Talk:Middlemarch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mary Garth

I changed the line about Mary Garth's "publishing a volume of poetry" because the novel gives no indication that it is a book of poetry: "But when Mary wroet a little book for her boys, called Stories of Great Men, taken from Plutarch, and had it printed and published ..." (fifth paragraph of the Finale). My new version just says "published an historical volume for boys" and I encourage anyone else to improve upon the phrasing, but I think it's more accurate now.

Morrisey trivia

I added this. (God, I'm literate! :-)) SmokeyTheCat 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Dorothea

Citing some article second-rate journal seems like poor excuse to me for making the 'criticism' section notable. Judging by its lack of other citations its either a direct summary of the article, which doesn't seem encyclopedic, its using unsourced statements, or original claims. Without any arguement for in the next week I'll cut the section since it's unecyclopedic no matter how you slice it. Wilhelm Ritter 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'Criticism of Dorothea' section has been reverted, without comment, by an anonymous user from a public IP, and without any noticable modification at first glance. I think my concerns with this section remain: namely, it is more or less a paraphrase or summary of someone else's work, not an original contribution, and is unencyclopedic in tone and content: "George Eliot's rhetoric is often a fairly reliable guide to characters from whom she is distant – such as Rosamond, Casaubon, and Bulstrode – but by repeatedly insisting that Dorothea is saintly, Eliot undercuts her otherwise brilliant portrayal of an idealistic, complex, yet flawed human being."--this is a statement that belongs in a literary essay, not in an encyclopedia, and the rest of the section is much the same. Wilhelm Ritter 23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see some discussion of literary criticism in articles on novels. Instead of a "Criticism of Dorothea" section, I'd like a "Literary Criticism" section, and it could be seeded with no more than three sentences on this particular article, suggesting the possibility of building up the section with material on other sources. Bertport 02:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Time Top Ten

Hmm. It seems that someone has added a reference to every book on the top ten list at http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html as being "named by Time as one of the top ten books of all time." This statement isn't really accurate; the online Time article is actually about a recent book (The Top Ten) which is just a compilation of various contemporary authors' personal top ten lists. To say that Time named any of these books as the "ten greatest of all time" is basically just incorrect.

Causabon

I deleted the suggestion that Causabon perhaps had asperbergers. This is interpretation, and a rather spurious one at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Middlemarch/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Classed "B" as this is quite a full article, but for such a work it is in serious need of more material on notability, a ==Literary significance & criticism==, ==Major themes== & ==Allusions/references from other works== sections should all be possible. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)