Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Old Man and the Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Old Man and the Sea

This is a self-nomination. It was curious to me that a more modern novel didn't exist in the featured list, and I thought this would be a good one. I think the article is of appropriate length for the book and addresses relevant topics. Clearly the most difficult part to write was the Reaction and critical analyses section; my goal in doing so was by no means to provide an exhaustive rendering of criticism, but rather to give two paradigmatically opposing interpretations that make clear the range of views. Readers can then refer below to what I consider to be some of the most authoritative sources on the novel. Your comments are appreciated. --DanielNuyu 07:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A good synopsis of the story and its accolades and criticisms. slambo 19:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the idea that we need better articles for newer novels. Rlacroix 06:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, more like this, please! dab (ᛏ) 18:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain at the moment. Wonderful content, but the writing is stilted or unclear in some places and could use some copyediting. "it was met with intense critical reaction at publication—ambivalent, despite common conceptions." Conceptions of what? How does this contrast with ambivalence? How was the ambivalence intense? And it says in the next section that it was initially unquestionably popular – this doesn't quite match. "Paradigmatic in this diametric reading is"... overworded. It suffers from term paper speak and muddle at other points: "the novel's Christian imagery, largely instantiated through the novel's passage that contains a blatant reference to the crucifixion following Santiago's sighting of the sharks that reads:" for instance. I also think it's a bit overlinked – I stripped "cornerstone of literature;" "price the fish will bring him at the market" and "Santiago continues his journey" are some other debatable links. And what's the consensus about piping references to years to "X in literature?" I know in music articles it's generally cautioned against... I want to restate that the content in this article is exceptional. It's just that there's no reason an article on The Old Man and the Sea should not be as much a joy to read as the novel. I hope to support this nomination with a bit more work. Samaritan 20:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't the critical reputation of this novel is anywhere near as high as this article suggests. It's a popular book, but the critical consensus has come to be that it's just another self-parody, a retread of his short story 'The Undefeated'. Its intial popularity was due in large part to sympathy for Hemingway, and also to the fact that it was serialized in the middlebrow Life Magazine. It certainly should not be described as a 'cornerstone' of modern fiction: a cornerstone would be something that had enormous influence and inspired other writers, something like his early short stories.
    • Above unsigned comments left by 68.118.61.219
    • 68.118.61.219: While I see where you're coming from, the consideration of the importance of the novel is an issue, as I think the article suggests, that is debated by scholars, with prominent critics falling on both sides of the fence. To say that someone might think that the novel is just another self-parody is certainly credible; I am unsure, however, whether it would be sound to suggest that such a view is general critical consensus. For example, Jobes suggests in her introduction that, "although Carlos Baker calls it 'major' in the title of his critical anthology, Ernest Hemingway: Critiques of Four Major Novels, other critics, including some like Leslie Fiedler and Norman Mailer who have profound respect for Hemingway's early work, find The Old Man and the Sea a disappointing minor work." In my reconsideration, I have decided that labeling the novel "a cornerstone of twentieth century fiction" may in fact be biased toward one side of this argument. I will recast that line so it reads more accurately as a statement of how important the novel was for Hemingway's own progression as an author (after all, the novel was cited as a reason for his Nobel Prize), consistent with Jobes's statement that, "whether one sees it as fakery or as a parable of universal significance, the importance of Hemingway's last novel in his development is undeniable." --DanielNuyu 01:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Samaritan: thank you for your notes; your concerns are very well taken. If there are instances where the articles sounds slightly like a term paper, it's likely because some of the lines were adapted (with obviously not perfect success) from some of my own assignments. In any case, I have recast some of the parts that you pointed to in hopes to make them read more as they should. As for the usage of "X in literature," I am unsure; initially I had simply linked to the years, but User:Neutrality made those changes in a copyedit. --DanielNuyu 00:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)