Talk:Of Human Bondage

Untitled

Dave59’s points all seem valid to me. It might also help people to know two key bits of autobiography. One is that Maugham was plagued by a stammer, which he transfers to Philip as a clubfoot. The other is that his sexual orientation was homosexual, then illegal in the UK, so we can read a lot into Philip’s relationships with women and with other men. The Lawless One (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

I reverted this removal because I couldn't see the problem with the summary. If there's a specific problem, I'd recommend explaining what it is and removing only the problematic sentences, rather than removing the section wholesale. Thanks, delldot talk 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Being bold is no excuse for unexplained removal. "didn't think it was good enough" doesn't come close to being an explanation. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is twenty years since I have read O.H.B. and I no longer own a copy of it. I deleted the plot summary from this article because I genuinely believe that no plot summary is better than a thoroughly bad one. I didn't try to replace it because this is an extremely long and complex book and to write a good summary is probably beyond my skills. However I do hope that someone more skilled than I who has read the book more recently will try. I have the following specific objections to the current one

1 Philips major motivation for giving up school and moving to Heidelberg is a broken friendship at school. He spoils this friendship partly with his own over sensitivity

2 The major interest of the year in Heidelberg is the contrast between the two friends he makes. The romantic and conversationally adept Englishman who is superficially appealing but his achieved remarkably little in his life and the steadier and more pragmatic American.

3 Philip emphatically does not “fall under the spell” of Miss Wilkinson. She is a rather silly middle-aged woman who flirts with the inexperienced Philip who eventually sleeps with her despite finding her distinctly physically unappealing. Ultimately Philips behaviour towards her is rather cruel and this behaviour towards women he does not find physically attractive is repeated later in the book

4 Philips skills as an artist are not “less than mediocre”. He is a competent enough painter but realises he has little genuine talent or originality. As he took up art because he wanted to be brilliant rather than competent he decides to give it up. There is a contrast here with Cronshaw who has genuine talent but no commercial success and consequently a miserable life.

5 Philip does not do well at Medical School he finds the work hard and struggles to pass his exams

6 Mildred forms a very significant part of the book .She is neither beautiful nor intelligent and Phillip is very well aware of this. Neither has she any sexual interest in Phillip and he initially believes her to be cold. In the end it turns out that she just prefers a more robust brand of masculinity than Phillips. Despite all of this and his contempt for her petit bourgeois pretensions Philip forms a powerful and destructive sexual obsession with her that he is unable to resist. He only frees himself of this after seeing her working as a prostitute after he had recently diagnosed her with syphilis, then an incurable and universally fatal condition. One of the central themes of the book seems to be how little our strongest impulses have to do with morality or even common sense.

7 On finishing medical school Philip unexpectedly and almost by accident discovers he has a talent for family medicine and decides to marry the daughter of one of his friends and live the life of a hard working country doctor. At the end of the book her seems satisfied with his decision and to have attained a measure of maturity and a rough and ready philosophy of following his own instincts “with due regard for the policeman round the corner.”

Major themes seem to be coming of age, the inexplicability of human passions and finding meaning and value in a godless world. I am not going to spend days trying to put this elegantly but I do think the present article is poor and we would be better off without it.Dave59 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, excellent explanation. I'm in a bit of a bind since I haven't read the book at all. I went through and changed wording to try and deal with your concerns, but I wasn't able to address everything. We should find someone who's read the book recently and who's willing to vet it. Or at least a good summary. Thanks for catching this! delldot talk 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I stuck a {{disputed-section}} tag under plot summary, so hopefully that will bring folks' attention to the issue. It'll include the article in Category:Accuracy disputes, so hopefully that will help. delldot talk 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User "Postdlf" made an inappropriate removal of data I had added earlier regarding a reference from "Empty Nest". Who died and made Postdlf god? No one did, and no one ever will. In his selfish godlike complex-way, the contribution of "Of Human Bondage is mentioned in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "The Freshman"; in a conversation with Buffy, a college student named Eddie calls the book his "security blanket"." SHOULD ALSO BE REMOVED. As both Buffy and Empty Nest are tv shows. In fact, I would not have made the addition, if I had not seen another tv show listing a likewise reference. Someone keep an "eye" on that obnoxious editor, thanks, as he is destined to keep vandalizing. As this is not a communist encyclopedia.

Clumsy prose

I haven't read such sophomoric, or "sophomoronic" writing since I wasa in high school, and that was a long time ago. If poor old Somerset got a whiff of this putrid pap, he would probably gag in his grave. If this pallid offering was turned in for a highschool literature class it could not possibly merit more than a "D" grade. Genuine scholars take umbrage with Wikipedia because of sloppy research, poor thinking, and clumsy prose. This article is a poster child for that very valid criticism. Someone who knows better ought to set some standards and raise the bar just a little beyond the eighth grade remedial reading class.Mattyri 06:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to rise to such obvious bait but isn’t “sophomoric” a rather sophomoric word? The whole point of Wikepedia is “if you think you can do better then have a go” so come on Mattyri. Its “theme and stucture, imagery and tone” can’t be that difficult can it?Dave59 18:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I get frustrated with internet reviewers who make vague criticisms but never back it up with reasoning or examples. If a reviewer about whom I know nothing just says a work is bad, how can I tell whether the problem is with the work or with the reviewer's judgement? 73.82.47.164 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello people. I just ordered this book, and I plan to read it soon. I am not the greatest writer of English (not a native speaker), but I can read English just fine, and I should be able to help with the accuracy problem. It might take me about a month to complete this. ssepp^(talk) 19:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Dave, not to put too fine a point on it, however, making excuses for bad writing simply opens the door to more mediocrity. To borrow a phrase from the venerable Gore Vidal: "No talent is not enough!" The Wikipedia touts itself as being an encyclopedia, and so I believe it is reasonable to expect that it present a higher standard of prose style and intellectual content than say, a blog, or a message board. Otherwise, it will have a difficult time measuring up to what most folks in the world hope to find within the pages of that marvelous edifice called the encyclopedia.Mattyri 03:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks S Sepp! Sounds good.

Mattyri, is there a part you find especially problematic? Is it the wording or the content? Would you be willing to fix it yourself, or are you asking others to? Thanks for the input, we always need constructive criticism. delldot talk 22:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is still lamentable. A new copy would cost me £6.99.I don’t know that I could stand the adolescent angst of reading it again. I’m very busy at work. Will somebody who can write a sentence please please re do this?Dave59 09:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to spend money on a new copy...just go to the Project Gutenberg link on the page itself and you have the whole thing. I'm sorry I can't write well enough to write a decent review.Bfishburne 5:36, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Cover image

If it's truly a cover of the first edition, which was published in 1915, then Template:PD-US would apply (pre-1923 publication) at a minimum, if not Template:PD-text. However, it's not just a flat scan of the cover, but a photograph of the book at an angle, which means that the photograph is of a 3-D object and is itself independently copyrightable. I don't see a claim to using someone else's photograph of the book, which would count as replaceable under WP:NFCC. The image should be replaced with a flat scan of the cover (or dust jacket preferably, if there was one) or a user-created photograph of the book if you want to show the spine as well as the front cover. postdlf (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)