Talk:Watership Down

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Watership Down article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Watership Down has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 11, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
• Archive 1 — March 21, 2008


Contents

[edit] Article needs cleanup

Much of what was/is in the Literary significance and Major themes sections appears to be editors' original research. Also, significant portions of the article have been in place for a long time completely unsourced, even after six months of being tagged with a request to find sources. I've tagged individual sections and have backdated them to May 2007 to match the overall article maintenance tag for two reasons: (1) to alert researchers/readers that the information has not been verified, and (2) to alert other editors that this copy should be either sourced or removed in the next couple weeks.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] template help

I see that the default for the "Watership Down" template is hidden on this page. That is nice. How is this done? When I place the template anywhere else, the default is shown. I would like to adapt this to another project I'm working on, but I can't seem to locate the wiki-markup for it. It does not seem to be here on the page, or in the template. Thanks! --Knulclunk (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations requested for sequel?

Any suggestions on what actual citations are requested for this? Since this is the actual contents of the sequel novel, I'm a little confused as to what is being questioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWizardOfAhz (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A ref to a review that briefly describes the sequel using the same points will do.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character section downsizing

Kizor's recent removal of the "shorten section" ({{shorten}}) maintenance tag prompted me to address the original issue: the Characters section contained far too many characters, most of them relatively unimportant to the plot's key events. Therefore, I deleted most of the listed characters without internal links, thus reducing the article's Sparknotes appearance. In line with recommended novel style guidelines for identifying characters, we could consider removing the section completely and instead rely on succinct descriptions incorporated into the Plot summary.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heavily edited Minor characters in Watership Down, moving it to Characters in Watership Down and merging most of the individual character articles. I've linked to it in the Characters section, and removed most of the content there. However, the embedded list is still pretty useless, so further edits or changes are definitely welcome—perhaps the above-mentioned incorporated descriptions are a good idea. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the move. I'll try moving the major character information into the Plot section (which could use some work anyway, although I like its current compact size). If that's unsatisfactory, maybe adding some real-world info to the Characters will work.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

  1. The "Sequel" and "Awards and nominations sections" are too short to merit their own sections. If possible, merge the information elsewhere, or expand the sections.
  2. Coverage: It seems to me that this article needs a section that analyzes the work (meaning, themes, symbols, etc.) as well as a section that critical and/or public reception to the work. In the latter section, you could merge the short "awards" section into it.
  3. The "editions" and "translations" section seems unnecessary to the article; I've never seen these sections before, and I looked specifically in Uncle Tom's Cabin, which is featured.
  4. Character sections need to be expanded and should reflect the importance of the characters. Main characters should get fairly thorough descriptions, including a summary, importance, relationship to other important characters, etc.
  5. Sources: amazon.com is not a good source, and linking to it is discouraged in the MOS; other sources that seem problematic are ScreenOnline and CurtainUp
  6. Make sure all external links are absolutely necessary and justifiable--do not put up external links for the sake of putting up external links. Do not put up external links if the information within those links can be incorporated/presented within the body of the article.

There's quite a bit of work that needs to be done. I'll put this article On Hold for at least seven days (until 26 March 2008). If no significant progress has been made by that time, or if there's is no response to this review, this nom may be closed without further notice. If you have any questions, or would like input/help, feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page. Good Luck!

--Malachirality (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I've started some work, but I don't know how long it will take to finish—online reviews are scarce, so I'll have to look elsewhere. One question: I have removed the Amazon.com and CurtainUp sources, but I left ScreenOnline. It seems to be published by the British Film Institute—why wouldn't this be reliable? Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Alternatives to the current Characters section: (1) remove it, ensuring there are sufficient descriptions in the Plot summary (which looks fine on that point now); or (2) make sure it's expanded with real-world copy, not in-universe information; this could be accomplished by including second-party commentary, analysis, and description and citing it.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Editions" and "Translations" sections

I've removed the two sections for editions and translations. As commented by Malachirality above, there seems to be no precedent for including them, and at any rate the editions information can be found easily at any number of book databases. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some resources for article expansion

It should be easy to expand the "Publication history", "Themes", and "Reception" sections, especially the Odyssey elements. Here's some links that may help —

Watership Down - with knives
Selma G. Lanes: Male Chauvinist Rabbits. In: The New York Times , 30. June 1974.
Life and Society on Watership Down
Jim Dunning | talk 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of rejections

The BBC article states that Watership Down was rejected thirteen times, but Adams stated in his 1985 interview that it was rejected only seven times. We need to either remove the specific number from the article because of the ambiguity or establish which number is correct. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would put more weight on Adams's statements, but I did read somewhere in an unsourced document that it was rejected by seven major publishing houses and a number of minor ones; maybe that's the source of the discrepancy.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] critical reception

If we are going to keep Selma G. Lanes critique of the novel, I would encourage putting it in the criticism section. "Male chauvinism" is can not really be considered an intended "Theme". --Knulclunk (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I still have to flesh this section out, but although Lanes has a point of view and is criticizing (in the pejorative sense) the novel for what she perceives an anti-feminist theme, it is a theme. To restrict a treatment of the all-male characters-of-action to the Reception section would be doing that element a disservice. I still recall noting the limited role of the does 30 years ago when I first read the book, which isn't surprising given the attention that role receives. I have no idea whether Adams consciously wrote the story that way (which is curious given that his Lockley source describes a matriarchal society), but I recall reading somewhere that he modeled the camaraderie aspect on his WWII combat experiences (all male). Again, the fact that Lanes wrote a review ("criticism" in the neutral sense) does deserve mention in the Reception section; "criticism" in both the literary and pejorative senses should be mentioned in the Themes section. Also, I just did a quick Google on WD, themes, and feminism and see that eNotes even has an essay on WD anti-feminism on its website.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the author consciously wrote the novel based on WWII combat experiences, that would be a male-camaraderie theme, not an anti-feminist theme. --Knulclunk (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A reviewer can discuss, praise, or condemn a fiction work based on its themes (among other aspects, of course), and a literary critic can research and analyze those same themes. For example, a reviewer may give a thumbs down (or up) on a Sam Peckinpah film for its extensive depiction of violence (e.g. "Peckinpah's world is a man's world, and feminists have castigated his films as misogynistic and sexist, especially concerning the murder of a woman during the final moments of The Wild Bunch, the rape sequence in Straw Dogs and Doc McCoy's physical assault of his wife in The Getaway."). A film critic could also delve into the thread of violence themes Peckinpah is known for employing in his works (e.g. "Themes: Peckinpah's approach to violence is often misinterpreted. Many critics see his worldview as a misanthropic, Hobbesian view of nature as essentially evil and savage. In fact, Peckinpah himself stated the opposite. He saw violence as the product of human society, and not of nature.").
In this case, Lanes – a literary critic – acts as both a reviewer and a critic in her NYT Book Review: she expresses disapproval of the book for its apparent anti-feminist theme (a very contemporary issue in 1974) and provides a meaty analysis of the theme itself. Also, I just did a quick Google on WD, themes, and feminism and see that eNotes even has an essay on WD's anti-feminism on its website (and they charge for it).
As for the male-camaraderie theme, Lanes's essay focused on anti-female, so that's the name of the theme. If we can find a source that discusses male camaraderie, then that will be called something different. Depends on the sources.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
PS A theme doesn't have to be "intended". Perceived works just as well (or, as some literary critics argue, it is the only valid perspective -- a school of thought puts no weight on what the artist intends).
Jim Dunning | talk 04:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would then propose that the Lanes review stay in criticism as it is written from the fairly narrow worldview of a 1974 book review, and, as you put it, "its apparent anti-feminist theme" was "a very contemporary issue in 1974". To discuss the long term themes of a book considered now to be a classic, perhaps a throwaway book review written at the time of publishing should not be given undue weight? --Knulclunk (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on the misogyny theme

Although we use the term "critics" only one critic is used. A lazy google search bring up no other critics with a similar opinion, so I will remove it for now.

Lanes's book really is a collection of essays written for the New York Times, the quotes pulled are still from the original 1974 book review. Again, I don't deny that Lanes has a bone to pick with the book, but to elevate her interpretation of misogyny to the level of THEME seems to smack of undue weight to fringe theories.

Personally, I still find Lanes's review ludicrous. I mean, the main characters, particularly Bigwig and Fiver, repeatedly and openly dismiss does as little more than breeding stock. The rabbits seldom show any empathy to one another throughout the entire story. Only in Coswslip's warren do rabbits develop more complex relationships and here are considered very "unrabbit-like". In fact, when faced with the apparent death of Fiver, his brother, Hazel seems to have little emotion about it at all; "it is a shame". I realize I may have veered off into Original Research here, but Lanes's desire to attribute actual gender-specific motivations to characters that repeatedly have less-than-human response to social situations just seems misguided. Perhaps Adams was intentionally implying that rabbit culture, like any gatherer culture on the cusp of survival, may not have the luxury of gender sensitivity? (I suppose I would need to find a source for that.) --Knulclunk (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and NPOV say that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." At this point we have a reliable secondary and tertiary source that supports the presence of the theme of misogyny in WD. WP:UNDUE continues, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." Well, "views" are not being compared here. There is the Misogyny viewpoint, but no opposing view of, say, Misanthropy – or Feminism, or Gender Equality for that matter – to have a situation where undue prominence is being given to one at the expense of the other(s).
In this situation there is no "minority" perspective. In fact, since the theory Lanes espouses is the only one included in the article "published by a reliable source" on the area of discussion, it appears to be the majority opinion (or at least the only one) as far as WP Policies go. I understand you disagree with Lanes's argument (okay, you called it "ludicrous"), but her credentials certainly qualify her as a reliable, credible source, so it can be presented here. At this point, the only contrasting viewpoint is yours (your arguments are interesting). But, as you said above, find a source to support it, and then insert the material into the article. That would be great, since the article would be even more interesting and the more valuable to reader for it. NPOV and UNDUE only apply when there are contrasting views involved. Let's find "published" contrasting views and then let's get into it about NPOV (lol).
Thanks for bringing this up. Another thing I wanted to mention is that a limited-availability-source perspective is not automatically a "fringe theory." As I said, Lanes's credentials are reason enough to include her theories here, and argue against her being a fringe-theorist. However, you prompted me to look further since I have been concerned about "single source" issues (yes, I recognize I'm using Lanes as both a secondary and tertiary source – not that there's anything wrong with that). A lazy Google also shows that while online "reliable source" references to a misogynic theme in WD are not prolific, there are some, and common readers aplenty have not only taken notice of such a theme but have taken the effort to post it online. Admittedly not all necessarily WP:RSs for citing, but an interesting occurrence for a fringe theory:
That's in just two minutes of looking and vetting hundreds of hits (I'm sure I missed a few). More later. Thanks for making me look for more sources: there were a couple possible reliable sources there. I'm also keeping an eager eye out for contrasting viewpoints!
Jim Dunning | talk 11:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Themes

I have no proof, but I'm sure there's a source somewhere that envisions the novel as a reworking of the Aeneid: the hero flees his destroyed home with a band of survivors, and settles somewhere else after defeating the locals. The securing of female rabbits also smacks of Livy's "Rape of the Sabine Women" story from early (putative) Roman history. FWIW. Ifnkovhg (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find the source that would be great. I've got more material on the similar Odyssey (topic already started in Themes) and will be adding that. Livy's "Rape" is already mentioned relative to the treatment of females in the novel (also in Themes). More would be welcome.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further GA review

The previous reviewer (User:Malachirality) appears to be MIA, and since there's a backlog of Literature noms at WP:GAC, I'll finish this up for them. There are currently two "citation needed" tags in the article, one in "Pub. history" and the other in "Critical" reception; referenced need to be provided or the material removed in order to satisfy WP:V. The novel's themes are somewhat limited and I'm concerned that there are only two major ones defined with very limited sourcing (again, the problem here is verifiability). The previous reviewer had an issue with the "Characters" section being too stingy, and I have to say that I agree; this is your chance to add more plot details or information about character development/background that are not outlined elsewhere. For example, I remember reading in my copy's preface that my favorite character, Blackberry, shows up late in the book because Adams had forgotten until his daughters reminded him -- just an example, of course. Some things are already listed at List of characters in Watership Down, such as Kehaar being based upon a fighter from the Norwegian Resistance during WWII. Little details like this may help bring this article to life.

As of now this is still limited in scope. Would it be easier to just close the nomination for now and leave time for further expansion? María (habla conmigo) 14:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just on a plot point: what do you mean by Blackberry showing up "late in the book"? He's first mentioned (as "a buck with black-tipped ears") on the second page of the novel, and first appears by name at the start of chapter three (out of 50). Loganberry (Talk) 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Doh, not Blackberry, my mistake. Bluebell. From the Introduction to the Perennial Classics Edition: "I used to read installments to the girls as I wrote them, and often they made suggestions themselves, or reminded me that I had left out some features of the original story told in the car. They remembered, for instance, the comic rabbit Bluebell, and this is why, in the book, he arrives late in the scene." Again, I'm not suggesting this be added; this is minor at best, but similar "behind the scenes" additions would really be an asset. María (habla conmigo) 02:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There haven't been any edits to the article in four days, and it seems that the main contributors are MIA. I'm going to close this nomination for the time being with the hope that the reason for the quietness is that my comments and the comments from the previous reviewer need further time to work on. Best of luck on improving this article on such a great novel, guys! If you have any questions, please do contact me. María (habla conmigo) 12:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeric Themes

I wanted to put a general correction. You can say that the themes are "Homeric", but as much as they are found in the Aeneid. Most of the scholars would point out an Aeneid connection (and from what I have seen in the sources given, this is true), which deals with the re-founding of a country after its destruction. The one scene that is compared to the Lotus Eaters in parenthesis, for example, would really be about Dido and Carthage. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Virgil's Aeneid is already mentioned in the "Themes" section and "Homeric" is only used in the lead, unless I'm mistaken. That could be made clearer per WP:LEAD, perhaps. The last point you bring up is certainly interesting, but a reliable source that makes the connection would help so as to avoid WP:OR. María (habla conmigo) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Schmoll, Edward A. “Homeric Reminiscence in Watership Down.” Classical and Modern Literature 10.1 (1989): 21-26.
That article argues that all of the scenes of the book are reflected by the individual section headings. I'm a little surprised by how Rothen missattributed too many of the scenes to the wrong Odyssey scene. I guess she never read the Aeneid. Regardless, she isn't used for this section in particular. The Cowslip warren comes at section 13, which is prefaced with Tennyson's "The Lotus-Eaters". Now, this is different than saying it is the Lotus Eaters scene of the Odyssey. I would find the text that I cited and see if you can incorporate any of the comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

OK, let's get stuck into it....I'll put notes below. A preliminary look-through looks promising. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The animals in the novel live in their natural environment, but are anthropomorphized, - could flip the conjunctions to ' Although the animals in the novel live in their natural environment, they are anthropomorphized,' as this emphasises the second clause which then segues into the third.
his novel was rejected 13 times in all, until Rex Collings, a small publishing house, finally accepted it - actually flows better if we break the style rules and use passive - 'his novel was rejected 13 times in all, until finally accepted by Rex Collings, a small publishing house'
Additionally, some scholars have perceived a strong misogynic element. - be good to cite this for GA as could be challenged.
The subsections of the Adaptations section are a wee bit stubby. I'd just add a line or two on each to highlight their similarities (or differences) to the book, for continuity.

Otherwise, a great read and very well done. Just these tiny tweaks and yer over the line...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! I've already fixed the first and second points. For the fourth, I've added to Film and Televison, but I didn't have anything for Theatre… do we still need more? As for the third point, I would have thought a ref wasn't needed because it was covered in more detail in the subsection "Misogyny". Either way, I didn't work on that section at all so I have no idea, but I'll poke around a bit and see what I can find. Mr. Absurd (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a cite is needed since that paragraph was created as a "Lead" for the Themes section, and the cite is below it (similar to how the article Lead is handled). Similarly, there is no cite for the reference to the heoric elements in the sentence below it. Great job on expanding the film adaptation section, BTW. Excellent addition.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nevermind - the two bits referred are referenced further down, leaving only one cite tag which is from the book anyway, so all good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dedication

This is certainly not a big deal, but I noticed that my copy of Watership Down (published sometime after the movie, not sure which year) formats the dedication differently from the article. It looks like this:

To
Juliet and Rosamund
remembering
the road to Stratford-on-Avon

as opposed to this:

To Juliet and Rosamund,
remembering
the road to Stratford-on-Avon

Is it my copy that's different from the original, or the version in the article wrong? Mr. Absurd (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The copy I have access to (a very early edition) is formatted similarly to the the box I placed in the article. I don't think it matters. An alternative might be to photo the actual page an place it in the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. I was pretty sure my version was wrong, but I just wanted to make sure. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a matter of one version being right or wrong — it's the thought that counts! lol
Jim Dunning | talk 03:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On towards FAC

I was musing on this and upon reflection was impressed with the prose (usually the most challenging and heartbreaking aspect of FAC). I am however not too exeprt on literature, so thought if Jbmurray, Awadewit and/or Wrad would be best literary critics I can think of off the top of my head before going on there. Someone may remember some other literary critique we haven't thought of. Also, was watership down the first of the anthropomorphised animal books? eg legacy which spawned Duncton Wood, the Rats of NIMH etc. and has someone written something noting this? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On anthropomorphized animal books: Beatrix Potter and Wind in the Willows. Meanwhile, Awadewit's the person for children's literature (though I realize that it may be somewhat controversial to call WD children's literature!). I really don't know the critical literature, if it exists. A quick look at Google books gives me [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and [8] as possibly useful sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm very much interested in helping to develop the article further, but I urge caution and patience. I thought this article was prematurely nominated for GA, and it took a bit of scrambling to bring it up to snuff (barely) from where it started just over a month ago. The resources listed above are helpful, but to move toward FAC, professional research tools and access to non-online resources (such as those at university libraries) will be needed. I just don't want to rush this: the focus shouldn't be on FAC per se, but creating a top-notch article.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, offline sources are the things which really help make good FAs, I think they have been instrumental in all of mine without exception, so definitely no rush. I was just giving a heads up to see where this led. Some of mine were delayed months due to not finding what I needed, and biology was a heckuva lot easier than these sorta ones...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)