Talk:Sir Gawain and the Green Knight/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Beheading Symbolism

I'm going to mention that the severed head is one of the aspects of Celtic mythology present in the story. CountMippipopolous 14 Apr 2005

That's a sound point, but you'll need to give it some context or folks'll be taken aback. I mean, you're correct, but it's not general knowledge and needs to be presented.--Wetman

I've clarified the reference to the beheading game in Bricriu's Feast, linking it to the relevant article and also referencing it to Tolkien/Gordon. However, I've removed the reference to the Black Death, which seemed unsubstantiated. If this is an inappropriate edit, perhaps someone can reinstate it, with an appropriate reference.Martin Turner 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What if

So if Sir Gawain had succumbed to the Lady's temptations AND kept the end of his deal with Lord Bercilak, would that mean he would have had to bang him at the end of the day? And still survive the beheading?

No one knows if he would have survived or not. Wrad 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Morgan and Merlin

I asked User:DigitalMedievalist "I wonder, where you've recently reverted an edit, if you wouldn't go back and quote the line about Morgan le Fay and Merlin (you gave the line number) and actually edit your point about their connection into the text for us. Thanks." (Wetman 22:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I'm perfectly willing to do that--but the line has a thorn in it--and I can't determine how Wikipedia wants thorn to be handled; html entity? Unicode?

DigitalMedievalist 05:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)Lisa

Question Mark

When I look at this text, I get what looks like a question mark in the SGGK text. Is this some sort of problem, or is it a glottal stop symbol?211.225.32.196 06:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting squares in place of your question marks, I think. It's where a yogh belongs. It displayed fine in Safari on a Mac, but it's boxes on this Windows PC with a presumably up-to-date Internet Explorer; maybe it's a problem with Unicode on Windows (stab in the dark)? (don't know how to time-date stamp, don't have time to figure it out right now)

Inaccuracies

According to The Ithaca Online [1], this article has inaccuracies. Where are they?

"Michael Twomey, professor of English, said he looked up “Sir Gawain and the Green Night.” He talks about the medieval poem in class and has published articles about it. He said he found factual errors and misleading statements in the entry.

Twomey said he could edit the entry, but the original writer could easily change it back. “In his mind, ‘Sir Gawain’ is his turf, and he doesn’t want anyone else messing with it,” Twomey said. Since the editing process can become a battle of wills, Twomey said he advises his students not to rely on Wikipedia."

If there are inaccuracies, and if indeed someone has this on their watchlist and won't accept revisions, can I please ask them to consider constructive criticism? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't students be relying on the poem rather than looking at articles in encyclopedias?Martin Turner 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked through the article history, and I can't find what he's talking about. The "original writer" is Heron, and he hasn't been back again since 03. This has been on my watchlist for some time now, and I haven't seen anyone here reverting genuine corrections or acting like they own the article. Personally, I'd love to see an expert improve Sir Gawain, or at least tell us what's wrong with it. Where exactly are those inaccuracies?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Sounds a bit like a disgruntled academic who hasn't reviewed the article in quite a while. Pity. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this imaginary editor who reverts all corrections is a lousy excuse for the professor not to dig in and help - but let's improve the article anyway. Haukur 08:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed there are inaccuracies in the article. The timeline of events at the mysterious castle is incorrect.

First of all, Sir Gawain arrives at the mysterious castle on Christmas morning, not Christmas Eve:

“This way, in danger, in pain and hardship, Over the land the knight rides till Christmas Eve, alone;

Then, in despair on his ride, He cries in a plangent tone That Mary be his guide To a house, a warm hearth-stone.

Next morning he rides on merrily, beside a hill, Into a dark wood, wonderfully wild.”

Secondly, the feasting and general Christmas celebrations continue until St John’s day (27 December), “the final festive day”, not just until the day after he arrives. It is at the end of this day, after the guests that are due to depart the next morning have gone to bed, that the lord is told of Sir Gawain’s quest, the proximity of the Green Chapel is revealed and the bargain made

The next morning (28 December) the guests depart, the lord hunts deer and, that evening, receives a kiss in exchange for the venison. It is misleading to suggest that not divulging the source of the kiss was “according to the lord’s bargain” since the reason Sir Gawain gives is “… not part of the pact” and he dismisses the lord’s question with “ask me no more”.

On 29 December the lord hunts boar and receives two kisses in exchange for the boar.

Finally, on the evening of 30 December, he receives three kisses in exchange for the fox pelt.

Here the poet’s sense of time fails him because he thinks the next day is New Year’s Day, whereas it is 31 December.

Anyway, Sir Gawain sets out for the encounter with the Green Knight on New Year’s Day.

It should also be mentioned that the identity of the lord is revealed as Sir Bercilak of Hautdesert. This is missing from the article.

It seems highly misleading to theorise that the poet intends to imply that the Order of the Garter originated with King Arthur from this incident, since a girdle worn over one shoulder and passing under the opposite armpit is definitely not a garter. Cliff 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC) The Order of the Garter link is a well established theory in the critical literature. However, it is not (to my knowledge) suggested that the girdle relates to the garter, nor that the poet is implying it originates with King Arthur. Nonetheless, the use of the Order of the Garter motto to conclude the poem is an explicit link. I quote the note on line 2514 from Tolkien/Gordon 2nd edition of the poem edited by Norman Davis: "This decision has sometimes been taken as an indication that the poem was composed with reference to some order of knighthood … The legend at the end of the peom Hony soyt qui mal pence is the motto of the order of the Garter…" In fact the editors do not find this link particularly convincing, and point out that the parallel poem 'the Green Knight' claims that the collar is the founding of the order of the Bath. Nonetheless, the suggested link is one that has exercised a number of scholars.Martin Turner 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing about Gawain is that there is no real consensus on what the story means, so to present any single point of view is misleading in itself. Maybe this article needs more interpretations (Feminist, Religious, etc.) although I think it balances the opinions currently in it very well. Wrad 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt about what the poem means. It's a fairly straightforward story, although artistically told and more advanced than most medieval romances. Roger Lancelyn Green's retelling (in King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table) captures the entire plot, uncontroversially. Controversy is mainly about what the subsidiary components are supposed to represent — if anything. Loomis et al mined this and other Arthurian literature for origins, and the motifs of the girdle, the Green Man, Morgan Le Fay, the pentangle, the green chapel, the hunt etc are all evocative and not difficult to track down in folk traditions. There are also unsolved critical problems, for example, in the rhetorical anti-feminism of Gawain's final speech to the Green Knight. However, none of these are actually core interpretations of what the poem means — merely sidelights on aspects of it. Martin Turner 22:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Interesting fact: We are now citing the guy who criticized our article in our article! Look at the Ithaca link in the references section. Wrad 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot synopsis adjustions

For the sake of organization, I moved literary interpretations in the plot into the new "Interpretations" section. The way I see it, this section could have subsections such as, the Pentangle, Feminist interpretations, Christian interpretations, etc. along with the ones already there. Keeping these ideas separate from the plot also maintains reader neutrality, alowing them to make their own assumptions. I also think that much of the intro as it is should be in its own section called "Games." I don't know that it summarizes the article as well as it could. Wrad 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New Changes

Well, as you can see, there are a lot of changes to the page recently, all done by me. I tried to expand the article while keeping the information already in it. I really hope that I have made it better, but if you see problems, please feel free to post them here. Most of the sources are now cited except for the poet section and a bit of the girdle section, give or take, and I still feel that with a poem of this importance there is a lot of room for expansion. Again, feel free to critique any recent changes, or give suggestions for further improvement. Wrad 07:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First modern edition?

I'm not sure that the first modern edition was published by Tolkien, as said in the intro. There was an earlier translation in 1898 by Jessie L. Weston. [2]. Wrad 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is a section without citations that looked a lot like original research:

There is much speculation as to whether the girdle would have really kept Gawain from dying had the Green Knight desired to kill him. The lady, it seems, has lied to Gawain insofar as the girdle has not kept him completely from harm. On the other hand, it has kept him from death. The author leaves the exact powers of the girdle undefined and open to interpretation, but makes it clear that the Green Knight would not have willingly spared Gawain's life had he failed to resist the lady's sexual advances. Assuming it has no life-saving powers, it is meant to be ironic that the girdle, the one thing that Gawain thinks will save him, is actually the thing that harms him; furthermore, assuming the girdle has no real powers, it would have been the thing that led to his death had he taken it as a love token, which is what the lady originally offered it to him as.

I removed it, but if anyone can find citations, feel free to put it back. Wrad 04:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually added a small section regarding Tolkien's edition (which should be expanded by those more familiar with it). My rationale for doing so is that Tolkien's translation is frequently referenced as a Tolkien original work (I'm trying to find better sources than the one I posted which does acknowledge Tolkien didn't originate it, albeit at the very bottom of the page). I know of at least 2 editions that were published in the same format as Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's other works, with no indication on the cover that Tolkien did not write the work himself.68.146.41.17 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that, thanks for the add. Wrad 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

First, there's a difference between an edition, and a translation. And edition is the text of the poem based on the original ms., in Middle English, with any departures from the ms. text carefully noted and explained; editions usually have things like introductions, extensive footnotes, editorial practice notes, and glossaries. The first edition of SGGK was Gollancz, Israel. Ed. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. EETS O. S. 210. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940. That's not the first publication date; my copy is a reprint and they don't list the first print, oddly. Then there's Tolkien and Gordon's first edition of their edition: Tolkien, J. R. R. and E. V. Gordon; first. 1925. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Oxford: Oxford University Press. That was later re-edited by Norman Davis, Tolkien, J. R. R. and E. V. Gordon; second edition revised by Norman Davis. 1967. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tolkien's translation, published posthumously by his son in Tolkien, J. R. R. Trans. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Pearl Sir Orfeo. London: George Allen & Unwin 1975; Ballantine Books edition January 1988, is a separate thing. It's an actual metered translation into modern English, and, no, it's not the first.

Digital Medievalist/Lisa L. Spangenberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.173.45 (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New Themes sections to add (possibly)

Woman as temptress and courtly love laws

Hunting

Some references H. L Savage (1956) - hunting and bedroom scenes: shared characteristics between Gawain and the beast hunted by Bertilak. So, on the frist day, Gawain is like a deer (nervous), on the second day, he's like a boar (brash), and on the third, fox-like (sly).

Peter McClure (1973) argues each animal displays a trait that Gawain must overcome.

Marcelle Thiébaux The Stag of Love (1974). Link between bedroom and hunt; comments on the words "fonge" ("to find" ln 816), and "kachande" (to catch, ln 1581), both with connotations of a hunt. (JoeBlogsDord 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Beheading game

The Turke and Gawain - The Turke, decapitated, turns into Sir Gromer. (JoeBlogsDord 13:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Done I think this is covered now. Wrad 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Symmetry and pattern

Any expansion that can be offered would be great. Wrad 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, there's number symbolism. It's there, and though it's not that important to a reader, it's clearly deliberate. The first line of Troy is repeated at 2525. The poem is 2530 lines long, which is 2525+5. The bob is five lines long. The five points of the pentagram. (JoeBlogsDord 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

GA review

Ok, I will be the reviewer of this article. I expect the review to be a quick one since there already was a peer review. If there are any questions do not hesitate to ask them. Daimanta 19:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Wrad 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have looked at the article and I have observed the peer review. This article has been promoted to GA. I would like to thank the authors for making this a good article and the peer reviewer for doing the review. Regards, Daimanta 13:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yaay!! Wrad 15:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Christian Interpretations section

Surely this is wrong? The Pentangle explicitly attributes Christian values to Gawain. Later, the magical castle appears in response to Gawain's prayers, and Gawain is watched over by Marie (Mary), and he goes to a Christian chapel to prepare himself. I've never heard of 'Christian' interpretation of this poem in any of the literature, as opposed to just 'plain' interpretation of the poem. This is clearly a poem written in a Christian context, with various Christian references scattered throughout. It would seem rather farfetched to put a 'Christian' interpretation beyond this, say, concerning death and resurrection, on the poem. The main issue in the literature is the question of whether the poet is the same as the poet of Pearl, Patience and Cleanness. The general consensus seems to be 'yes, the similarity of language and poetic ability indicates it is', which leaves the residual question of why the devout (and slightly twee (?)) author of Patience and Cleanness, and, indeed, of Pearl, decided to write a poem which turns on sexual temptation, and why a poet so in love with the extended explicit symbolism of Pearl decided to write a poem which is so vividly realistic (although, of course, not naturalistic) and where the symbolism is primarily kept concealed.

As far as I know, no-one has ever satisfactorily answered that question. However, I don't really see this justifies a 'Christian' interpretation section, since this implies that there are legitimate interpretations which deny that the poem is written into a Christian context, which is simply silly.Martin Turner 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that the poem is heavily Christian, so you can imagine my surprise at the huge lack of information on Christianity in the poem available in secondary sources. Nobody writes about it! I was forced to reduce Christian interpretations to that small section. If you can find more sources, let me know. Not only would I like to add them here, I'd like to see them for my own research. Wrad 23:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism

Watch out. This might be an instance of subtle vandalism.--Mumia-w-18 17:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks questionable to me. I do not have a source, though, against which to check these edits. I am unwilling to revert unless I know for certain that these edits are wrong. Can someone more knowledgable check on this? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked it over when it was first changed, and it's fine. Bertilak and Bercilak are both legitimate spellings, and the facts are still correct. We do need to be sure that we use a consistent spelling for Bertilak, though. Ever since these major edits started pouring in I haven't been able to keep it consistent. It's nearly half-and-half, now. Wrad 17:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mumia-w-18 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Update

I've begun compiling all the new research. Most of what's worth keeping belongs in the new testing section. I'm planning on reworking it soon to make it cohere better. Wrad (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

There are many GA-class articles on WP, but I have seen few that were such a pleasure to read. Kudos to the crew here.

May I suggest use of the {{harvnb}} template to better distinguish references from bibliography? See Rabindranath Tagore or Asha for an example. If no one objects, I'll do it myself. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know how to use it and don't have the time to figure it out right now. Wrad (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Please go ahead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote boxes or tables?

Instead of the quote boxes, what do you guys think about this little table, comparing the two bob and wheels? Awadewit | talk 04:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Gawain		Translation
(bob) ful clene (wheel) for wonder of his hwe men hade set in his semblaunt sene he ferde as freke were fade and oueral enker grene (SGGK lines 146-150)^[1]		(bob) full clean. (wheel) Great wonder of the knight Folk had in hall, I ween, Full fierce he was to sight, And over all bright green. (SGGK lines 146-150)^[1]

Inconsistency in citations

While adding en dashes to page ranges in the citations last evening, I noticed some other things that need to be repaired. For example, the way page and pages is abbreviated varies from citation to citation. Perhaps p. and pp. would be best, but in any case the abbreviations should be internally consistent. The Harvard templates mentioned above by User:Fullstop might solve the problem; I'm not sure because I've never used that system. If I attempt to fix the page abbreviation inconsistency one item at a time, what abbreviations would you prefer? Finetooth (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no preference, really, as long as they are consistent. I'll answer any questions you have as you go. Wrad (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I just noticed your message on my talk page. I'm glad to help. I'll plunge right in. Finetooth (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a fair start but must stop for the night. I'll continue tomorrow. My goal is internal consistency. I'll probably have questions as I near the finish line. Finetooth (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good going Finetooth. Apologies for not having finished by now.

Wrad, would you please resolve the following refs...

49. ^ Book 2, Stanza 27

50. ^ 93

51. ^ Book 2, Stanza 28

The preceding #48 is Howard, Donald R. "Structure and Symmetry in Sir Gawain." Speculum.

Also, have the refs that simply read "93", "192", "ll. 1832", "ll. 1920", "ll. 619" been fixed? I no longer see them in the references list.

-- Fullstop (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the 93 one, the ones you list at the end got cut in recent edits. The "Book 2" ones are directly quoting the poem itself. I'll just have to get a hold of a good copy of the poem again with a line count on the side to fix them. Wrad (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a complex set of issues I've taken on, more than I realized at first. It might have been wiser of me to go with MLA style, considering the subject and the fact that some citations were MLA style already. Still, I seem to be making headway. I'm not seeing what is causing the red links in the later citation access dates. I'm getting cross-eyed, and I think I'll stop for the nonce and come back tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't stay away after all. Pacing around my office, I thought of two things that would probably improve the layout of the citations. First, instead of footnoting the references to the primary work, you could insert them in the main text in parentheses. For example, in the Numbers section, instead of referencing "faithful five ways and five times each" to a footnote, you could say "faithful five ways and five times each" (Book 2, Stanza 27). This looks pretty standard and useful to me, better for the reader than hopping down to a footnote. The other thing that would help, in my opinion, would be to create a short bibliography section that would list the works that are referenced in the footnotes more than once. This may be part of what User:Fullstop had in mind with the Harvard citations, and you're already doing that, sort of, with Rowley, Cox, and Burns. Once such a separate section is set up, long notes in the citations section can be reduced to constructions like Arthur, pp. 121–123. In addition to checking the MOS, the Chicago Manual of Style, and the PMLA style sheet in looking for help, I've been looking at the Wikipedia articles on William Butler Yeats and James Joyce for models to imitate. If you would like me to have a whack at setting up a separate Sources (bibliographic) section, just let me know here. I'll be checking back, though real life is calling me away to other things this evening. Finetooth (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just do what Hamlet does? Wrad (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

quotations from the primary work could also use {{ref_label}}/{{note_label}} (or something similar) so that citations then appear somewhere other than the <ref>-style references. For example: "faithful five ways and five times each"^[ii.27] (or any another naming scheme of your choice)

This being the 'pedia, there are also numerous other ways to do it. :) Its just temporary anyway, until bug #6271 is fixed.

Finetooth, use {{citation}} for sources. It has a consistent parameter set, a consistent output, and the result is (almost) stylesheet conform. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wrad, I think Hamlet is a fine model. I don't want to re-do all the "Vol." and "No." bits and undo all the "p" and "pp"s, but I'll leave things like Book 2, Stanza 27 where they are and merely add Sir Gawain and the Green Knight to them as an identifier. In addition, Hamlet uses a set of sources in just the way I was thinking of that should help simplify the notes. The alternative of using the {{citation}} template has less appeal for me, not because it's a bad idea, but because, having not used it before, I'm unsure of the outcome. Finetooth (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Hamlet seemed pretty close to what you were proposing. Just let me know how I can help. Wrad (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I began to create a separate "Sources" section, a la Hamlet but decided to let well-enough alone. I think I've cleaned up most of the inconsistencies in the Reference section and finally fixed those red links that I couldn't sort out yesterday. After doodling around with the oogie citation problems, it was a pleasure to copyedit the main text. It reads well. Best of luck with the FA. Finetooth (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I guess that means as far as you're concerned, it meets the criteria? Wrad (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I would have to answer that with a slight hedge. I think the main text does. About the citations, I'd estimate that I fixed 95 percent of the glitches and missed or ignored 5 percent. Little nit-picky things like the place of publication of some of the books, the ISBN numbers, and the exact titles of the web articles referenced are either missing or in some cases look doubtful to me and need to be checked. The publishing house of the University of West Virginia is in Morgantown, and the Harvard University Press is in Cambridge, and those details are missing from some of the citations. If I were the main author of the article, I would try to fill in as much of this missing reference information as possible, though I believe most of it is already there. Another thing that should be done, according to the MOS, is the insertion of no-break codes to fasten the p. and pp. abbreviations to the page numbers so that line wrap doesn't separate them visually. These are low-level tedious chores. The bigger question of whether a separate sources section is needed, I don't know. I have not found any strict guideline about this in the MOS, which seems to allow individuals a lot of latitude in choosing a citation style. Finetooth (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added the no-break codes between the page abbreviations and the page number(s). Finetooth (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence comment

Sir Gawain accepts a challenge from a mysterious warrior who is completely green. - erm, green skinned? Would 'clad in green' or 'clad in green armour' or something similar sound better? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

...but he's not just wearing green, he is green. Completely. And so is his horse. That's what's so mysterious about him. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahaaa...ok then (you have a thing about green don't you..)...maybe this needs to be somehow clarified in lead. Not sure how. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, you might say that. How about: "...who is completely green: clothes, beard, skin, and all." Wrad (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm not bad, though isn't he wearing armour? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the poem actually goes to great lengths to describe his lack of armour. Wrad (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Style issue

The story begins in King Arthur's court at Camelot as the court is feasting and exchanging gifts. - 'court' mentioned twice. Time to get out a trusty thesaurus and think of another word if possible for one of them. May not be but throwing up (figuratively) some ideas. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The story begins in Camelot as King Arthur's court is... Wrad (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mystery

It has been dated to the late 14th century, so the poet was a contemporary of Geoffrey Chaucer, though remote from him in almost every other way. - didn't understand the last clause at all - why remote? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

They lived at the same time period, but far away from each other. It is very unlikely that they ever met., so maybe just: ...Chaucer, though it is highly unlikely that they ever met. Wrad (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahaaa. I get it now, latter way is better. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

However, comparative analysis of dialect, verse form, and diction has caused scholars to generally accept single-authorship - oddly worded - 'pointed in the direction of single authorship?' or something like it. Just throwing up more stuff. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Wrad (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, no biggie. It's a sunny cool summer day here outside and I'll hop off now to take the dog for a walk. Will look more later on. Looks great overall and should be a shoo-in (well, first half anyway). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Wrad (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Got back and looked at the rest. I reckon this is looking pretty good for a tilt at glory....but then again, I can be easier to please than others. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments, part the second

As the peer review has been archived, I am placing my second round of comments here. By the way, the article has improved dramatically since I last read it.

The lead offers too many details about the manuscript too early. The first paragraph should be about the story or about the importance of this piece of literature. For example, the sentence The story thus emerges from the Welsh and English traditions of the dialect area, borrowing from earlier "beheading game" stories and highlighting the importance of honour and chivalry in the face of danger doesn't make sense to the reader who doesn't know there is a beheading game.

Adjusted. Wrad (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to its complex plot and rich language, the poem's chief interest for literary critics is its historical symbolism. - What does "historical symbolism" mean exactly?

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The poem not only adds to the bank of knowledge concerning the meanings of various medieval symbols, but when seen in the context of other stories of the day, draws from them to become richer and deeper in meaning. - This doesn't quite make sense.

Took this sentence out. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The manuscript of Gawain is known in academic circles as Cotton Nero A.x, following a naming system used by one of its owners, Robert Cotton, a collector of original English works - What does "original English works" mean?

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The 2,530 lines and 101 stanzas that make up Sir Gawain and the Green Knight are written in what linguists call the "Alliterative Revival" style typical of the 14th century. - Are we sure "alliterative revival" should be capitalized?
- It's usually capitalized - it's used as a proper noun. Several sources I have capitalize it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Gawain appears in the stories The Girl with the Mule (alternately titled The Mule Without a Bridle) and Hunbaut feature Gawain in beheading game situations. - some extra Gawain's here
- Fixed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The word gomen (game) is found 18 times in Gawain. Its relation to the word gome (man), which appears 21 times, has led some scholars to see men and games as centrally linked. - You need to tell the reader what that relation is.
- The relation is obvious, one word is "gomen" and the other "gome". Perhaps "similarity" would be better than relation?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes, "similarity" would be better. Awadewit | talk 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Times, dates, seasons, and cycles within Gawain are often noted by scholars because of their cyclical and symbolic nature. - almost circular - Don't say that cycles are cyclical! Give the reader a hint of what the symbolism is or reword for clarity.

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll read more tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 02:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In "Significance of the colour green", the word "associated" and its cognates are used quite often. A bit more variety there might be good.

I fixed two of them. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Scholars have puzzled over his symbology since the discovery of the poem, with theories ranging from his presence as a version of the Green Man, a vegetation being in medieval art, to a figure from Celtic mythology, to a Christian symbol, to the Devil himself. - "a vegetative being", perhaps - but I'm not sure - what is this supposed to mean, exactly?

Changed to "mythological nature being". Wrad (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

His major role in Arthurian literature is that of a judge and tester of knights, thus he is both terrifying, friendly, and mysterious - "both" implies two things - this sentence has three things after the "both"

Changed to "at once". Wrad (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Green Knight's oddest characteristic is his completely green skin. - I don't think this is the best beginning for the "Green Knight" section, as the entire section is not about his greenness or his skin. A better, broader "topic sentence" is needed.

I took this sentence out. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The pentangle on Gawain's shield is seen by many critics as having special significance in the poem. - Best to describe right away, in a phrase or two, what that significance was - "special" is too vague.

Said why it was special. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is considered the first appearance of the word pentangle in English, and is the only time such an image appears on Gawain's shield. - wording is a bit confusing

fixed. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The poet uses 46 lines to describe the arming of Gawain’s equipment, revealing the underlying meaning of the pentangle. - This doesn't quite follow

fixed. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Pentangle" and "Numbers" subsections seem like a single section to me (possibly with differently arranged subsections). The material about five and the pentangle in "Numbers" seemed ill-placed. Very tricky organization there.

I don't know. Two of the paragraphs in numbers have little to do with the pentangle. I don't know how we would reorder things. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Romantic interpretations" might not convey the right idea to the reader. I was thinking "Generic interpretations", but that isn't helpful either. Other ideas?

"Gawain as medieval romance" should give readers some clue that we aren't referring to pulp fiction. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You would think so, but I have visions of students saying "a medieval Harlequin". Many people don't know about the old genre of the romance and how different it is from the "new" genre. Awadewit | talk 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I thin there's nothing we can do about the heading. The first paragraph makes the distinction about as well as can be expected, though. Wrad (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Gawain's function, Alan Markman says, "is the function of the romance hero ... to stand as the champion of the human race, and by submitting to strange and severe tests, to demonstrate human capabilities for good or bad action." - Identify Markman for the reader - medieval scholar, perhaps?

Done. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More in a moment. Awadewit | talk 05:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian interpretations of the poem take many forms. - This is such a weak beginning to such a strong section - either summarize the section in a sentence or two or just start in, I think. I would vote for the summary.

Added a summary. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Each has a heavily Christian theme, causing scholars to see Gawain through a similar lens. - "lens" is a lit crit word - try to find less jargony diction - how about: "Each has a heavily Christian theme, causing scholars to interpret Gawain similarly."

fixed. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Besserman explains that "[t]he Green Knight is not a figurative representative of Christ. But the idea of Christ's divine/human nature provides a medieval conceptual framework that supports the poet's serious/comic account of the Green Knight's supernatural/human qualities and actions". - Identify Besserman for the reader.

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, critics note the Christian influence paralleled at the conclusion of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. - doesn't quite make sense - "the Christian/[X] parallel at the conclusion"

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Christian perspective, this leads to disastrous and embarrassing consequences for Gawain as he is forced to reevaluate his faith after the girdle turns out to be a hoax. - I don't think that it was clear in the article until this point that the girdle actually was a hoax - please check this.

Fixed. It really shouldn't be saying "hoax".Wrad (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More recently, Simon Armitage, a native of the Gawain poet's dialect region, has translated a version which has attracted media attention in the US and the United Kingdom - Best to say when exactly

fixed. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think that there is a gap between the 14th century and the 20th century in the article - what happened to the story between then?

Basically it just sat undiscovered in various library collections. I'll try to connect the dots a little better. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are we using the 11th edition of Britannica as a source (note 5)?

I've found a replacement source and will fix this. Wrad (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick note: articles in Modern Language Notes are not really that important. It is not a good idea to rely on them too much - they do not represent the foundation of scholarship.

OK. I only see two articles used from them. Are they that much of a problem? Wrad (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Scholars publish in MLN when they've discovered a little tidbit that's interesting, not when they've made a groundbreaking discovery or come up with a fascinating theory. That is why I would hesitate to use it, especially in an article on a work like Gawain on which so much has been written. Awadewit | talk 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See your not on Comitatus Wrad (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes 44 and 45: This is very old scholarship - are you sure it is reliable?

Pretty sure. I've seen newer articles (2000s) refer to them. Wrad (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok - just wanted to check. Awadewit | talk 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Back for MOS stuff in a moment. Awadewit | talk 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Note 11 looks incomplete

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Note 22 and 41 - "Comitatus invites the submission of articles by graduate students and recent PhDs in any field of medieval and Renaissance studies." - While the journal is peer-reviewed, this description means that it is not one of the best. If you have another source for this information, I would use it.'

I trimmed articles not backed up by other sources out. Wrad (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Check notes 80 and on - some of the weblistings are incorrect - they need publishers and authors, if possible.

added the info. Wrad (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Check WP:PUNC

Gaah! Suddenly I feel weak. Surely whatever problems there might here are very minor, few, and far between. (I hope). Wrad (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's things like punctuation being inside/outside quotation marks. Awadewit | talk 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The paints aren't consistently punctuated in the captions - some have parentheses and some do not.

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In the notes, I saw quite a few references to scholarship from the 1950s and 1960s. Are we sure that this scholarship is still used today? We want to make sure that this material has become a "standard" reading of Sir Gawain.

I went through each of these one by one one more time and they all check out. They either 1) establish the "classical" view of the poem that absolutely can't be ignored by any encyclopedia, 2) are enmeshed with more modern articles add references, or 3) both. Wrad (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - I wish everyone was so diligent! Awadewit | talk 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope these comments help the editors. I'll keep checking back. Wonderful work, everyone! Awadewit | talk 06:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments, part the third

This article is just a delight to read! Well done everyone! Here is my little list of suggestions:

The entire "Gawain's journey" section is referenced to this site. It looks like it is self-published. Although it has a bibliography, I wouldn't rely on such sources for an article like this one - so many better sources can be found. If the editors can't find a published source for this information, I would just delete the section. It is not crucial for the article.

Erk! I'd really like to keep it. The site is Michael Twomey's. He's a well-respected scholar as regards Gawain specifically. Wrad (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Then he must have published this material somewhere. I think it would be strange to have non-peer-reviewed material in this article. Awadewit | talk 04:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've hidden the section until I can find better sources. Wrad (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[copied from above] I still think that there is a gap between the 14th century and the 20th century in the article - what happened to the story between then? People may ask about this. Awadewit | talk 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot about this one. Wrad (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added that last piece of the puzzle, Thomas Warton, the man who "rediscovered" the poem for academics. Anything before Savile, though, is lost in the mists of time. Wrad (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the authors for wisegeek, I don't think it counts as a reliable source.

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is therefore common to see Sir Gawain erroneously ascribed to Tolkien as the original author - I think the footnote for this sentence should say something like "See, for example". I wasn't sure how to add that to the template, however.

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Many editions of the latter work, first published in 1975, shortly after his death, list Tolkien on the cover as author rather than translator. - For this, you might want to cite the book listed here rather than the website. It would be considered more reliable.

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a fansite, which means it should probably not be used. I cannot tell what kind of editorial oversight it has. The printed Tolkien bibliography would help fulfill the need here as well.

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed some inconsistency in the BE/AE which I tried to fix, but I may not have caught everything.

Just double checked for "-or" and "-ize" and came up empty. there may be some more subtle things, but I'm confident the article is largely okay on this. Wrad (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I just caught two more ("-ized"). I'll just ask Roger Davies to give the article a quick run through for BE. I often miss things like "sceptical". Awadewit | talk 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all of the footnotes are formulated precisely the same way, but it is probably close enough for most people at FAC. :)

Just fixed a few of the more obvious ones. Wrad (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is really an amazing piece of work and the editors are to be commended. I look forward to supporting it at FAC in the next week or so! Awadewit | talk 03:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference question

I'm having problems reconciling two references, currently #52 and #54, for George J. Englehardt, or Engelhardt, and his work "The Predicament of Gawain." In the article, one is a templated cite, the other is hand-constructed. It appears that work was first published in 1955, and is later included in a collection by Edward Vasta in 1965. So far so good, but then it gets confusing. Perhaps it's all correct in the end, but it's hard for me to tell.

The first reference spells the name Englehardt, the second Engelhardt. Google Books references of the work use both spellings, but Engelhardt wins by a score of 19-7. The second reference (ed. Vasta) is listed on GB with the Engelhardt spelling, which matches. However, I can't tell if there was an author name typo in the first work, possibly making the cited spelling difference a valid one, because I don't have access to that source.

As a second issue, all of the GB results show "The Predicament of Gawain." as sourced in the XVI 1955 Modern Language Quarterly (first cited reference), rather than the Middle English Survey that is given as a source for both references in the article.

Lastly, as a purely cosmetic issue, the first reference has a terminating period on the work, quotes the title, and itals the Middle English Survey source. The second reference has no terminating period in the work, itals the title, and has nothing in quotes. This may be due to edited collection, citation, or title differences and be perfectly valid or unworthy of note, but I figured I'd mention it since I'm already here. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got this all fixed now. Wrad (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: (Main) archives