Talk:Middlemarch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the 19th century task force. (rated as Top importance)
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Classed "B" as this is quite a full article, but for such a work it is in serious need of more material on notability, a ==Literary significance & criticism==, ==Major themes== & ==Allusions/references from other works== sections should all be possible. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Archives

/Archive 1

Contents 1 Plot summary 2 Rating 3 Future development of article 4 Revised lead 4.1 Plot outline 5 Class section

[edit] Plot summary

This is huge and quite messy, but it's got all the right elements and points to be made, so I'd really like to have a go at fixing it up a little. I will make small, on-going changes as I get time. Feedback is more than welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshimeon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the plot summary and commenced a rewrite. The problem with the old plut summary is that it didn't show a good command of the intertwining narratives and focused too much on Dorothea, which would be a subject of consternation to the narrator of the novel: "One morning, some weeks after her arrival at Lowick, Dorothea--but why always Dorothea?". I've also started to divide the narrative into Book sections, like the novel itself. And finally, we need to redact a LOT. In my opinion, the plot summary should be short: no more than 250 words.Victorianist (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree about the plot summary. Have got a little more time now so will go have another re-read.Oshimeon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, newbie to serious Wikipedia editing here. Since I'm reading the book anyway I thought I'd add info about the plot as I read through it.--Scwalsh (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Hi. I added some info to the plot summary. Feel free to use it as a template when re-writing.

2) Also, this article should include alot more about some of the theses or assertions made by Eliot in Middlemarch. For example,

   a. Good comes from the breadth of our emotion.

   b. Women are equal to men and should be given equal opportunity to act for themselves.

   c. Our morals interfere with aour lives and are hypocrisy.

   d. We are responsible for our own misery, our attained dreams never correspond to our anticipation. Social forces hinder our dreams.

   e. We are responsible for doing good to our fellow man.

3) Some important things are missing.

   a. Characters - Very important characters are missing. Mrs. Dollop for instance.

   b. Location - There should be treatment of the various locations. Tipton, the Grange, Freshitt, Lowick, Middlemarch, Riverston, Brassing.

   c. Setting - Items of general interest are missing. The Reform Bill, the railroad. These can be integrated to give more information about the England of that time. The Reform Bill is central to the novel.

Veritas (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC) aka Christendom

[edit] Rating

I changed the Novels WikiProject rating to start as this thing is barely more than a stub now. The plot summary is being rewritten, but there is almost no scholarship referenced here. Victorianist (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future development of article

For the benefit of past and current editors I'd like to put forward a few suggestions as to how this article might develop. I started thinking about this when I noticed that the article had stalled recently, and I wondered whether a fresh approach might be beneficial. In the last few days a new editor has come in, which is encouraging, but it would be good if all further contributions were within an agreed strategy for the article, which I suggest might be along the following lines:

• The article should be about the book, rather than primarily a summary of its plot and a list of characters. Obviously a plot synopsis is needed, but it should not be the main focus of the article, nor of the length that is currently developing. By "about the book" I mean its genesis, its reception at the time of publication, its importance in the canon of Victorian literature, its literary legacy, and "that sort of thing", as Mr Brooke would say.

I tried to add this http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/collections/projects/eliot/middlemarch/pub.html#serialization about the interesting publiscation history of the book but I have to learn how footnotes work.....[this gave me a 1 footnote but not the correct source).....from this, one learns that the book was published between 1871 and 1873. MKohut (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest stripping out the list of characters altogether, by creating a new article called "List of characters from Middlemarch", or some such title. I have found, on other articles I've worked on, that this works well. In the case of Middlemarch the list of characters is too long to be contained easily in the main article, and to say something meaningful about them will extend it further. Far better to transfer it and use the space to develop the analytical sections which I've suggested.
• With great respect to the work of other editors, I believe that summarising the plot on a consecutive book-by-book basis is too mechanistic, and also tends towards excessive length. It would be better, I think, to have a single section, around 750 words maximum if possible, which treats the various plotlines organically. As well as detailing the various stories this synopsis should also touch on some of the underlying themes of the book, such as idealism and materialism; reaction and reform; marriage, religion, etc., which might be developed in the analytical sections.

Let me stress that I am making suggestions here, not laying down the law. I am trying to see a way towards an article of a standard that the book deserves. If any currently-interested editors could add a bit of feedback on this page, it may be possible to see if there is a consensus for moving forward.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. See what I wrote above in plot summary. Veritas (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the approach you suggest, which would be well suited to the structure I have proposed. But meantime another editor has completed a plot summary, which runs to some 2,500 words. You can't have that length of summary, plus the historical background, plus a reasonable literary analysis, plus an informative list of characters, without the article having unacceptable length. My suggested policy remains as above, but there needs to be a consensus on approach, or there will be edit wars. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary should definitely be shortened. I don't mind if the plot summary is divided into sections or not (both formats have been used for books of similar calibre). I'm more concerned with the emerging "Themes" section. This kind of section should consist almost exclusively of published analyses and scholarship, and should contain appropriate references. Without this, these kinds of sections will be rife with original research. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To show willing, within a few days I will post my idea as to what the plot summary should be - around 750 words, treating the book's narratives organically rather than distinctly. This is not a bid to impose my will - I don't mind in the least if my summary is reverted, but at least it will demonstrate more clearly what I have in mind. Could I have some thoughts on the other idea - take the list of characters to another special page, and create the space for the "themes"? There is much published scholarship on which to draw. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A 750-word plot summary sounds good. I look forward to seeing it. I still think that a list of characters within the main article is useful, but I think we should trim the list of characters to those mentioned in the plot summary and also those that are essential in understanding it, with a brief explanation of each character's importance. A separate "List of characters in Middlemarch" could also include more characters. Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

General thought: lists spoil articles and take up lots of room (unless they are within specialized "list" articles). Also, a partial list of "main" characters will lead to arguments as to who should be in it. A proper, comprehensive list of characters, with informative descriptions, is a good long article on its own, and well worth doing in its own right. I for one would love to do it. So I'd stick to my position on this. However, let's take one step at a time - I'll do my plot summary first and then we can talk about the list. To provide the context for my summary I may have to alter the lead a bit. A lot, in fact. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revised lead

I have posted an extended lead - this is not the plot summary. I will format the references properly later. As an experiment I have temporarily replaced the infobox with a straightforward image (I have a personal dislike of infoboxes on non-person articles - the important information ought to be in the article) but this can of course be restored later if necessary. I am working now on the plot summary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot outline

I have now posted a plot outline, in place of the previous book-by-book plot summary. I could not do this within the 750-word target I set myself—it’s about 880—and I doubt I can reduce this by much.

The outline does not attempt to tell the whole of the story, or stories, and is not presented in the book’s narrative order. It introduces the main story lines and indicates where they go, but without much detail—the object of the outline is to give the sense of the book rather than a précis of its contents. I realise that this is a different approach from that of most of the wikipedia “book” articles, but I have looked at a lot of these. The standard article form of plot summary, list of characters, outlines of some literary themes and long lists of TV and film adaptations, seems to me a bit sterile and uninteresting, and as mentioned before I am interested in trying a different form.

My proposed structure is along the following lines (though not fixed yet, by any means):-

• Lead
• "Genesis" – background, how the book came to be written (pick up points from lead).
• Plot outline
• Publication – popular reaction – critical reception
• Identified themes – summaries of critical analysis (I see this section as central to the whole character of the article).
• Literary influence
• Cultural legacy (incl. brief references to, but not lists of, TV/film versions, and no trivia)

If this structure can be developed, then a meaningful list of characters will have to be developed as a sub-article. The suggestion that the article should include a list of just the "main" characters won’t work in this structure. I have named or alluded to 17 characters in the plot outline, all of whom have claims to be "major". There are others, e.g. the Cadwalladers, Mrs Vincey, the painter Naumann, etc. who might be thought important, too. A list properly describing just these characters would completely unbalance the article, while a simple link to a sub-article would solve all the problems of listing, and allow both articles room for growth.

At this stage I simply ask that people interested in the article take a look at my suggestions in the light of the new lead and plot outline, think about it, and post comments. If nobody agrees with me, then we can easily revert to the older form.

Nice lead, great plot summary. Since the new plot summary introduces the characters quite well, I have no further objection to relegating the "list of characters" to a separate article. The length of the plot summary and lead is fine, particularly once the article is more fully developed. Assuming no further objections are raised, I see no reason to revert to the older forms.

The article structure you suggest is similar to the style guideline at WikiProject Novels. For consistency amongst novel-related articles, we should probably adopt their headings. Many "sterile" articles are simply underdeveloped; articles that have fully developed sections are usually quite comprehensive.

Whether or not to use an infobox on this article is potentially divisive. Infoboxes are a standard feature on novel-related articles (with exceptions), and consensus is usually appropriate before removing them once they're established. Generally, I prefer to include them on novel-related articles: they present brief, essential information in one place, without making readers scan the article text. I also have a personal dislike of scanned pages as thumbnail images, let alone as the primary article image: an infobox can mitigate this to some degree. But I'll seek consensus before re-including it in this article.

All in all, the recent progress with this article has been great. I look forward to seeing further developments (and hopefully soon, helping out with them). Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this positive feedback, which encourages me to think that this approach is worth pursuing. Progress might be slow, because I cannot commit all my time to this project. My next tasks will be to write the "genesis" section, transfer the characters list to a new home, and start to build this up. Meanwhile I am sure that other editors will come forward with their own ideas, and I look forward to this.Brianboulton (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My only response to the proposed outline is that it doesn't conform to the Novel article template. Some of the sections you propose are accounted for by already-existing sections of the novel template, and the things you note as "uninteresting" are probably uninteresting to scholars of the novel. I don't love the novel article template, but it's what we have to work with at the moment, and most novel articles already use it. If you want to change the article template, it will require a complete overhaul of all of the novels using the template, and so people are reluctant to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorianist (talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to change the template in cases where it is suitable. My proposals for Middlemarch amount, in essence, to two variations from the template: the substitution of a plot outline for the usual narrative plot summary, and the transfer of the list of characters to a sub-article. The need for these arises from Middlemarch's multiple plot nature, and from the large number of characters about which something needs to be said. The template should be a general framework rather than something fixed and immutable. I don't see why my proposed changes require any overhaul of other novel articles.

I suggest that you wait and see how this article develops with the structure I have proposed. This might be a slow process, since I can give only limited time to the project, though I am hoping that other editors will join in. Or, if you wish, you can revert to the version of the article before I posted the plot outline. That would get rid of me, but I don't think it would help the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing that last post. I meant to. I don't want to get rid of you at all. You're doing good work on this article. All I was suggesting was to take your sections and fit them into existing parts of the template. I've done something similar on Slaughterhouse-five. That article is still a mess, but you can see what I mean. I really don't like the Novel template for a number of reasons. The biggest one is that it's oriented toward allusiveness, which seems to me to have little to do with novel articles. We're not here to chase down allusions, and besides, allusions are subject to interpretation. Just so we're clear: I'm not advocating strict adherence to the template, but I do think it's important to maintain uniformity in the format of novel articles, and it's especially the case with this novel because it is such an important novel. In any case, as long as the content is good, I'll be happy. Keep up the good work. Victorianist (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the two of you referring to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate? If so, then I think that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines would be better suited for this article. For consistency amongst novel-related articles, I think we should try to follow it fairly closely, with the occasional, well-reasoned exception. Let me know if I've missed something, though. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Broadly, I am following Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, and to show due deference I have altered the Genesis section to Background. I'll even change Plot outline back to Plot summary, if you like. The Background section still needs a bit of extra work, and I'm wondering if my intention to transfer the characters to a linked sub-article might, after all, be a little drastic, particularly if it left the main article saying little or nothing about characterisation. Then, as to themes....that's going to be the big challenge, but that's way off in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What made you reconsider the list of characters? I had just gotten used to the idea of having the list of characters removed, particularly since the new plot summary characterised them well. Do you now think that a character list can work within the new article structure? – Liveste (talk • edits) 11:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to be open-minded. If the article looks incomplete without more character information, then we'll need to reconsider. I hope to spend more time with the article soon and get some serious development going. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Class section

An anonymous editor has added a section headed "Class". The section, while interesting, is without citations and as such reads like this editor's personal interpretation. Is it possible that the editor can add citations to the text? Otherwise, as opinion or original research it can't, unfortunately, remain in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I flagged it as original research. I want to look into this. I'm not aware of any scholarly discussions about class in this novel, though it does have different classes, obviously. In any case, if we want to discuss major themes in the novel, there are quite a few others that I can think of. Victorianist (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)