Talk:David Copperfield/Archive 1

Archive 1

David's Birthplace

I changed David's birthplace to Suffolk, as specifically indicated in the novel: 'I was born at Blunderstone, in Suffolk, or "thereby," as they say in Scotland' (David Copperfield, New York: Norton, 1990, p. 10)

--81.101.2.134 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked my copy and it says it there, too :) Stephenb (Talk) 18:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

remove statement

I removed the statement that DC is "orphaned by his father", since the mother is still alive. The subsequent reference to the step-father makes this and the father's death clear anyway. Markalexander100 10:31, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) 205.200.193.210 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC) SPOILER WARNING N E 1? 205.200.193.210 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC) P. Stoff.

under characters

under where it lists the other characters, under uriah heep, it say "umble" is this a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.116.43 (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No; this is a direct quotation from the book. Dickens intentionally used different spelling when quoting characters to portray speech mannerisms common to particular classes and dialects.ElrondPA (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Kafka's Amerika

There's a minor error on the article that states that Amerika was Franz Kafka's last novel when it was in fact his first. I'll just replace "last" with "first".

Four or six movies

The David Copperfield disamb page lists six movies (and states they are all connected to the novel), while this article lists only four under the header Adaptations. These are clearly in contradiction to each other. – b_jonas

Too many people NEVER read the books because the movies have spoiled their interest. Dick Scalper (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Animated Musical Version of David Copperfield?

I've been trying to find any information I can about an animated movie based on this novel that I recall watching when I was younger. All of the characters in it were anthropomorphized animals, and I remember that the version had songs throughout, in the same style as your typical Disney movie. I seem to recall that the main character was a feline of sorts, and other little bits and pieces, such as a cheese wheel factory, and a big flying bird, and some other weird things. Maybe I'm just way off on this, but I was absolutely certain it was based on this book.

I can't seem to find any mention of it on the IMDB or on Wikipedia. Does anyone know what I'm on about?

Silkweed 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Title

Is the end of the title really "on my account" or should it be "on any account"? 172.145.98.230 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Mapjc

I just added a footnote on the title problem. -- Stbalbach 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It clearly says "meant to be published," not "meant to publish." Look at the word count. --Muna (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Interpretive text

Removed the following text as it is too interpretive. Not allowable under "no original research".

As a bildungsroman, it has one major theme throughout, the disciplining of the hero's emotional and moral life. We learn to go against "the first mistaken impulse of the undisciplined heart", a theme which is repeated throughout all the relationships and characters in the novel.

Characters in the novel generally belong to one of three categories: Those who have disciplined hearts, those who lack disciplined hearts, or those who develop disciplined hearts over time. Characters who fall into the first category include the mature and caring Agnes Wickfield and the selfless and forgiving Mr. Peggotty. The greedy, scheming Uriah Heep and the egotistic and inconsiderate James Steerforth are examples of characters who belong in the second category. Members of the third category include David Copperfield himself, who learns to make wiser choices in his relationships through personal experience, and his aunt Betsey Trotwood, who lacks consideration for others early on, but becomes less inconsiderate over time. Dickens uses characters and events throughout the novel as comparisons and contrasts for each other in terms of wisdom and discipline. A good comparison is Agnes Wickfield and Dora Spenlow: Dora lacks maturity and is unable to handle stressful situations, often breaking out in tears, while Agnes remains calm and collected even when troubled, yielding to her emotions only rarely. Another good comparison is Ham and Mr. Peggotty, and Mrs. Steerforth and Miss Dartle: The latter two become distraught at the loss of Steerforth, allowing it to trouble them their whole lives, while the former two bear the loss of Emily with dignity and reservation.

Victorianist (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Links

I added a link to dora spenlow on wikipedia seeing as it wasn't linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.149.71 (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is David an orphan

Did David's mother die at a sufficiently early stage in his life for us to call him an orphan? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. Orphan Wiki (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr Creakle

I personally think that this edit shows Mr. Creakle in too favourable a light. More so than he should be. He is, after all, one the bane's of David's school days. Thoughts? Orphan Wiki (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Emily

Is it accurate to claim that Emily was found working as a prostitute in London? I think, Daniel Peggotty and Copperfield recruit Martha (who is a prostitute) in anticipation that Emily would come to Martha seeking her help.74.101.63.139 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of Children

I have corrected the statement that David and Agnes have "three children" to "at least four children". This is proved in two different ways: 1. (start of Chapter lxiii) "three of our children were playing" implies that there were more than three in total ; 2. (same chapter) there are allusions to "little Agnes (our eldest child)" to another girl called Betsey Trotwood to whom DC's aunt is godmother and also to "one of our boys", implying that there are thus at least two boys and at least two girls. (BrianBoruIV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Boru IV (talk • contribs) 09:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Conidering that the page David Copperfield (illusionist) has usually more views than David Copperfield, I think that David Copperfield should be renamed David Copperfield (novel) and David Copperfield (disambiguation) should be renamed David Copperfield. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - in the long term the novel will still be a source of interest long after the illusionist is forgotten. PRL42 (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

First, you have to prove that the illusionist will be forgotten and won't be a source of interest even after his death (facts have priority over opinions), then you should also consider that the guidelines talk about primary topic, and right now the novel isn't: for example, in the last 30 days the page about the illusionist has been seen by 48,660 people, while the page about the novel by only 40,243 people, and the gap would be even greater if we consider that the page about the novel is also seen by people who write "David Copperfield" looking for the illusionist. So, it seems that what is said here at 2:22 is very true, but I'm not suggesting that the illusionist page should be the main one, just that the disambiguation page should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newblackwhite (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, my last post haven't recieved an answer since April 22. Are there other people interested in this dispute? --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the archived discussion on this topic that was concluded just a few weeks before your post. I suspect people may have thought that you were taking the mick, given that a consensus against your proposal was so clearly reached and acted upon very recently. PRL42 (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion you are referring is a year and three months old, so it's not as recent as it seems from your message, and there's nothing wrong in tryng to find a new consensus. I am not an English native speaker, and I don't know what "taking the mick" means. Anyway, I have just read Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and I am even more convinced that the disambiguation page should be the main page. In fact, the page about the illusionist keeps getting more views than this one (in this month, 16,551 views for the illusionist vs 14,745 views for the novel), despite the fact that some people looking for the illusionist may accidentally end up in this page but not vice versa (without this, the gap would be even greater). If you google "David Copperfield", most results on the first pages are about the illusionist, same on google images, same on youtube etc. Note that I'm not suggesting that the illusionist page should be the main one (that would be too much), just that the disambiaguation page should be. I also suggest to watch this video, as the sentence at 2:22 is related to this topic. The only reason that could be used against my requested move would be the "long-term significance", but it would be a weak argument, since there are no proofs that the bilance of significance will change in the future. I hope that someone will discuss this with me, since I was not involved in the last debate. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Still. I think you have to accept, from the lack of response to your last attempt, that you are not going to achieve any consensus for change. Probably better to move on - there is plenty of other useful work to be done. PRL42 (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I know that "there is plenty of other useful work to be done", in fact I am following many pages, but this is not a reason for me to abandon a discussion that I find useful. If none besides you answered this, we can signal this discussion in other related pages, like Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist), or even call a third option request. But since at least you answered me, I hope you are going to write more elaborate messages: I mean, I wrote plenty of reasons as to why the novel is not in any way the primary topic, and all I got were two lines messages that didn't even bother to analize or reject my reasons. Incidentally, I am still trying to figure out what "taking the mick" means. --Newblackwhite (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We have had the debate relatively recently. I responded out of politeness but, generally, no one is interested in having the same discussion again. The technique of continually trying to start a new debate just because you didn't like the outcome of the previous one in irritating in the extreme. As to 'taking the mick', is Google disabled on your machine for some reason? PRL42 (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"We have had the debate relatively recently": very relatively I would say, as the debate was a year and three months ago. Also, "continually trying to start a new debate just because you didn't like the outcome"... not only I didn't have a chance to partecipate in the last debate, but in my messages I added NEW arguments that weren't considered at all in the last debate, so it's perfectly legitimate for me to restart this debate (not "continually", as it's the first time). You said you are irritated, but I should be the irritated one, as I pointed out that the current status of this page violates Wikipedia:Disambiguation and none analyzed the question. Yes, I figured out the meaning of your expression, definitely one I wouldn't use. --Newblackwhite (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Rating and Character List

This article is inexplicably rated as a Start on Quality Scale in the WikiProject Novels. Changing to B.

Also, does anyone else find the Character list too detailed? We could do with some more material on the theme and structure instead. Bubka42 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The character list would be much more useful if it was in alphabetical order. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1