Talk:Oroonoko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oroonoko is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Oroonoko appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 27, 2006.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.	Literature Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! This WikiProject now includes "Novels", "Novellas", "Novelettes" and "Short Stories" of narrative form! Critique (Featured Article): None current - "7 achieved / 2 removed" Review: Erast Fandorin Improve: Nineteen Eighty-Five • Vathek • Enderby Outside • The Runes of the Earth • The Giver • Crown of Shadows • More... Create: Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • The Fatal Eggs • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too A new policy proposal has been started and this is to be seen at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, please take a look at these and comment. This is a vital subject and all editors should consider the implications. These are NOT active yet, but could have wide reaching consequences. Please contribute your views. Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title Waverley (novel) for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

This article lacks an infobox, {{Infobox Book}} which is part of the standard display of novel information developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. You can help by copying the "source code" into the attached article, and filling in the information yourself, or by providing the following information here on the Talk page so that someone else can construct the box:
	~title of novel~ ~cover image of novel fair use~ ~image caption to give edition details~ ~author of novel~ ~country of publication~ ~language of original novel~ ~illustrator for novel~ ~cover artist name for novel~ ~novel genre~ ~publisher for novel~ ~dd month yyyy~ Print (~binding~) ~pagecount pp (~binding~ edition)~ ~ISBN ~999999999~ (~hardcover~ edition)~ ~prior book in series if relevant~ ~subsequent book in series if relevant~
Edit this message

<noinclude>

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This LangLit article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Note: This talk page has been refactored. Old comments can be seen at talk:Oroonoko/old. Geogre 15:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Note that refactoring plans were announced a week prior to refactoring, and all content was preserved. I apologize for any inconvenience.

Hi Geogre, this is a great article, very well written. Thank you for doing it! A few points:

1. I added the month of her birth, and the date of death, which I obtained from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. There may be some reason you didn't want to add this (perhaps unreliable), so feel free to delete it.
2. The first sentence says that the novel was published in 1688 and that she died in 1689, but later you write that it was published in the same year as her death.
3. "Oroonoko is now the most studied of Aphra Behn's novels, but it was not immediately successful in her own lifetime." I wonder whether this is slightly misleading, given that she died so soon after publication.
4. "It is important, however, to recognize that Oroonoko is a work of fiction and that its "I" need be no more factual than Jonathan Swift's "I" in Gulliver's Travels or Daniel Defoe's "I" in Robinson Crusoe." This is a tiny observation, but it struck me when I first read it that the point was a little labored. Also, the expression "need be no more factual than ... "I" in Gulliver's Travels somehow suggests (to me) that the "I" in Gulliver might be factual.

All minor points, though, about an excellent piece of work. Best, SlimVirgin 17:24, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me go through these. I'll say in advance that I don't have a good answer for one of them. 1. EB is fine. Since no one really knows when she was born, I can't be definitive in rejecting July any more than others can be definitive in inserting it. 2. I'm afraid that I was being a bit cute, there. "In the year" of her death, but not in the calendar year (i.e. within 365 days of her death). I know that's precious, but I had meant to suggest only that she didn't live to see the popularity of it and therefore didn't get to come out with "What I meant to say was" or "Part Two" (as she did for The Rover (play). This gets us to the hard one: 3. This one is a real corker, because I don't know where the information on the 2 printings in a year after publication comes from. That was added by someone else -- someone who doesn't make things up -- whereas my sources had said that when she published it, she was hoping for money and got virtually nothing. This leads us to the paradox: it was a financial failure for Behn, who was desperate for money, and yet it was a huge success. Given that it was published not long before her death, it's possible for this to not be a very great lag and yet be a critical one from the author's point of view (if you'll forgive the litotes). I do promise, however, to investigate this more fully, get printings information, and correct any misstatements. If necessary, I can just outright say that she didn't get the money from sales she hoped for, and yet it was popular. 4. Interesting. I don't quite know what to say to that one. I had hoped to suggest that the "I" in Oroonoko is Behn to the same degree (which is to say that it is, but through a fiction) that the "I" is Defoe. Crusoe says things that Defoe wants to say, and various characters in Gulliver say things that Swift wants to say, and these authors certainly participate in their fictions, but I was trying to remind readers that we have no trouble understanding the consciously fictional and rhetorical pose of the first person singular in these other works, written not long after, but we accept Behn's "I" as somehow unfiltered, non-rhetorical, and, in a sense, unlearned. I was a bit dramatic with the sentence, I know, but the way that Behniacs out there (real people who ought to know better) conclude of Behn from the narrator in Oroonoko drives me to distraction, and I wanted to make sure that folks kept the fictive posture in mind. I will look into improving the sentence and taking some of the belligerance out of it.

Thank you very much for the attentive reading and the excellent points. Geogre 20:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copied from featured-article page:

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)

Geogre, you seem to know more about this subject than the Encyclopedia Britannica, so please do feel free to remove the dates I inserted. In fact, it would be quite impressive if Wikipedia were emphatically to state "unknown" where the dates should be, with the EB foolishly guessing. ;-) SlimVirgin 20:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Novel's success 2 Thanks 3 Old Testament style polygamy 4 Harem reference 5 Apostrophes in dates 6 NO boxes, please! 7 Parenthesis on race 8 Lead 9 Pronounciation 10 Image sizes 11 Stage adaptations 12 Thank you! 13 2nd thoughts about birth 14 what about.... 15 Historical significance

[edit] Novel's success

Big thanks to user:Bishonen for going to the ESTC online and checking on publication history of Oroonoko and aiding in reconciling the paradox of the novel being a flop and a big hit. Turns out it was a dud for a year, then a little success, and then Southerne and a huge hit. Geogre 14:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So she died at just the wrong time. It's sad. SlimVirgin 20:16, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks to User:Niteowlneils for the cleaning. All were helps. Geogre 04:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old Testament style polygamy

First, Behn does state that the old king keeps multiple wives. Second, that was a feature of oriental tales in general. Third, Behn refers to him as a patriarch. Fourth, Behn elsewhere invoked exoticism and polygamy (as many Restoration figures did). The reason I rolled back the deletion of the deletion, though, is simply because I don't understand the objection. Is there some doubt that the king in Africa is polygamous? Is there some doubt that this is a polygamy recognizable to the English as Old Testament? Is the objection to the linking of the two, instead of a link to Romance tradition (which frequently had the Turk's harem as a thrilling/dangerous alternate universe of polygamy and decadence)? Please explain the objection to the reference. It's not a terribly important link to make, but removing only that is puzzling without some reasoning. Geogre 01:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harem reference

The comment "...(as Behn, like many of the time, combines Arabs and sub-Sahara Africans)." seems to imply that Behn (and Europeans in general) wrongly assumed that "the harem" did not exist in sub-Saharan Adfrica. This is misleading as "the harem" was and continues to be (see Mswati III of Swaziland) an important aspect (sometimes negative) of political and social conduct in some traditional African societies.

[edit] Apostrophes in dates

Apostrophes are used in the plural of dates according to a number of contemporary style sheets (e.g. the New York Times), and it was universally the case that they were required. The loss of these apostrophes is a recent change. Inasmuch as some style sheets demand them and some allow them to be omitted (not disallow them), I use them. Further, I think they make sense. The difference between a 60-s and the 60es is the apostrophe. The difference between some car known as a BMWS and several cars known as BMW's is the apostrophe. Apostrophe's indicate that a plural marker is intended by the s, as opposed to another letter in the acronymn or number sequence. Geogre 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The manual of style explicitly states that the apostrophe should not be used. I fail to see how a simple "s" could be misconstrued to be part of the number sequence of a year. Is standardizing this ok? --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. The MOS does not say that people should overwrite editorial preference. If it does, it's a violation of every other principle in the MOS, as this is a national distinction, among other things. The New York Times Style Sheet and Strunk & White, as well as the Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich Handbook that I used to teach from all insist on apostrophes. Eats Shoots and Leaves says that this is an American thing (the apostrophe), while omitting them is a British thing. Therefore, I feel pretty strongly that the MOS has no business blanketing the project in British preference and, in the process, defying common sense. If I didn't spend considerable time teaching students to use the apostrophe, I wouldn't make it a sticking point, but I see neither purpose nor logic behind the removal, and I see absolutely no advantage to cutting the apostrophe. When the advantages can even equal the disadvantages, I'll get indifferent about it. Geogre 01:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I find them awkward, despite having read more American English than British English for years. If you feel the MOS is in error, you could bring it up on the relevant talk page of the MOS.

BTW, I had a brief look at Strunk and White, third edition, and I can't find anything on apostrophes and dates. Is it in the new fourth edition? Thank you. --Kjoonlee 06:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient (what edition I was using back then, I can't be sure, but the paperback was disintegrating), I'm afraid. I have avoided the MOS debates pretty carefully for a reason. I believe that our individual editors should be able to use whichever style is natural to them, so long as they do not insist upon impressing it upon others. My objection was to the MOS itself, back when it started up, as I felt that nothing was ahead of us but dreadful misunderstanding, proscriptivists trying to arm wrestle, and nationalist insistence, with all sides taking turns puffing up their feathers. As, for the most part, the result of all that agony on the MOS page has been "be consistent with one style," I haven't felt the need to change my policy now. That is, except for the apostrophe question. Some American style sheets are conceding to laziness and omitting them, but I still see reason behind their use and no advantage to their omission. (In a date, it's not very unclear, but when it is another series of numbers, confusion can very rapidly result. In molecular biology, we used to deal with SOS-1 and IGFBP-3, with variants getting lowercase lettering. So, imagine telling the difference between "all of the IGFBP-3s" and "all the IGFBP-3s"; the apostrophe indicates which is a plural and which is a compound.) Anyway, so long as we don't now throw out the central resolution of the MoS and get procrustean, I won't care. Unfortunately, people have been getting proscriptive about this. Consider me a dissenter, and a cranky one at that, on this subject. Geogre 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it isn't a big deal, but it'd be better to get this worked out on the MoS rather than insisting on an exception here. I still don't really understand the argument for the apostrophe and don't think that this is a British/American usage thing (I'm American, fwiw), but it isn't really hurting anything. There is something to be said, however, for Wikipedia having its own "house style". --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See, I don't see much in "house style." It's a sieve upon which we throw our contributors, and it's somewhat contradictory to the individualism of the project. This is not to say that there is a slippery slope here. Incorrect grammar and usage has to be made correct, but if any authorities approve a usage, I think we haven't much business going about and telling them that they're wrong and that we have decided. It should be argued at MoS, but it will be a thousand hours of bickering. I don't mean to be imperious, when that's what I'm objecting to, but, and again I don't want to insult here, my preference has to been to try to make Wikipedia have all the articles that I used to need when I was researching rather than to get caught in the virtual Tarbaby of style arguments. I just figure folks ought to allow a consistent usage, if it has approval. (I think Harper's Magazine also uses apostrophes. I just got an issue, and I think I saw plural marker apostrophes there.) Geogre 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re "thousand hours of bickering", you're exactly right =). Personally, I'm a fan of consistency, but I don't think that authors should be forced to follow the WP:MoS. If I want to write an article about England, I'm certainly not going to research British spelling conventions just to write the article. And by force of habit I might stick the period inside the quotation when it "shouldn't" be there. But that's OK—the idea of Wikipedia is that if people care enough to fix those "problems", they will. So eventually we'll get to that state of consistency I'd like, but we won't do it by subjecting authors to rather arbitrary requirements. We'll just wait for others to make the articles comply. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO boxes, please!

The article has been fairly carefully designed to have illustrations aligned with the text, and that is how the article passed wp:fac. Please do not mess up all of that by putting a big infobox on the page. I have no problem with the box being here, on the talk page to the article, but I almost certainly will revert if I see it knocking the text loopy and messing up all the formatting on the article's page. I see very little that will be gained from a box there (as opposed to here) and much that will be harmed. Let those who believe in boxes on the main pages of articles construct their articles with that in mind, but let no one have the hubris necessary to destroy the looks of an article in the name of a box's "consistency." Geogre 18:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the novels project suggests that the novel box might not be appropriate on all pages, I've removed the template. This is not meant as an act of war, but merely because I don't want the page showing up in the "box needed" category. Again, if the box were on the talk page -- and if there were a single line at the top of the article saying, "see the talk page for classifications" or something similar, I wouldn't have any problems, but this particular article was promoted on FAC partially on the strength of how well illustrated it was, and I do worry about the boxes messing up the formatting. Geogre 00:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parenthesis on race

The reason it's necessary is that it is an important piece of evidence in the argument against Behn intending the novel as a racial examination. The information comes from Todd, and it's not controversial: in a time a century before spontaneous generation was debunked, when Mendel wasn't around, when people still believed that acquired characteristics could be passed on to children, the Europeans didn't have an idea about racial characteristics (a foolish concept that would come along 150 years later). It's important evidence, because it means that Behn couldn't be arguing about freeing black African slaves, since she didn't understand "black" as a single type. Geogre 11:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of 60% of this article's lead. There's little point in expounding upon Aphra Behn's life, especially when she has her own article. This needs to be re-written to summarize this article. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the reading of the novel is directly a product and part of the reading of the life. The article is rather insistently biographical in its approach ("Historicist" we'd call it). Therefore, an introduction to her is an introduction to the novel, I'd say, and vice versa, especially because this particular novel is all that most students in the UK, US, and Aus. will ever read of Behn (which is a serious pity, as it's not very representative of her). Geogre 01:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then again, I certainly grant the point's validity. I suppose some of "literary significance" should be telegraphed, but it seems really queer to me to talk about whether it's the first novel, whether it's noble savage literature, etc. before the reader has been into the plot and circumstances of the novel somewhat. Geogre 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd have the second paragraph say something like:

Finding herself destitute after the Second Dutch War, Behn began writing poetry and plays. Toward the end of her career, she turned to long prose and published Oroonoko in 1688. <Insert description, background, extremely basic "plot" (as much as is possible without including spoilers), writing style, critical reaction here>.

Right now the only information on the book itself in the lead is "concerning the tragic love of its hero, an enslaved African in Suriname in the 1660s, and the author's own experiences with the new American colony." The fact that "the author's own experiences" make up part of the book suggest that there is room for further mention of that in the lead (since it relates to the book itself), but there isn't any more—just Dutch war, Charles II, John Dryden. Did Dryden have anything to do with this book at all?

This reads well as an introduction to the article, but that's not the purpose of the lead. From WP:LEAD, "The lede should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, be written in a clear and accessible style, and should first offer (what editors can agree are...) the topic's most interesting points, including a mention of the topic's most prominent controversies." --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

Could someone who knows for sure the pronounciation of the title of the book throw in the IPA Pronounciation of the title? Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that no one really can know the exact pronunciation. Most people today will read it as a homophone of "Orinoco," but Janet Todd's suggestion that the name comes from "Oroondates" would give emphasis to 2nd syllable. Therefore, how you pronounce it depends upon whether you think Behn was making an allegorical name or a derivative name. That said, orthography in the 1680's was generally stable, but it was still likely that she would not have given two O's unless she meant it. So...no one really knows, because we don't have (to my knowledge) any contemporary rhyming poetry with the name in the final position. Geogre 04:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image sizes

This is basically directed at Geogre. Could it be possible to bump the image sizes up a notch? I happened to glance at the French version and the larger sizes made a big difference to me. I think the article looks much better with larger sized images.--SeizureDog 04:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, really. When I sent the article through Featured Article Candidacy, reviewers were on a "make them small" kick. At the same time, the resolution of the reader's monitor is difficult to anticipate. One rather nasty person was going around scaling down pictures to 50 px on a side because, she said, they "broke" her computer at higher resolution (she was using a computer in a school library that was running INternet Explorer 3 and had CGA-size screen resolution). Therefore, there isn't really a correct image size, but I agree that most people have higher resolutions and therefore need larger image sizes. Geogre 13:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've increased the image sizes on the major images to 200 pixels on the X-axis. The minor illustrations (the .gif of Willoughby, e.g.) are still small. Let me know if they should bump up some more. Their sizes were altered by someone after the article passed FAC anyway -- not sure why -- to make them smaller (possibly a school library editor like the one I mention above). Geogre 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stage adaptations

Great article, and kudos to those who worked on it. I just thought I'd point out that the stage adaptations of the novel have been the subject of a great deal of commentary by modern scholars. See for example Performing Blackness on English Stages, 1500-1800 by Virginia Mason Vaughan for the impact on British drama and Demons of Disorder: Blackface Minstrels and Their World by Dale Cockrell for the American influence. If I'm remembering him correctly, Cockrell argues that the play (like other blackface depictions of black characters such as The Padlock) was an important precursor to the stereotypical minstrel show characters of the 19th century. He gives statistics for its performance if I remember correctly; unfortunately, I'm in the midst of a move, so my books are boxed up. At any rate, it might be worth noting that this was a blackfaced role; it's not entirely evident from the article or even the image (it kind of looks like the guy's stepping into the shadows). — BrianSmithson 14:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Truly fantastic and invaluable points. I was so focused on the novel that I only let in the play in terms of its import to the novel's interpretation and popularity. I will add that it was a blackface role. Also, we need an article on Oroonoko (play), as the play's cuts and interpolations seem to be a real barometer of national moods. I'm not sure how the play can be linked to the exaggerations and ridicule of minstrelsy, though, as the play was presented as pathetic through the 19th century. In the novel, Oroonoko is a European prince with black skin. His words and actions are very Jacobite and cavalier. It should at least be worth a "See also" somewhere -- this link between the play and blackface. Geogre 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the book by Cockrell is unfortunately packed away at the moment. I remember him spending more time on American renditions of The Padlock, but he does cover Oroonoko too. And, yes, I heartily agree that we need an article on Southerne's play. Get to work, Geogre! — BrianSmithson 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You think you've got it bad, I spent a score of years building up an impressive academic library, and then I moved to a place (get this) with no book cases. I've snuck in about 50 of my books from long term storage, but when I really want something that I know to document it, I either have to go to a moderately poor academic library or to long term storage, in the 40 C heat, and stand in a tin box going through cardboard. Geogre 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

I want to thank the host of dedicated editors and administrators who helped keep an eye on this humble article while it was featured on the main page. Believe it or not, I think the article received relatively little vandalism and several helpful edits. I would like to think that was a sign of vandal respect, but it's probably vandal boredom, as they're not generally fans of the early English novel. There are too many people to thank to extend thanks individually, but thanks to all who helped. Whenever an article gets on the main page, whatever editors were responsible for the main work on the article experience the longest 24 hours they'll have in a long time. It's made much easier by knowing that we can all trust each other to keep their eyes peeled and senses sharp. Geogre 03:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd thoughts about birth

Aphra Behn is conjectural. We aren't sure of her maiden name. If it was Johnson, and if she was from Devon, then it is most likely that she is the Aphara born in July 1640. If it wasn't Johnson, if she was the semi-noblewoman long thought, then her birth year is still 1640, but I don't have the month at hand. I think the case for Aphra Johnson is persuasive, and I don't think anyone really argues for the semi-noble Aphra anymore, but I think we should be as conservative as possible and indicate uncertainty. It's alright for Britanica to boldly assert the speculative, but we don't have to follow them. Geogre 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Our Aphra Behn seems pretty certain and doesn't discuss the other (non-Johnson) possibilities at all. Does this article need birth and death dates? Isn't a date of publication is enough? Or "aged 47/48"? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The secret is that our Aphra Behn article is a tragedy bordering on farce. At least it was the last time I read it. It's short. It's inaccurate. It has speculation in it. I've been promising for well over a year to finish Todd's bio and then do a nave to narthex rewrite of the article, but, then again, Swift said that "promises and pie crusts are meant to be broken." My point is that I wouldn't use that article to inform this one, if possible. I think we all generally agree that Johnson is her maiden name, but we're just plain not sure. We can't be. We don't know when she got married, either. She may have gotten married on ship. She might have gotten married in London. Records were destroyed in the fire. Her husband might have been a plague victim (probably), but he may have died of old age or the fire or just run off. She's a widow very early (but a lot of women were). My point is that I felt like we really ought to indicate the uncertainty. In the Aphra Behn article, we would do well to have ?1640 as the birth year and then in the text of the article indicate that 1640 is most likely because Johnson is most likely because Devonshire is most likely because there was a colonel who said that he played with her as a young boy, and then we need to cite that to Maureen Duffy, who deserves the credit for writing the most hard-working bio of Behn in the last century. Geogre 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what about....

i'm drunk. hope that comment brightened your day. 82.82.182.157 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical significance

'1688 was a time of massive anxiety in English politics. Charles II died, and James II came to the throne'

The above happened in 1685. Great article and good read though. 88.109.194.203 00:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As my mentor would say, "D'oh!" I had meant "Charles II had died." That missing word is important. Thank you for the compliment. Geogre 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)