such as Frances Burney, William Beckford, Monk Lewis, Lord Byron, and Ann Radcliffe; novels such as Maria Edgeworth's Belinda and Austen's Emma; publishers such as John Murray; politicians such as Lord Castlereagh and George Canning; periodicals such as The Gentleman's Magazine and The Edinburgh Review; furnishings such as Chippendale and Wedgewood; and events such as the madness of King George III." Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Composition and publication


 * I get unnerved by phrases like "unknown to Clarke". Is this a BritEng-ism, in which case I'll just deal with it? Or would it be better stylistically to say "without Clarke's knowledge"?
 * Changed. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't hear that she agreed to have her story published in Starlight 1. Even though it's an obvious assumption, maybe it should be made explicit?
 * Added: She accepted and the book won the World Fantasy Award for best anthology in 1997. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarke spent the next ten years working on the novel in her spare time... I'd like to know what she was doing in her non-spare time. (ie, what job(s) did she work?)
 * Added: Clarke spent the next ten years working on the novel in her spare time, while editing cookbooks full-time for Simon & Schuster in Cambridge. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ...her work was known and appreciated by a small group of fantasy fans and critics on the internet. Is "on the internet" necessary here?
 * I think so - the small group could be anywhere without that description. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but maybe instead: "... according to an article in the New York Times Magazine, a small group of fantasy fans and critics knew her work and celebrated it on the internet"? Something about referring to "people on the internet" just irks me. I much prefer to see their actions described "on the internet". Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this rewording is slightly misleading. The fact is that people are "on the internet" in these forums and chat rooms. The rewording makes it sound like they just did the celebrating on the internet, but the groups exist on the internet in their most important and basic functions. There is no physical component to them (the group, not the people who constitute the group) outside of the internet. Without the internet, many of them would not exist. Funny, how these peer reviews turn existential, isn't it? Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Having Neil G. there on the left (the only image thus aligned) feels a little odd to me.
 * Changed to author. Most of the images in this article have to be right-aligned for some reason or another. It is annoying. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a GA one time wherein I suggested that the editor stagger the images; he replied that he found staggered images distracting, and much prefers all right-aligned images. Go figure! Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Style


 * The Romantic poet John Keats's "vision of enchantment and devastation following upon any dealings with faeries" informs the novel, as the passing reference to the "cold hillside" makes clear. The structure of this sentence makes me think that the quote is Keats's. Obviously a quick check of the footnote proves otherwise, but I wonder if the reader would be better served by wording such as: "Gregory Feeley considers the novel informed by Romantic poet John Keats's 'vision of...'"?
 * Reworded. Awadewit (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Genre


 * The use of present and past tense to refer to Clarke interviews seems to vary in the article; for example in the first paragraph of Genre, we have "Clarke herself has said" but also Clarke describes". I'm suddenly terrified to think that I adjusted some original wording to create the former, and if so I apologize if I have ruined some earlier standardization. (I always think of critical reviews in the present tense and author interviews in the past. Please don't ask me to explain why.)
 * I think I'm going to go with the present tense throughout - that way the "literary present" won't jar with anything else. Awadewit (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably my preference too. Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the comparison to O'Brian; seems very apt. Of course, considering the difficulty I had enjoying the first O'Brian book, maybe it doesn't bode well for how much I will enjoy Clarke's novel.. But that's a discussion for another time I suppose.
 * I haven't read O'Brian, but now I want to. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm just not well-suited for this sort of book. Odd, though, considering the density and character-driven complexity of some Balzac stuff. Go figure! Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one has to at least like elements of postmodernism to like this book. Balzac is dense and character-driven without being postmodern. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Themes


 * Perhaps these are in a state of expansion, but I bristle at the sight of single-paragraph subsections.
 * This is part of the problem of writing an article based on book reviews - most of the reviews say nothing at all about the novel's themes. This is all the information there currently is on the subject. Even this little bit is stretching what I found in the sources, frankly. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair enough. But maybe some excerpts from the book could be added for depth and illustration? Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be nice? I did quote a few excerpts in the "Style" section. Most of the reviewers quote to illustrate her style and not her themes, so the quotes in the reviews aren't really that pertinent to the "Themes" section. I am hesitant to add quotes myself, as that could be viewed as original research. Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not used to seeing discussion of theme qualified (especially at the start) with "reviewers say..." If the theme is present in the novel, can't it be identified without the need to refer to who identified it? (At least in a general sense; obviously quotes and references to specific reviewers for evidence makes sense.)
 * I did this because some of the thematic material was only mentioned by one reviewer. In this case, I found it problematic to assert that the theme is indeed in the novel. These reviews were so poorly written and some of "themes" listed here are so obviously ridiculous, that I felt it was important to qualify the statements. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose this is a problem particular to writing about so recent a work. (A problem, ironically enough, that I was lucky enough to avoid even with Barton Fink.) I will leave the decisions in your capable hands. Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd vote for a sentence or independent clause of explanation about what rationalism is. The quote makes it pretty clear, but I'd still prefer a standalone.
 * Frankly, I have no idea what the reviewer meant by rationalism. I know what I mean, but I don't think I and the reviewer agree. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but given that it's the title of a subsection, it seems to beg a bit of delineation. If we take the epistemological meaning on the Wikipedia page ("any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification", which comes from A.R. Lacey's Dictionary of Philosophy), then it sounds like Faber in The Guardian is using it in that sense: Clarke, he suggests, sees magic as A Bad Thing. It seems like the rest of the paragraph in the article melts into the other definition of rationalism, "a theory 'in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive'". (References to Emma being insane, etc.) Maybe we need a paragraph for each? Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm just going to delete the Faber material. It is not well-explained anyway. I've retitled the section "Reason and madness". Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As Shulman argues, the novel is not about the fight between "good" and "evil" but rather... Are the quote marks around good and evil necessary? Perhaps the novel treats these concepts with analytical irony, but does Shulman?
 * Removed. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ...it is the fairy world that is connected to madness (mad people can see fairies, for example). Are mad people the only ones that can see fairies?
 * Not exactly (again, this is a more complicated point than the reviewer makes it). Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Well, I feel the need for more clarity, but that may require a fuller explanation of how it shows up in the book. How about this: If other people can see fairies too, then how does the ability of mad people to see them demonstrate a particular connection between the fairy world and madness? Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sane people can see them when they are enchanted by a fairy or in a fairy world. Mad people do not have to be under the influence of a fairy to see one. (This is not explained in the sources, however.) Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any way to work The Yellow Wallpaper into the discussion of madness? (This is mostly meant to be humorous — I just love that story so much and I want to see it worked in to as many places as possible.)
 * That is exactly the idea - yes. :) Perhaps you should publish something?! Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ring up my friend at The New Yorker and tell them to save me a spot in the June issue. Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Englishness" looks odd to me. Is it poetic license? Or am I just too Anglo-stupid to recognize it? (After all, Wikipedia's SpellCheck software doesn't like it — and I think we can all agree that it is infallible!) How about "English identity" or some such? Oh, I see that there's a section called "History and identity".. Maybe just combine the info from "Englishness" into it? (Especially since that section has bits about English identity in it.)
 * "Englishness" is a word and it is used in several reviews. The "History and identity" section used to be titled "Historical otherness" (more accurate), but that was deemed too inaccessible. I actually think the "Englishness" and "History" sections are best left separate, although their ideas overlap a bit. Besides, that way I don't have to write some sort of transition and one section won't be so much larger than the others. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I love "Historical otherness". It's so perfect! Not every word in the English language is interchangeable with another! ARGH.. Sorry, I get that a lot from students: "Well, why didn't you just say 'My brain doesn't get tired' instead of using that 'indefatigable' word!?" Alas, once again my diction desires are swept along by the tides of popular audience. Sigh. Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Going back to "Historical otherness". :) Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another present/past dichotomy appears in "Englishness": "Clarke notes..." at the end of the first paragraph (I removed the "herself" because it seemed like it was getting to be a bit much), and then "Clarke herself has written that..." at the start of the second. So I guess (even if I did change the earlier example) I'm not totally responsible. Whew! (Maybe it's not all that important to standardize this. I can't even tell sometimes.)
 * This is a present/present perfect dichotomy. Is that so bad? Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oop, you're right. My bad! Never mind. Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it feels to me as though we don't have a fable of England, of Britain, something strong and idealized and romantic. What the..? Is she on drugs or something? I think of England as the land of a thousand fables. (Well, at least one or two. Ha!)
 * I thought that was weird, too. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC) ... and I love your clever double-entendre reference to those popular video games! (You forgot to add that bit.) Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and fundamentally very response about the rest of the world... Is this a phrasing with which I'm simply unfamiliar, or a misquote?
 * Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me how the example of buying up all the magic books relates to the suppression of underrepresented groups.
 * Clarified: Mr Norrell, for example, attempts to buy up all the books of magic in England in order to keep anyone else from acquiring their knowledge. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but maybe the article should point out that this is allegorical? After all, his action also prevents wealthy white folks from learning about magic, right? Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would love to discuss allegory and symbolism in this context, but the source doesn't go that far: "Despite the appearance of public opposition between Strange and Norrell's positions, they both depend on identical social structures to support their rise to power. Strange may celebrate a superficially diverse public sphere for producing English national character, but his democracy is founded through prior exclusions made quietly. Meanwhile, Mr. Norrell, who notoriously buys up all the books on magic and hides them from public eyes, plainly admits the cost of creating an exclusionary "Englishness": elitism, racism, and paranoia." Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "If you put a fairy next to a person who is also outside English society...suddenly the fact that there is this alien race seems more believable... Is the first ellipse represented without spaces in the original text? Because otherwise I believe it needs a &amp;nbsp; symbol before and regular space after.
 * Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The gentleman with the thistle-down hair sees Stephen as a noble savage and enslaves him. Like Lady Pole, Stephen is silenced. If there is a connection between these two events, it seems logical for me to combine these sentences.
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephen vows to hate all white Englishmen after he discovers that they enslaved his mother, but when the gentleman shows him the hanging of Vinculus, he weeps. Conversely, the connection between these two is unclear to me.
 * Vinculus is white - should I make that explicit? Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be useful. (I wonder if discussing race in the plot summary isn't necessary, since the indication there that Stephen is black seems to stick out.) Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The book describes Stephen as black but rarely, if ever, describes the other characters as white. This is common. :) The question is whether we should repeat that assumption in the plot summary. Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a quote-within-a-quote ("the nameless slave") which I believe needs to be represented with single quote marks.
 * Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the end, it is Strange and Norrell who are trapped in everlasting darkness and the silenced women, people of color, and poor whites who defeat the antagonist. Maybe the second "and" should be "while"?
 * Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reception


 * To promote Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Bloomsbury, who also published the Harry Potter series, launched... How about an em or en dash set for "who also published the Harry Potter series"?
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Newspaper serializations? Like the roman-feuilleton that Balzac used for La Cousine Bette. WOO!
 * I'm not really sure - I really wish I could have found out more about these. It does sound very nineteenth-century, doesn't it? Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's so weird how some aspects of a work's distribution or reception are repeated everywhere, while others are impossible to learn about. I thought the internets were supposed to give us access to all knowledge!? Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was sure those tubes held the "sum of all human knowledge". :) Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Seven thousand-five hundred advance readers’ copies were sent out... This looks odd. Why not use numerals? (7500)
 * WP:MOSNUM - "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out" Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, if you want to follow the tyrannical commandments of the MOS. Be a sheep; see if I care! Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a black sheep. Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * These sold for more than $100 each on eBay in England in the weeks leading up to publication. By 2005, collectors were paying hundreds of pounds for signed copies of a limited edition of the novel. My brain sounds an alarm when we have dollars in one sentence and pounds in another, despite the fact they both refer to England.
 * Unfortunately, that is the information I have from the sources. Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is what it is. Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to The New Republic, the novel was "an exceptional work"... I have an urge to see the "was" become "is", even though I know that would be weird, since it's referring to a review from 2004. Maybe the first part of the sentence needs rewording?
 * I put all of the reviews in the past tense. I'm not quite sure why this doesn't work in the past tense. Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Meaning that you see it too but don't understand why it looks odd? Or that you don't see what I see and you're implying that I'm a freakish reader with eccentricities that make objective review of articles all but impossible? (If the latter, then I absolutely agree.) I think the past tense referring to a work that still exists is just uneasy for me. How about something like: "The New Republic hailed it as 'an exceptional work'"? Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Adopted - I love "hailed". Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post reviewer noted, with others, that "sex plays virtually no role in the story ... [and] one looks in vain for the corruption of the innocent". This feels a bit stuck into the paragraph — perhaps we could do with a bit of explanation on why it's significant that there's no sweaty nekkidness in the book?
 * Unfortunately, the reviewers don't really explain why this is significant. If they do, it is only in very allusive terms that would require OR to explain. For example, Dirda writes "Moreover, sex plays virtually no role in the story. In Clarke's Faerie, beautiful women may be forced to dance all night, rather like Grimm's 12 princesses, but that's about it: One looks in vain for the corruption of the innocent, the Walpurgisnacht orgy, the vampiric Lamia and the Belle Dame sans Merci." - These references help explain why Dirda expected to see corruption of the innocent, but I cannot explain them and just listing them will not help most readers. Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but maybe just a little summary of the earlier part of that paragraph: "Complaining that the book leaves the reader 'longing for just a bit more lyricism and poetry', Michael Dirda notes in the Washington Post that..."? They're not directly related, but the one seems intended to follow from the other. Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a poorly written paragraph on Dirda's part? Adopted your rewrite. Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * However, there was far from universal agreement on any of these points. I personally don't care for "there was" sentences. Maybe: "Reviewers were split on these points"?
 * Reworded: However, reviewers were not in universal agreement on any of these points. Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the emphasis in the Clute quote is original, shouldn't that be indicated in the footnote?
 * Clarified in text. Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that we don't need a non-breaking space after the ellpisis, just before. (This isn't particular to "Reception", but it shows up in that section's last quotation. Obviously not a huge concern, but I can't help myself.)
 * I swear the policy has changed! If someone wants to change all of these, that's fine. I'm not going to bother. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll wait and see if anyone brings it up in FAC. If they do, I'll spring out and say "HA HA I told you so!" and beam with smug self-satisfaction. And you'll have to buy me a donut. Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I bristle at the two-sentence "Sequel" section. Maybe it should be included in "Reception"? Or maybe make the earlier section "Adaptations and sequel", with "Sequel" being a subsection of it?
 * I adopted your second suggestion. Awadewit (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No one ever adopts my first suggestion. =) Scartol  •  Tok  18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with the article, and kudos for all your hard work. Scartol •  Tok  15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - this has been such fun! Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)