Talk:The Scarlet Pimpernel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Introduction

Reference to "the Barstows" in the fourth ¶ begs some sort of explanation. I reread the first three ¶'s repeatedly in the expectation that I had somehow missed this important datum of a family made wealthy by the play, novel, and their sequels.

Dick Kimball 06:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Dick Kimball 06:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarified this -- Barstow was Orczy's married name. 24.128.226.239 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

The synopsis in this article is not the plot of the novel. For a start, in the novel there is no actual estrangement, only a pretended one in order to fool Chauvelin about Marguerite's loyalties. There are countless other deviations from the plot as presented here. The plot in the 1982 television adaptation seems to be the closest fit to the synopsis here - the plot elements for this were taken from both the novel The Scarlet Pimpernel and from the later Eldorado. I can't really leave this article without a synopsis, but this synopsis is just not correct and I can't remember off the top of my head how the novel's plot goes. Can anyone oblige?GSTQ 01:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Err ... no. There's no "pretend" estrangement. The estrangement is quite real:
"I protest you mistake me, Sir Percy," she said hurriedly, and drawing a little closer to him; "the estrangement, which alas! has arisen between us, was none of my making, remember."
"Begad! you must pardon me there, Madame!" he protested coldly, "my memory was always of the shortest."
Were there any other "deviations" in particular you had in mind? I see none myself. RGTraynor 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

^ He's right. I think you're thinking of one of the sequels, GSTQ where they DO pretend to argue - but that's after Margherite knows the truth. In the original they really are estranged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.208.99 (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that the writer of this book was a baroness. The French Revolution was something that the aristocracy of Europe detested, and which generally led merely to reactionary resumptions of power after Waterloo. Here she has distilled these feelings into a fantasy of wish-fulfillment, though nearly a century later.

This sounds like a generalisation to me - "The author was an aristocrat, therefore she thought like the aristocrats of a century earlier" - not to mention that it doesn't jive with what I know of the history of the book and its author. Can you cite any specific evidence that Orczy wrote the book for this reason, or is "she was an aristocrat" all you've got? --Paul A 15:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the Scarlet Pimpernel was the earliest prototype for the superheroes of comic books; Alexandre Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo predated it by several decades. Prairie Dog 16:43, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

And wasn't the same sort of protagonist. Edmond Dantes used his private means not for generic do-gooding but for personal revenge, he didn't undertake serial missions, and he didn't particularly present a disguised secret identity. He just relied on a couple cosmetic changes, years of distance and aging and the perceptions of the day -- of course a fabulously rich foreign noble could never be a long-dead domestic sailor. Not close to comparable. RGTraynor 03:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't some versions of Spring-Heeled Jack predate the SP?

Certainly did, by about seventy years, but there are a few important distinctions. SHJ (to the extent you can say so about a boogeyman urban legend, of course) wasn't a fictional, literary creation, and has been a villian for the overwhelming course of his career. The first literary treatment of SHJ as a good guy was published the year after the SP play was first staged. RGTraynor 16:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in many eyes, the 1982 tv version was more enjoyable than the 1934 version. The trouble with the 1934 version has to do with the static and talky nature of early film. In many ways, the 1934 film comes across as a filmed play, a similar problem with the 1931 Dracula film. There is no onscreen swordplay. Events that would have been enjoyable to see are simply described after the fact in a subsequent scene-example; Chauvelin's men jump two of the Pimpernel's men. Do we see this? No-we just hear about it after the fact when Chauvelin has a meeting with his agents. The Scarlet Pimpernel frees aristocrats and several prisoners from prison, with the bribed Commander of the guards forcing his underlings on pain of death to comply-do we see this? No-just described after the fact. A great ball takes place-we barely see any of it.

The 1982 version is not only longer, allowing it to develop more of its plot and storyline, but also features a more complicated plot.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025748/board/thread/20445144?d=22516780#22516780

[edit] The Books

Perhaps it should be noted that the books are notoriously difficult to find (all save the first one, of course). Why? I have no idea!

What about the prequels:

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • The First Sir Percy

- about Sir Percy's ancestors, and it's sequels:

  • The Pimpernel and Rosemary
  • The Life & Exploits of The Scarlet Pimpernel
  • The Scarlet Pimpernel Looks at the World

??? Surely deserve a mention ???

--Elín 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed they do, which is why it's just as well that the article has for many months. RGTraynor 07:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad :) The books really are demmed elusive though. Such a shame because they're so great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.208.99 (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referenced

I'm not quite sure if it is worth noting in the article itself, but The Scarlett Pimpernell is directly refrenced as a lyric in the Tenacious D song called "Beelezeboss (The Final Showdown)." --TheChrisParker 04:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the sort of pop culture reference given in many other articles. I'd say precedent permits inclusion. RGTraynor 15:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


The book is also referenced in John Marsdens Novel While I live, and continues to be an important motif throughout the Ellie Chronicles. 220.101.182.66 (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sprains And Onions?

Could we have some referencing for an assertion that a new sequel is being published this year, many decades after the Baroness' death? RGTraynor 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time Wars novel

There were two references to Hawke's Pimpernel Plot, under "other versions" and under "references in popular culture". The latter contains more information, and it seems to me to be in the correct place. Thus, I removed the first one. --Huon 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Historical accuracy

"...in truth, she was more interested in telling a good tale than in strict historical accuracy..."

I don't think expressions like "in truth" really have a place here on Wikipedia. Unless someone can find a citation to accompany this sentence I think it should be rewritten.

[edit] Order of books

I believe that up to this version the books were sorted by the time the story takes place. Right now they're sorted by year of publication. Since we gave the year of publication before as well, haven't we lost information? The downside of the internal chronological order is, of course, that it didn't have a source (and I don't know one). -- Huon 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just added a new Chronolgy section to remedy this issue. I based it on a combination of the "preceded by/followed by" links in the info table and summaries found at Blakeney Manor. Comments and edits welcome! --J. Gottshall 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Chronological order which I had the books listed in, was purely based on information within the books themelves - dates and references to events in the other stories. I would prefer it was changed back to the way it was rather than by year of publication as I don't think your Chronology section adds anything at all.

Copygir1 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, publication date is standard on Wikipedia, and beyond that, not all the books -- and certainly not the short story collections -- have accurate chronological information.  RGTraynor  09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The publication date ordering of the initial bibliography does seem to be the most encyclopedic approach. By the time of my first edit, the books had already been reordered that way, and I simply removed the "in chronological order" qualification from the heading. But it seemed to me that there was value in noting the fact that the publication order does not reflect the historical chronology of the stories, so I recreated Copygir1's list as a table in a separate section with some annotations. If the separate chronology doesn't add significantly to the article, I won't be offended at it's removal, but I do think the main list should remain in publication order. --J. Gottshall 05:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fitna

The Fitna movie is credited to someone called "Scarlet Pimpernel" as director, co-writer and editor. Should we mention Fitna in this article? I think not. Firstly, the pseudonym might just as well be based on the flower than on the literary character (ok, that's unlikely, but the film does use a red flower emblem, see here, and not a masked avenger emblem). Secondly, is it really a notable mention of the Scarlet Pimpernel? Do we have any sources discussing the pseudonym, its meaning and its relevance? I haven't seen any. Thus, I'll remove the entry once more. If you reinstate it, please do so in the proper place: Right now it wrecks the "real-life tie-ins" section; I believe the media references should be more appropriate if we're going to have it. Huon (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone was faster than me in removing it, but my opinion still holds. Huon (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As does mine. It isn't cited in the Fitna article, either (though someone seems to think that a link to a note calling it a psudonym for anonymity is all it needs). It's actually starting to annoy me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's just grand. You keep referring to it not being in the Fitna article. I believe there are three references to you making that claim. What you failed to point out is that you removed it from the Fitna article only to have at least two separate members replace it. Your argument relies upon your own pseudo-sockpuppetry as support for your position. Your actions in this situation are intellectually dishonest and fraudulent00:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.200.103 (talk)
I'll say this once, my fine, low-edit-having anonymous friend: the next time you accuse me of sockpuppetry, you are not going to be in Your Happy Place. Either be polite, or begone. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the discussion at Fitna just from your entry on. If I were to quote the entire Scarlet Pimpernel discussion there it would be several thousand words from 2 archives and the current talk page from over the last week. It has been discussed at length - You have violated the communities consensus.

Scarlet Pimpernel? I have had to revert this out of this article twice now, and another editor keeps adding it in, insisting that its cited repeatedly. I don't see a single citation for the usage, except for noting - incorrectly - that it is a nickname or some such for anonymity. In order for it to be included. The existence of the nom de plume in the film must be cited. No citations, no inclusion. This isn't my rule; its Wikipedia's. Please do not re-add it without also adding the citation say, from a newspaper or some such. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

      • You seem to not even understand the issue, you mention, "The existence of the nom de plume in the film must be cited. No citations, no inclusion."
Other than the film itself, which displays it prominently in the credits, here are another Sixteen Hundred mentions on Google: [1] I'm sorry that someone chose a pseudonym that upsets you, but they did. It is what it is. The entry is simply an encyclopedic reflection of the work it seeks to describe. What possible argument could you have for NOT including it? I'll suggest that your Reversions are inappropriate, the onus is now upon you to explain why deletion is necessary. Your actions are inappropriate, violate the spirit of the Revert Rule and verge on Vandalism. The inclusion of Scarlet Pimpernel was not done lightly, it was discussed at length since the inception of this article and was adopted by consensus. Your Reverts have undermined that community consensus - it is you that must show cause for exclusion.23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC) ♠It was two separate editors so far that have reverted your singular refusal to respect community consensus.00:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Of the 1600 citations [2] which one passes muster? Der Spiegel? Seattle Post?

**** Here's more from the discussion taking place at Fitna:

The one Arcayne should be testing is NRC Handelsblad, that's the newspaper that published the source used in the notes section before he removed it. MantisEars (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

♠I move that this be considered resolved.

    • The film does credit a "Scarlet Pimpernel"
    • Google shows 1600 hits discussing "Scsrlet Pimpernel's" role in Fitna[3]
    • Major media has discussed it and been referenced in the article
    • The community struggled with and adopted an existing position on this issue already. It has achieved community consensus.
    • There are indications of less than good faith here, Arcayne has used the lack of citation as his basis - when he in fact personally removed those same sources. This is just pseudo-sockpuppetry.

There is no basis upon which to exclude the mention of Scarlet Pimpernel or his role from the Fitna article.00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

**** Still more from the discussion taking place at Fitna:

I agree that this has gone on long enough and consensus has been reached, but we should wait a few more hours for Arcayne to respond before marking this thread resolved, as a courtesy. MantisEars (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not normally disagree - however Arcayne has been very quick to edit and edit again followed by throwing up a wall of questions here, at the Scarlet Pimpernel Talk page and thirdly on your talk page. He has received lengthy responses to his query's at all three -- But has not responded anywhere yet. This appears to be obstructionism.

I would suggest reverting his edit on the basis that the onus falls on him to show cause not to include mention of the Scarlet Pimpernel in this article. But, as a courtesy, wait a respectable number of hours for a response before reconsideration of applying a resolved tag.01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My reply at Fitna:
Sorry for posting rather late - RL concerns arose.
Also, I think you (and I am referring to the anon poster who is rather fond of using '♠' as some sort of signature) might want to remember to sign your posts with four ~. I know you are new, but it helps to determine who's posting, especially since you aren't indenting properly, either. You would also want to show a lot more good faith, as being snippy just encourages others to be snippy in return. With all that snippy flying around, it's just a matter of time before someone's feeling get hurt, and six months ago, I would be tapping the keyboard putting the hurt on you. Be thankful that I've matured somewhat. Be polite and demonstrate good faith; it will keep your blood pressure even, and we mall might learn something.
That said, I see one reference on the Scarlet Pimpernel article regarding Fitna, and one reference here. The reference in this article doesn't explain the connection to the film, it isn't cited as being the actual moniker the "director" is using. With respect, Google hits have been resoundingly discredited as reliable sources of info. So, let's stay away from using Google as the Big Hammer for inclusion, because it may very well be misleading.
The issue here is that I am saying that we need a solid, reliable and notable source stating that this is the director's fake name, and if you want to connect it to the Scarlet Pimpernel article, that source needs to point out the connection to the novel by the baroness. Simply creating a reference that - mistakenly- defines the term as "... a pseudonym of an unidentified person." is just plain wrong, contextually-speaking. It isn't a matter of what I like or don't like. It's the rules. I seem to remember saying something like that a few times.
And when I say that the matter should be discussed, I do not mean that someone should use up the edit summary space to make their argument - it NEVER works. All it does is breed more reverts, and bad feelings, and the aforementioned weeping in the corner after someone Brings the Large Bag of Harsh. When someone asks you to discuss the matter, be polite and go to the discussion page and do so. It's that simple. It's the essence of AGF.
I've said most of my piece, and am willing to discuss the matter. The crux of my argument is that you need a single reliable, verifiable, notable citation that clearly identifies the director of the film and the connection to the fictional character. Without it, you cannot include it, as it is synthesis. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC) (1)
The reason I have been reverting the shoe-horning of the notation here is that there is no reference that connects the cowardly chump who didn't have the stones to use his own name and decided to use 'Scarlet Pimpernel' to Orczy's fictional character. The only reference there is an observed credit on a screen (uncited), and some notation about it being the pseudonym of an unidentifed person - and any connection without citation to the fictional character is synthesis.
As I said in the post in Talk:Fitna, I am willing to listen. Let's discuss. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
While 1,600 sources look impressive at a first glance, the truth is a little different. Judging from the first few pages, most of those 1,600 Google hits are blogs or forum discussions and thus not reliable sources. Now I've seen Fitna, and of course I don't doubt someone called "Scarlet Pimpernel" is credited as director etc. Should the Fitna article mention him? Sure, and it does. Should it link to this article as probable source for the pseudonym? More difficult, but probably not a bad idea. Should the article on the literary character mention the director pseudonym? No, because the pseudonym is not relevant to the character, and we don't even have a source linking the pseudonym to the character. This article already has too many badly sourced (or unsourced) "media references" and doesn't need one more. As a compromise, how about a one-line entry to the Scarlet Pimpernel disambiguation page? We don't have enough stuff for an entire article about the director, but someone looking for him should be able to find something when looking under "Scarlet Pimpernel". -- Huon (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the connection isn't even likely in Fitna, but that's an argument for that article discussion, not here. As for the dab, I think that's a good idea, so long as it links to the Fitna page. Of course, the Fitna page will have to go a bit further in depth in explaining the background of why the director chose the pseudonym (otherwise, it isn't notable, and therefore no reason for inclusion at all). I suggest we hold off on the addition to the dab page until Fitna finds the references it needs to include a reference at all. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LibriVox recording

The LibriVox public domain audiobook is an absolutely stunning, professional-quality recording. The reader, Karen Savage, has excellent British and French accents, which she uses to great effect. This would make a superb link at the bottom of the page. --BlueNight (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dontloseyourhead.jpg

The image Image:Dontloseyourhead.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)