Talk:The Glass Bees

What does the title mean?

The main page of this article would be improved if somebody posted the story line, or plot. And why is it called The Glass Bees (as opposed to bees made of wood, or plastic, or even rubber)? 216.99.201.138 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A full version of this article is forthcoming. And the article is called The Glass Bees because that's the name of the novel it's about..? Sindinero (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

A couple of bits of information if someone can use them in the article. If any of this is useful I can provide the citation info.

Tuck gives the first edition with what seems to be a typo: Gläserne Bienes (1957). Stuttgart: E. Klett. First US edition uncertain, but Tuck's SF Encyclopedia gives The Glass Bees (as by Ernst Juenger), 1961. New York: Noonday. 149pp, $3.75; #204, pa $1.65) which I believe means that the paperback was $1.65. I think 204 must be a serial number. Per Reginald the hardback is clothbound. The Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia gives the German title as Gläserne Bienen, which is correct I believe; they also say the first translation is 1960 (which conflicts with what Tuck says), by Louise Bogan and Elizabeth Mayer, but give no publishing details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of us found a couple of sources that people may be able to cite for the various sections. It would also be useful to look at whatever sources are cited by the article already.

• Bullock, Marcus Paul (1992). The Violent Eye: Ernst Jünger’s Visions and Revisions on the European Right. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. ISBN 0814323340. (This is on reserve at Uris)
• Fore, Devin (Fall 2008). "The Entomic Age". Grey Room (33). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press: 26–55. Retrieved 21 April 2011.
• Goudreau, Kim (18 August 2010). "Lend Me Your Ears: The Truth in the Fiction of The Glass Bees by Ernst Jünger". Bulletin of Technology & Society. 30 (4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishers: 240–246. doi:10.1177/0270467610373817. Retrieved 21 April 2011. (I think this has already been cited once)
• Haar, Jan Jaap ter (2005). The Broken Past: World War II in Ernst Jünger's Later Works (PDF) (M.A. thesis). Simon Fraser University. Retrieved 17 April 2011.
• Kochhar-Lindgren, Gray (9 December 1998). "Ethics, Automation, and the Ear: Capitalism, Technology, and the Suspension of Animation in Ernst Jünger's The Glass Bees". CTHEORY. University of Victoria. Retrieved 17 April 2011.

--Dc552 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Citing sources

Sources should be cited either as footnotes or as parenthetical references. See here for more information on how to do this. A particularly easy way to generate footnotes is by clicking on "cite" at the top of the editing window. Sindinero (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Short citations?

I changed the Themes and Motifs citations from all full citations to everything after the first one being shortened - do we want to make them all shortened and then add full citations at the bottom under the References section? This seems to be the best way to me, but I'm leaving the full one in for now for...well, reference, I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelehjay (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For the Reception section, I used shortened footnotes for footnotes, then used the citation templates for the bibliography, but that's just me. Whatever way we do it, we should be consistent throughout the article. (Look at the article or the sandbox on my page for what I mean.) --Dc552 (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Draft of Article

(To other editors - a large group of us will be drafting this article in this section over the next few days before moving it to the namespace. We welcome your comments! If you have suggestions, please start a new section on this talk page and let us know how we could improve the article.) Sindinero (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Abstract

Glass Bees is a novel by the German author Ernst Junger. First published in 1957, the novel is set between what appears to be two wars, and follows (the) two day job search of ex cavalryman (Cpt. Richard), who is stuck in a world that is too technologically advanced for him. The story is a first person narrative (frequently digressing) to flashbacks in his life ranging from his childhood to his days (as a soldier). During his job search, he stumbles upon a potential position at Zapparoni Works, a respected company (dealing in technological advances in the everyday world-This sentence is odd). Subsequently, both the reader and the narrator are lead to discover the delicate balance between nature and technology. Sahejvir (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Sahejvir

The main problem in the abstract is the line that says, "between what appears to be two wars". This was not meant for the final article since we needed to confirm the time period of the timeline of the events in the book. Does anyone know which wars was in between, or which war was it after? With that information, we could change the said line.Sahejvir (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Sahejvir

The abstract is good but could use some more information. I was thinking you can add that this was written in german and translated to english. Also i think its important to mention that this book deals with nano-technology, which at that time was an abstract concept that few considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedelsamadisi (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be more suited to maybe remove some of the content that is more plot based that will be covered by the plot summary. I feel like abstracts generally say much less about the story itself. Onurilingi (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I was just recently looking over the abstract for the novel The Great Gatsby and it seems to focus entirely on historical context like what was going on during when the novel was written and when the novel is set as well as the novel's impact in American society. I don't know if this is a route you want to take but its just something to consider.Jba57 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording in the abstract, I prefer the present tense to whatever language was being used. However, I did not change the content of the abstract, just its presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlavitt (talk • contribs) 02:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I still feel like the abstract should not mention information about the flashbacks. The flashbacks are a section in their own, and should be separated from the abstract altogether.WikiMaster287 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Character List

• Captain Richard

Captain Richard is the narrator of the novel who has past military experience. He did a broad spectrum of jobs in the military, including the role as a cavalryman and also the position of a tank inspector. In the present Richard is just a washed up ex-soldier who is poor and currently unemployed. Throughout the entire novel Richard is searching for a job. Richard is a well educated man who often reflects upon his multiple past experiences, ranging from his childhood to his time in the wars. It is easy to see that his past experiences definitely played a vital role in helping him become the man he is today.

Zapparoni

Zapparoni is the rich owner of a company that makes miniature automaton that can accomplish almost any task. Zapparoni Works is a name that is seen everywhere throughout the society in the novel ranging from movies to household appliances. Zapparoni’s company is very well known, yet the actual man behind the company, Zapparoni himself, is actually very mysterious and unknown by society. No one really knows the actually man that revolutionized technology with his infamous company: Zapparoni Works.

• Twinnings

A former cavalry man who had served with Richard. Richard had always been on the front line, where Twinnings in the reserves. Twinnings, a wise man, often gave advice to his comrades from the war. He often spoke without wasting words when giving his advice. He was also friendly with nearly everyone, other than those he was on bad terms with. This is perhaps why he had such good connections and the ability to help all of his comrades.

• Monteron

A major in the army who served the same time as Richard had. As Richard and his fellow cavalry men’s superior, Monteron instilled a genuine fear into his subordinates. He emphasized never to leave a comrade when he is in danger, whether it is in the city or on the front lines. Monteron is a youthful, neat, and well behaved individual who tried to carve his men to be the same way. He has a very short temper, particularly in the morning, and the tendency to yell and scream in a way that makes all of his subordinates who have wronged accept their misconduct. He had the respect of all of those under him because of his heart of gold. Instead of gaining pleasure out of reprimanding his men he would become deeply grieved at their failures. His genuine character had left a permanent mark on all of his men.

• Lorenz

Another one of Richard’s friends from the army, a cavalry man as well. Lorenz was an ideal soldier, well disciplined, responsible, and a firm believer in his ideals. Monteron was quite fond of Lorenz. He had been some sort of a Luddite, constantly preaching of his vision of destroying the machines which have been seen as a source of all evil, and with this destruction would come peace, health, and happiness for mankind. He was constantly mocked by his fellow soldiers for this reason. One day he realized that what he strived for was the impossible, and he leaped out of a window in a barn on the top floor and killed himself. He landed on his feet surprisingly which reflects his ability in gymnastics.

• Wittegrewe

Wittegrewe was a former model cavalry man. Wittegrewe was particularly attractive with an excellent singing voice that had all of the women fall for him immediately. He was also a horse riding instructor. He had been one of the best riders to ever live, capable of taming even the most difficult horse within an hour. It was he who had taught Richard how to ride and how to take care of his horses after long rides. Later he had quit the army to get a civilian job as a streetcar driver. Richard was very upset about this, he compared it to seeing a free roaming animal get imprisoned in a cage. Wittegrewe had looked back on his riding days as inferior and unimportant and in his new home had nothing to remind him of horses. He had become absorbed by the big city as he realized that life has the slogan “Do or Die”, and now strives to become a supervisor or an inspector.

• Teresa

Teresa is Captain Richard's wife, she always seems depressed because she thinks that she is the reason that her husband is currently unemployed and depressed. Though Richards doesn’t think that this is true. Even thought they are going through a tough time together it is clear to see that that they are deeply in love. When Captain Richards makes a decision within the novel he always considers Teresa in the equation, he always reflects on what she would think of the situation. Every decision Richards makes he thinks about how the outcome will effect Teresa.

• Atje Hanebut

Richard’s childhood mentor who taught him the ways of the outdoors. He is the leader of a group of teenage boys who look up to him as their teacher and guide to the outside world. Richard looked up to him as a source of inspiration and followed his every order just to impress him. ‘Path finder’.

• Doctor Meding

Richard’s neighbor during his childhood who was a keen connoisseur of horses. Richard remembers his love for horses grow during his time living next to the Doctor. He is a wealthy man, who has a good heart, and strives to help the poor by giving them free treatment.

• Wilhelm Bindseil

The son of the coachman in the stables who kept Richard company in the stables. He tells the boys various stories about his uncle who was a war hero, and helps teach them about horses.

• Richard’s father

Is the kind of parent that encourages education, and is a kind and even-tempered man, whom Richard looks up to. Richard never believes that his father would ever do anything to cause him harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahejvir (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider the order. I would recommend this to be ordered by importance. Like Richard first, Zapparoni second.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedelsamadisi (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a little onto zapparoni's section describing how he was a man that people "dare not speak of" and that he is omnipresent and is imagined to hear everyones conversation etc. I also agree that the order should be switched up. Onurilingi (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Sahejvir (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Sahejvir

We really don't need character descriptions of Richard's father, since he isn't a character with any substantial plot presence at all. I've deleted his description from the main article.Sahejvir (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Sahejvir

The Plot Summary

It feels like the plot summary is really hard to read. Does anybody have any thoughts on how to make it more visually appealing? Christian.Nguyen (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be shorter, and a little more to the point - that is, I think different details need to be emphasized in some places. The grammar and style need a little help too...I'm attempting to work on it now, but more than one person should contribute or it'll end up being very Amy-biased. Amelehjay (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You might consider using sub-sections as well. This would be a good idea for the historical context section too. Sindinero (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I added some sub-sections for the historical context section using the preexisting titles. Currently the plot summary is a wall of text and needs to be broken up. Perhaps breaking it up by chapters could help i.e. Chapters 1-5, 6-10, 11-15,15-20? Bea26 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the plot summary should be cut down a little bit. It seems like there is a lot of unnecessary information, which we could afford to omit. I'll also make some minor changes. -Calvin D. WikiMaster287 (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that maybe dividing the plot summary into several sections by chapters is not a bad idea. "Sindinero" said the whole paragraph about the job interview can be shortened into one sentence (sorry about that)Maestro0621 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of breaking the chapters up into 'event sections', the search, a flashback, the interview, the garden, another flashback, the conclusion. these aren't nice chapter breaks, but i feel it makes more sense this way. Does anybody object to this?Christian.Nguyen (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Chapter 8 (the last paragraph in the 4-8 section) could be moved into a new 8-10 section so that the entire interview is together. Ns5000 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Sindinero mean the entirety of the 7th paragraph? Maestro0621 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it's best to use Wikipedia user names rather than personal names to refer to other editors. :) Sindinero (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel as though we should break the plot summary up into sections of the "present" and the "flashbacks." It seems like there is too much information in the plot summary with the addition of the flashbacks. If we separated it, it could possibly make more sense. What do people think about this? WikiMaster287 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely against the idea of splitting it into plot summary and flashbacks, but wouldnt it make less sense to have plot summary independent of flashbacks. A lot of times, when Zapparoni mentions something or Richard sees certain things, his flashbacks get triggered. So, they are so closely intermingled. Maestro0621 (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont know how i feel about breaking it up based on chapters. I feel as though when we do this the article seems less like an encyclopedia entry (even though on wikipedia) and more like a sparknotes summarys kids will use to get out of reading their hw assignments. I think paragraph form would be the best and perhaps split up the summary based on key events that happened in the book itself, for example, the whole meal with twinnings and all flashbacks that took place there, his experience going to zapparoni's office and how it was in there including the flash backs, then when he goes outside and his flash backs until he smashes the bee, then the last paragraph when zapparoni comes out. And seperating the plot with the flashbacks is a bad idea in my opinion. I think that is a writing style that is very unique and key to the story and important in understanding richard's character. Each flashback was triggered by something that occurred in the story. Onurilingi (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is my edited version

Chapters 1-3 Captain Richard goes to a former comrade Twinnings to find a job. Twinnings says that he can only be sure of getting a job with a “catch”;[11] specifically, he suggests a morally questionable position working for the most powerful man within the novel’s world, Giacomo Zapparoni. Zapparoni builds robots; occasionally one of his engineers deserts the company and he needs a man to ‘take care of’ the problem. As he contemplates the offer, Richard explains the importance of Zapparoni’s inventions and has the first of many flashbacks; he tells of his days in the Military Academy, and remembers the impact his strict but caring instructor, Monteron, had on him and the other cavalrymen, including Twinnings. After much thought, Richard reluctantly accepts the job interview. Two days after the meeting with Twinnings, Richard goes to Zapparoni Works. He expects only a basic interview, but instead he is brought to Zapparoni’s private living quarters.

Chapters 4-8

While waiting nervously for Zapparoni, Richard notices how Zapparoni’s house has a surprisingly moderate and old-fashioned aesthetic for such an incredibly wealthy and powerful owner. Richard flashes back to the past, where he witnessed the demise of cavalry in the wake of modern weapons. He glorifies old-fashioned military tactics and degrades modern warfare. In his flashback, Richard talks about Lorenz and his death. Richard believes Lorenz’s death exemplifies the fate of those who cannot “find firm ground under his feet in the present.” (pg 64) As the flashback continues, Richard talks about his attraction toe historical figures who had misfortunes, such as the younger Cato, Hector, and Hannibal. By saying misfortune is contagious, Richard implies he has been unsuccessful. While Richard talks about the demise of Cavalry due to modern weapons, he introduces his old instructor Wittegrewe, who in Richard’s mind exemplified dignity and glory of the past. Upon finding Wittegrewe to be an ordinary civilian without his former virtues, Richard becomes disappointed. Toward the end of the flashback, Richard briefly talks about his evaluation by superiors; he was branded as “outsider with defeatist inclinations" Back in Zapparoni’s library, Richard sees an old man coming in, and senses a powerful vibe from him, who turns out to be Zapparoni.[13] From this first encounter, Richard has come to believe there is something more to Zapparoni than his intelligence. Chapters 9-10 Zapparoni talks about Fillmor. In a monologue, Richard contrasts Fillmor with Lorenz and Twinnings. Unlike either Lorenz and Twinnings, Richard believes Fillmor is cold hearted and purely driven by ambition. Richard reveals that he is a man of failure whereas Fillmor is a man of success. Richard does not regard Fillmor favorably, as Richard believes Filmor is a man without imagination, yet he feels he has no right to judge Filmor, as Filmor has been highly successful. When Zapparoni asks Richard for his opinion on Filmor’s memoir, Richard is unsure of how to respond. As a part of the interview, Zapparoni asks Richard about troop morale, both in times of success and surrender, and explains how when under threat, the will of the army is never unified. Over the course of this conversation, Zapparoni manages to begin with ground on which Richard feels comfortable, the talk of war, and completely control the discussion eventually forcing Richard into an uncomfortable position. Not long after Richard realizes this, Zapparoni announces that he has other matters to attend to, and asks that Richard wait for him in the garden. As a final word, Zapparoni warns Richard “Beware of the bees”.[14]

Chapters 11-15

Out in the garden, Richard, through a pair of highly advanced glasses, discovers a few hives of ‘glass bees’, along with some normal bees. Watching them, the narrator observes how the robotic bees are much more efficient at being bees than the actual bees are, and marvels in their construction. As he watches the bees, he notices a pond filled with severed human ears. After this frightening encounter, Richard considers reporting the severed ears to the police but realizes that, because of Zapparoni’s position of power, Zapparoni would just frame him for removal of ears.

Chapters 16-18

Richard claims to follow his principle of leaving the situation alone, but recalls hearing advice in a café in Vienna that one must be aware of small details at all times. He considers an escape from this job and possibly undertaking another desk job. Richard flashes back to his early days of childhood, when he followed an older boy Atje Hanebut who ruled over Richard and a gang of other 12-year-olds. Atje ruled them by. Richard also befriended and was influenced by Wilhelm Bindseil, who came from a family with military background. Seeing his admiration of the military, Richard’s father encourages him by providing him military books. In an incident of playing in the woods, the boys started a forest fire. They retreated to a tower in their local church and escaped blame. Although Richard was never caught for the deed, he woke up screaming at nights, and his guilty conscience haunted him. Atje often instructed the kids to do deeds that Richard thought was immoral. Yet Richard became the highest rank in the group, under Atje who calls himself the Chief. One day, Atje leads the boys to a skirmish, where they encounter and beat a school boy, the leader of the rival gang. Richard stops Atje and calls his attention to the boy’s bleeding nose. Atje then instructs the boys to beat Richard. The boys then flee and leave Richard beaten. Cossack’s gang arrives and beat Richard, in retaliation. At his return home, Richard then gets beat by his father who heard of his deed. After many days pass, his father tries to reconcile with Richard.

Chapters 19-24

Back at Zapparoni’s garden, Richard realizes his encounter of severed ears is set up and Zapparoni is sitting somewhere else watching him. Upon leaving the pavilion, Richard sees Zapparoni walking towards him. Zapparoni reveals himself and to Richard that the ears were cut off from marionettes created to be hardly distinguishable from humans. Richard’s encounter with the severed ears has been a practical test and has proved him unqualified for the job. Zapparoni then reveals another surprise to Richard; a different job requiring sharp eyes of moral discrimination, a quality he finds in Richard. On Richard’s return home, he stops at a shop and buys Teresa a red dress, they go out for dinner and Richard slowly forgets the events in Zapparoni’s garden. Maestro0621 (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Maestro0621, I took your proposed critique to the plot summary, edited it again, and uploaded it to the main page, along with citations. How does it look to everyone else? Christian.Nguyen (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments on article, round 1

This is a great start, but many things need to be fixed. I've divided these into sections below.

Global issues

• The abstract and character list sections are still on the talk page, and need to be moved to the article namespace.
• Ernst Jünger always needs to be written with an Umlaut, and never just as Ernst Junger or Ernst Juenger. This goes for references and sources as well.

Ctrl+F 'junger' without umlaut doesn't find anything (anymore). Hopefully we can maintain that. --Dc552 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Firefox doesn't recognize u and ü as the same, but Chrome does. Weird. --Dc552 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• relevant wikilinks needed
• titles of works, if not wikilinked, should be in italics.

Lead section/Abstract

• Some hyphenation is needed, and there's one misspelling.
• It could be both shorter and more informative. The lead currently in place is perhaps too short, but gives a couple good ideas about the type of information that could be included (reception, genre, etc.). "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." See here for more info.

- I agree about being more informative. For instance, " During his job search, he stumbles upon a potential position at Zapparoni Works, a very respected company dealing in technological advances in the everyday world" Is pretty misleading. Its not altogether false, but he was more pushed towards this job by an war/academy buddy. This might seem trivial but i think its significant and will help tighten up the abstract and the informative-ness of the section. -devin42092 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin42092 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we definitely should try and make this section more informative, but we also need to balance its length as well. I think we should expand on that brief mention of the novel's themes, perhaps also throwing in the importance that time and temporality play. I'm going to combine that end bit about the reception into one sentence though. Also, I don't think that some of these links to other Wikipedia pages are necessary. Some of them seem a little superfluous. The one's describing literary and narrative techniques are probably fine, but I feel like "cavalryman" and maybe "narrator" are a bit of a stretch and we might want to reconsider those. I'm going to remove the link for "company" though, understanding the structure of a business company doesn't benefit us too much here. Mikeocan (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with adding any introduction of themes in the abstract. That seems to be a more specialized discussion which deserves its own section, and I feel it has no place in the introduction. Additionally, doing a bit of research reveals that none of: 'The Lord of the Rings', 'The Great Gatsby', and 'Of Mice and Men', 'Ulysses', etc. have any mention of themes in their abstract. Christian.Nguyen (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was comparing our abstract to abstracts of other pages and I found that ours has a bit more about actual content of the book. I personally don't have any problem with giving readers of this page quick preview of the glass bees. Yet, I was thinking maybe it is digression from the guideline of Wikipedia regarding abstracts. Maestro0621 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Christian. The introduction of themes/motifs/flashbacks in the abstract should be omitted. Each has its own section to discuss what it is about, but should not be introduced right off the bat in the abstract. Since this is the first thing visitors to the article views, the abstract should be kept relatively short, but have enough information to capture the viewers attention, not overcrowd their brains with too much superfluous information.WikiMaster287 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Character list

• This section is still only on the talk page, and should be moved to the article proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindinero (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Citations needed. (If you don't know how to insert citations, see here or use the helpme template on this talk page or on your user talk page.
• Fixed formatting and some grammar issues in this section. Devin42092 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)devin42092
• Fillmor needs to be added to this section. The Captain Richard entry may want to be moved to the top of the list since he is the protagonist. Ns5000 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with the order comments so i fixed it. Is this ready for namespace or still more discussion to go on? Devin42092 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)devin42092

• Can we include a bit of analysis of each character? For example, Lorenz embodies opposition to the imminent change and Wittegrewe embodies adjustment to the reality. We do not have information like that in the plot summary and summary should not include analysis. Also, we don't have a separate section for analysis. Maestro0621 (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe we should add a little onto zapparoni's section describing how he was a man that people "dare not speak of" and that he is omnipresent and is imagined to hear everyones conversation etc. I also agree that the order should be switched up pushing Richard and Zapparoni to the top. Onurilingi (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Instead of having a longer description of each character, should't we just have a short blurb on each one? I feel that that would be very concise and would not frustrate the reader. So the reader has a general idea of the characters before he/she goes into the abstract, i think shortening these would be of great help. Sahejvir (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Sahejvir

Historical Context

• This section needs serious reconsideration. Although it is well-researched and generally well-written, not to mention plenty interesting, its relevance to this article is less evident. Remember that everything in this article needs to pertain in some demonstrable way to the novel The Glass Bees. If the reader wants to know more about Ernst Jünger, they can simply click on the Wikilink. The biographical information in this article needs to be both relevant and backed by evidence. I think the comparison to Jünger's other dystopian works is relevant because it contextualizes The Glass Bees within his artistic production; I think mention of the war could also be relevant. The Violent Eye might be a good place to go to find a citation making the connection between Jünger's war experience and his prose. There's also a good quote on page four of Devin Fore's article The Entomic Age. Finally, you might find good, concise information in a literary encyclopedia or dictionary (at a university library near you). The important point is that you can't simply assume a connection between an experience in war and a certain type of artistic characterization of war. Jünger took up a complicated, but markedly conservative position towards war and technology. Other German artists who had also fought in or resisted WWI came out of the experience with very different sets of aesthetic approaches - see Georg Grosz, Otto Dix, John Heartfield, or Erich Maria Remarque, for example.
  • Now this doesn't mean that all the research needs to be lost. If you can supply citations, some passages which might not ultimately be best for this article could be moved to the article on Jünger.
• relevant wikilinks needed

• This section gives good information, but the idea of nano-techonolgy was something extremely advanced. What was going on in Germany at that time. What was the economic state of Germany at the time "Glass Bee" was written?

Second you mention that Junger took a different approach toward war and technology, How?

• I recommend you consider these following questions:
  • What about Jungers past could cause him to create this world of technologically advanced animals?
  • What could have affected his writting, Was he rich was he poor, did he enjoy writing, did he have something to say?
  • Could there have been something going on in germany at that time that caused Junger to not give a straight forward argument in the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedelsamadisi (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• About Jünger's certain attitude toward wars in future, if we can find a biographical piece of information where Jünger shows his affection or glorified view of old-fashioned military tactics, I think we can tie his military experience to "the Glass Bees"; thereby salvaging your research. Also, about his involvement in WWI, maybe we can find some evidence that shows Jünger was disappointed or horrified by machines dominating the battle scenes. Then, his real life experience agrees with Richard's view of traditional battles. Then, we can save all your research, since his life is reflected in "the Glass Bees" in that manner. Maestro0621 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Also, we can mention in this section that Atje Hanebut may refer to Adolf Hittler. That way we can relate the historical background to the novel: On the other hand, it may be arguable that Jünger indeed refers to Hittler by Atje Hanebut. Maestro0621 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there is an entire page on Ernst Jünger I think we should completely remove the biographical information and focus more on the particular genre of his writing and namely what other writers during the time/ war experiences influenced his writing of The Glass Bees.Jba57 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you getting at. There is a wikilink for ernst junger so there is no need to describe his wikipedia article in our article. Td238 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I was planning on adding a section about the economic climate in the 1950s but does anyone have any other ideas on what we should add that would be relevant to our novel.Jba57 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary

• More citations needed.
• I would also suggest breaking this section down into subsections.
• Shortening this section a bit wouldn't hurt either. What is necessary for a reader to know, and what is not so necessary? Some of the information in the summary is also included in the character list, and could be cut from one place or the other. Furthermore, some of the summary could itself be summarized. For example, the fairly long section on Richard's job interview w/ Zapparoni could be summed up in a sentence or two.
• The flashback including Lorenz is hardly mentioned in the summary, yet it seems like its one of the more important flashbacks. The flashback with Lorenz should be longer and more in depth, maybe include how it effected Richard so much that he actually states "The tragic act had shocked me deeply and permanently" pg. 63 Jfuess (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This quote could be used in the character list section for Lorenz in order to keep the summary short. Ns5000 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We initially had a paragraph dedicated to his flashback about Lorenz, but it became too long. I will look into it and see if i can briefly mention the quote. (there is a mention of Lorenz and the meaning of his death though) Maestro0621 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• I dont know how i feel about breaking it up based on chapters. I feel as though when we do this the article seems less like an encyclopedia entry (even though on wikipedia) and more like a sparknotes summarys kids will use to get out of reading their hw assignments. I think paragraph form would be the best and perhaps split up the summary based on key events that happened in the book itself, for example, the whole meal with twinnings and all flashbacks that took place there, his experience going to zapparoni's office and how it was in there including the flash backs, then when he goes outside and his flash backs until he smashes the bee, then the last paragraph when zapparoni comes out. And seperating the plot with the flashbacks is a bad idea in my opinion. I think that is a writing style that is very unique and key to the story and important in understanding richard's character. Each flashback was triggered by something that occurred in the story. Onurilingi (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't think this should be split up into chapters. The Glass Bees isn't a book that needs its chapters split into a chapter-by-chapter rundown to understand what's going on (unlike, let's say, Ulysses, and the chapters really vary in how much the cover as well. There's no point trying to force the a chapter based summary to a book that doesn't need it. Also, according to the novel style guidelines, we should shoot for around 3-4 paragraphs. --Dc552 (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How about the way it is now, split into sections when major events take place? Christian.Nguyen (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think lengthwise, the amount we have is adequate. We can cut some parts out, but the summarys of other books comparable to "the Glass Bees" in terms of length are of the same length (Lord of the Flies for example). Maestro0621 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• In the first section of the summary the setting is mentioned, but isn't really described. I think the setting should actually be described rather than just mentioned. Jfuess (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Themes and Motifs

• This section is strong, but at points it seems like original research. The claims being made are not terribly controversial, and are often quite interesting, but some of them - the linkage between nanotechnology and attention to the fine grain of personal experience, for example - need a secondary source to back them up. On the role of the minute in the story, see Devin Fore's 2008 article, "The Entomic Age", published in Grey Room.
• How would you understand the difference between themes and motifs? Can you provide a definition that would justify the organization of this section? (I'm curious.)

ok i linked the themes and motifs to the wiki article to them so if someone needs to know what they are they can click and find there definition.Ahmedelsamadisi (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think war is one of the more important themes in the book,so this section should probably be a little longer. Maybe talk about how Richards always relates everything back to war in some way, whether its memories with his comrades or actually fighting in a war. Maybe actual examples of the flashbacks could be brought up. Jfuess (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, one or two examples of his war flashbacks might be useful here, like Jfuess pointed out war is a pretty overwhelmingly recurring theme and needs the attention. Devin42092 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)devin42092

Please thread your posts when replying to a previous post. That way it's easier for other editors to read and tell who said what. Sindinero (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• How about moving war under the category of motifs. Motifs are the items frequently recurring throughout, whereas themes are abstract ideas. Since war is one of things that occur, although war has its abstract implications, i think war is more of a motif Maestro0621 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think war is a major theme not really a big motif so leaving it as part of themes makes it more concentrated on importance.Ahmedelsamadisi (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that war is a very important theme in the story, and won fit that well only in motifs. The entire story has the war as a backdrop, and uses it to establish many of the points Richard makes. Although i feel that there should be some more information on the 'nature vs technology' part. Sahejvir (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Sahejvir

• In the section regarding "Technology vs. Nature and Present vs. Past" I think it is a mistake to refer to Richard as the one who said “Human perfection and technical perfection are incompatible. If we strive for one, we must sacrifice the other”. Lorenz was the one who beleived and preached that as Richard and his comrades simply made fun of him. I think Lorenz' self destruction is what opened Richard's eyes to these beleifs. I dont think all of the themes should be centered around just Richard, but around the book as a whole. Richard is the main character, but not the only one which these themes relate to. Onurilingi (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

please look at our reference to where we got this information, we weren't really saying what we believe but what is quoted in the book. Also, according to wikipedia we cannot give our opinion and all the articles that talk about themes that we have found were centered around Richard. Ahmedelsamadisi (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this section needs a secondary citation to back up what is being said in this section. I also think this second is one of the most important to the novel. Flashbacks should definately be incorporated in this section to make this section even better than it already is. Td238 (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

can you please elaborate on which flashbacks do you want us to add, like do you want us to make a new theme or use flashbacks as examples for our themes?Ahmedelsamadisi (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Reception

• This section is well-researched. How can the citations and sources found for this section be shared with the rest of the article?
• Some of the wikilinks in this section (those in red) are to pages that don't exist.
• This section needs to be edited for grammar and style. There are some mistakes, and the flow, as well as the summary of critical arguments, could be tightened up.

This section is awesome. Devin42092 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Devin42092

Please thread your posts when replying to a previous post. That way it's easier for other editors to read and tell who said what. Sindinero (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this section is very well researched and from I read well written as well. I do not know much of what we can change to improve it content wise because of it being done with independent research. However, the red names are links that dont exist and that could be changed very easily.Onurilingi (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This section looks very well put together and I agree that the red names can be easily fixed. Just as a side note, I have looked at many wikipedia pages on novels with receptions in them. Most of them say critical reception instead of reception. Im not sure if its a big problem but if the other pages are successful as wikipedia articles than I think that the reception section should be critical reception. Td238 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

References

• Is 'references' the best name for this section? How about 'bibliography' or 'further reading'?

Different pages use different naming, but my impression is that most use 'references' for this section (see shortened footnotes link below as well). I think a 'further reading' section would be for books that we don't necessarily cite, but the reader might want to look into if they want to learn more. --Dc552 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• More works could be added here.
• Should this section be below the 'Notes' section?

I don't think so. Notes is for footnotes and other notes, while references is more like a bibliography. I think we're using shortened footnotes. --Dc552 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Sindinero (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Should references include all of Ernst Junger's works? Also, Junger has had a couple of books that were written about him, two of which I used in the historical context section: Ernst Jünger and Germany: into the abyss, 1914-1945By Thomas R. Nevin, A dubious past: Ernst Jünger and the politics of literature after Nazism By Elliot Yale Neaman. I will add these to the historical context citations. On the idea of bibliography vs references, maybe we should have both. 1: Sources cited in our article, 2: Possible sources for further reading. -TLavitt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlavitt (talk • contribs) 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't include all of Jünger's works. The references section is for sources we referenced in the article (hence the name, references). For any outside sources you used, you should add them to the references list if they aren't there already, and use footnotes to cite them wherever you cited them in the article. And if we wanted a section for further reading, we could just call it 'further reading'. --Dc552 (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• This list could use bullet points.

Added. --Dc552 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

External links

• This section has no content.
  • If we don't have any content here, we can always remove this section. On a similar vein, should we have a "see also" section linking to other wiki pages, or do we have nothing to link to? --Dc552 (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to round 2!

Sindinero (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cover

Should we add a cover to the infobox? It's better to have a first edition, but something is better than nothing, right? --Dc552 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think we should try and include a cover image in the infobox. Not sure if its the first edition cover, but this image I found is at least in the native German and seems like an early edition. Opinions on this cover? http://bilder.buecher.de/produkte/03/03853/03853085z.jpg

Mikeocan (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

An image is a great idea, but make sure before uploading that the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy. Sindinero (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the image linked to above is first edition (it's the same edition I have), but I think this one is. Sindinero (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't think most of us are autoconfirmed users except for probably you, it may be hard for us to upload the image. We could always request it, but that takes some time. Also, perhaps more importantly, I can't read German, so it's hard for me to figure out who the publisher or the cover artist is. I think it's Ernst Klett and Albrecht Ade, respectively, but that's just using Google Translate). --Dc552 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Another excellent point. I've uploaded the image to wikimedia commons, and added it to the infobox. Sindinero (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments on article, round 2

Global

Any sentence that still has the template needs to be provided with a reliable source, altered so that it's noncontroversial, or deleted. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead Section

First published in 1957, the novel is set between what appears to be two wars, and follows a two day job search of an ex-cavalryman, who is stuck in a world that is too technologically advanced for him.

I'm unclear about the accuracy and meaning of the bolded words. How can you tell the novel is set between two wars - do you mean the narrative present is between two wars or the flashbacks are? This needs evidence. I would also suggest rewording the next sentence slightly. Stuck might give the impression that this is a novel about time-travel. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about something like: The novel, set between two wars, follows a two day job search of an ex-cavalryman living in a world that is too technologically advanced for him. Christian.Nguyen (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the importance of the 'two war' detail in the first place, and the phrase "too technologically advanced for him" sounds both colloquial and is a bit of an interpretation...it's not a huge deal but combined with the other problems maybe we should reword the entire sentence. How is "First published in 1957, the novel is set in an alternate universe, though one similar in many ways to Jünger's own. It follows two days in the life of an unemployed ex-cavalryman, who feels lost in a world more technological and impersonal than the one he grew up in." Amelehjay (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (added my name later, I forgot the first time)

During his job search, he is informed of a potential position at Zapparoni Works, a well respected company dealing in technological advances in the everyday world. Subsequently, both the reader and the narrator are lead to discover the delicate balance between nature and technology.

The first of these sentences could be tightened up somewhat. It implies that the novel presents a substantial job search before Richard hears of Zapparoni Works, when in fact this happens at the very beginning. And the second sentence seems inaccurate - is balance really the best way to describe the relationship between nature and technology in this novel? (Additionally, "lead" should be "led," if you decide to keep that verb.) How could these two sentences be consolidated in order to cut down the length of this section without making it any less informative? Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "The story is a first-person narrative in which the narrator, Captain Richard, frequently digresses, entering flashbacks ranging from his childhood to his days as a soldier. His strange job interview at Zapparoni Works, a powerful company dealing in robotic technology, leads him to ponder his own life and themes of technology, war, and morality." I edited the sentence before a little too (gave the narrator a name, fixed use of 'digress'). I'm going to put my edits up on the main article and people may revert as they please. Amelehjay (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (added my name later, I forgot the first time)

"Despite dismissal by critics for "lacking contemporary relevance"[citation needed]"

Whoever wrote the lead section should look into what critics actually said, "lacking contemporary relevance" and try to cite it. But if it can not be found than i think it should be deleted. Td238 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the sources i used, and its written in the critical reception paragraph, says something very close to that. use that citationDevin42092 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)devin42092

Instead of "alternate universe", how about "fictional history", or describe the text to be historical fiction? Headdesk (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

NEW HISTORICAL SECTION

• I typed a paragraph with some information, which I know I still have to site. Feel free to add on, or if you think I should find more information- tell me. Also I am well aware that my word choice could be improved so feel free to do so. I will site and improve the paragraph later today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedelsamadisi (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• What are people's thoughts on totally getting rid of the "Other Works" section, as it does not have much to do with The Glass Bees. I'm not opposed to omitting this section, as the wikilink to EJ's page covers the information we have in this section, making our work redundant. WikiMaster287 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical Context

• This hasn't been addressed at all since the first round of comments. It needs to be fixed. I would suggest, seconding what Jba57 said, that the section on EJ's life be cut (with interesting, well-cited material being moved to the page on Ernst Jünger) and the two subsequent sections be fixed. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As annoying as it is and as obvious as it probably seems, there are alot of citations that need to be placed in this section. Onurilingi (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• A side note: some of the citations here (i.e. cites 4~7) should be corrected to be shortened footnotes like the rest of the footnotes (I like these, but that's just me). I would correct it myself, but I'm not sure of the page numbers referenced. --Dc552 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I added some citations and other awards EJ has achieved. Most of the historical background on EJ can be found through the wikilink to his page. WikiMaster287 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the Economics of Germany section - it's completely uncited, and largely unconnected to the novel. I'm also going to replace what's there in the other two sections with something only vaguely similar. This is a drastic change, so comment in the next few minutes before I post or revert my changes at will. Amelehjay (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to make a few word changes, with the intention of improving clarity. 174.252.48.34 (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey I like the changes you made to section, however I will make a couple small changes so that it reads better. Anyone disagrees with the changes feel free to change it.Jba57 (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jünger and Contemporary Writers

• All claims marked with need to be provided with a citation. This is especially important since many of the claims presented, in the form they are in now, are either misleading or untrue. This goes for the comparison to Benjamin and Adorno (who are usually considered to hold opposing beliefs to EJ on technology, politics, and almost everything else) as well as the attribution of the dystopian genre to Nietzsche and Heidegger. If these claims come from secondary sources, it would be better to cite them in full to avoid confusion. Sindinero (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• The prose of this section needs to be edited for flow and correctness. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Why say unlike most Marxists of the time if EJ was (emphatically) not a Marxist? If this comparison is coming from a secondary source, cite it - it will make the article better. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• How did GB foreshadow postmodern theory, what does this mean, and who makes this claim? Cite needed. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it even possible to find anything about contemporary writers who have influenced or been influenced by Jünger? What if we mention writers who had similar views? Isnt't that relevant enough? Maestro0621 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I added wikilinks for Benjamin and Adorno. Also, the structure of the last sentence made it seem as if Jünger is the one that said the final quote so I altered it to emphasize that it was Nevin. Mikeocan (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it a bit absurd to call Walter Benjamin a contemporary of Jünger. In the literal sense, yes, they lived at the some time and had similar concerns. Yet the prose in the section is written in a way to make them seem colleagues when Jünger, in fact, was a deeply anti-semitic man who would not have tolerated Benjamin in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.29.221 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you suggest a way to reword it so that it addresses your concerns? Sindinero (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Other Works

• The order of sentences here seems scattershot. Could they be arranged more logically? Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• This paragraph needs to be made more directly relevant to GB. We're close, but it still needs work. How could the wording be changed so that a reader of this section will feel that they're learning something about GB? Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this section seems to be irrelevant to the novel. This is violating point 3.b in the "Good Article Criteria" by not focusing on the topic. Perhaps adding how the themes discussed are prevalent in The Glass Bees-- or is that too obvious? Onurilingi (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Following the line about the criticism of Nazi Germany and Hitler, the possible connection between Atje Hanebut and Hitler could be mentioned. Ns5000 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be too much of a stretch, if we make connection between A.H. and Hittler? If we can find any evidence linking the two, if many critics do mention that the two seem to be related, we can make this section a lot more relevant to the novel itself. Maestro0621 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the lines about the awards Jünger won because they are irrelevant to the novel. If he won an award specifically because of The Glass Bees, it could be added. Ns5000 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Character List

• Good, but it needs work. For one, it's too long. Something can be cut from each character's description. What is the most relevant information, and what information is replicated elsewhere or isn't so important? For example, does the final sentence of Richard's description tell us anything meaningful? Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the last sentence is really helpful and think it would be best to remove it. I'll include it here though if anyone wants to rework it and put it back in. "It is easy to see that his past experiences definitely played a vital role in helping him become the man he is today." Mikeocan (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• This section needs to be edited for grammatical correctness and style. There are frequent mistakes. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to rework and combine some of the sentences together to shorten some of the sections. I'll correct any noticeable grammar issues as well. Mikeocan (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Went back and condensed the part on Richards. Also, I support the changes we made to Twinnings' section. Mikeocan (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried my best to edit it and make it more concise. While a good amount of information was deleted, I feel this improves the overall flow of the section and makes it more appropriate for a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bea26 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In revising the character list should I remove some of the citations? People suggested citations but should I only include citations for quotes alone or for each peice of information I provide? Onurilingi (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure about the citations any other opinions? Td238 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think for the most part, the citations are beneficial, providing exact areas of the book to support any important descriptions we give. However, I think the Twinnings section and some of the minor characters might have a few too many. I feel like we don't necessarily need to cite for every single thing we say about the characters. For instance, almost every sentence in the Twinnings part is cited. If we can combine some of the sentences together to reduce the number of citations needed, that would be best.Mikeocan (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• On another note i like the Major and Minor character subsections. Each character needs to be shorten and just give the main details of the character. Td238 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Teresa a major character? Teresa could be moved to the minor character section or the sections could be renamed present tense characters and flashback characters. Ns5000 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, i think Twinnings is not more important than Lorenz, Monteron, and Wittegrewe. If anything, he is less important. Maestro0621 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Referring to Teresa as a depressed person is not entirely correct, and i feel that is an interpretation. The book clearly states that she thinks that she is holding Richard back, but does not say that she is depressed. I made some changes to the Character List section to correct this. Sahejvir (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Made some edits to the Characters section, namely richard, monteron, wittegrewe and Teresa mainly in content and grammar. Some of the info was missing something or was slightly off so i fixed that. Devin42092 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)devin42092

I'm going to try and fix the tenses we use to describe the characters. If the character does not act or influence something in the present, I'm going to change it to the past tense. Mikeocan (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is probably fine as is. I don't really know how to incorporate talking about flashbacks with the fact that present tense should be used to describe action in novels. Mikeocan (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary

• This section is pretty good, but could still be better. Make sure all claims are not just neutral, but are phrased neutrally and descriptively. If you write that "Richard learns" something, it would be good to provide a quotation to show that this is happening. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• This section should be edited for tone and style. Words like "anyhow" are too colloquial for this context. Additionally, the section could be edited down (by combining sentences, omitting extraneous or redundant information, eliminating judgments) without sacrificing intelligibility or information. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Cossack is not anybody's name. See p. 165. Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Crossacks are small gardners who live around Uhlenhorst Moor. The Crossack, who gets beat up, is a school boy who happens to pass by. Maestro0621 (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its still "Cossack", just not a name. Devin42092 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)devin42092

I think there are too many sections of chapters in the table of contents. We can narrow it down, and make each section bigger and with fewer sections. It would make it look more like a Wikipedia article and less like a Sparknotes. Headdesk (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• In the first section of the summary the setting is mentioned, but isn't really described. I think the setting should actually be described rather than just mentioned. Jfuess (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know if breaking it up into chapters is the best idea. A different way to segment it is to separate it by each change of setting, since the setting doesn't change too often their would be fewer segments but it would still be in an order that makes sense. Jfuess (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the sections centered around chapter numbers is not a good look. I think using changes of setting or major events in the story (not counting the changes of setting that take place during flashbacks) could be almost very easily incorporated without doing too much work/revision other than the revision needed to make all of the writing clear, concise, and consistent with each other paragraph in that section. Onurilingi (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between having a section called 'Job Search' and 'Chapters 1-3' if they both cover the exact same pages in the novel? In my opinion, giving new names for sections is less professional than naming them after the chapters they summarize. Christian.Nguyen (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I will try to rephrase some sentences and change it stylistically and post it in Discussion section. If you guys think some sentences are better than what we have, feel free to replace them with mine. One question for Sindinero, If Richard learns something, should I provide a direct quote of Richard or just refer to the page number? Maestro0621 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In this context, a quote might be useful. What do others think? Sindinero (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

i agree that a quote would be better than page numbers, since it is very likely that the reader wont have the book open in front of them when they are viewing the page. And also, citing page numbers is pretty awkward, and is not used in any other article.Sahejvir (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also I think Monteron is brushed over too lightly. I think his impact on Richard and his fellow cavalrymen should be incorporated as well as Twinnings impact on Richard and his other army buddies. Nothing too indepth as it will most likely be covered in the character list (which will be slightly shortened to make more concise), but something more should be added in my opinion. If you look at where Lorenz or Fillmore are addressed, their affect on Richard's life is explained in some way after, whihc in my opinion is very important.Onurilingi (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed in the summary of chapters 9-10, we did not clarify what question Richard is responding to. Also, i noticed the flow from one paragraph to another is very choppy. For example, in the chapters from 4-8, between the last two paragraphs, im not being very clear which one is flashback and which one happens in the present time. Maestro0621 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• In chapters 11-15, the topic of the robotic, glass bees is brushed over too lightly. Since the article is titled The Glass Bees, it seems relevant to include the description of the glass bees; or, do people think this is just unneeded information? WikiMaster287 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Themes and Motifs

• The wikilinks to Themes and Motifs are not as helpful as they could be, since they link to rather large topics. Could they be made more specific? Sindinero (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I linked the words to the pages pertinent to literature, this should make it a little more specificBea26 (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Do we need the wikilinks? IMO, it makes the article look unprofessional and clunky. Also, from what I've seen of featured articles, they seem to only include themes, not motifs. --Dc552 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna change these to take out the parenthesis. We can still have it link to literature themes and narrative motif (in fact motif was already linked to narrative). We can just hide the disambiguation. So although they now say Themes and Motifs, they link to the right pages. Devin42092 (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)devin42092

• it is tiny isolated incidents, small childhood moments or single nights from military school, that have most affected Richard’s world view. - how can this be reworded? The way it's formulated now, this doesn't seem to be a claim that can be supported without original research. Perhaps if you emphasized instead of effect/influence - which is a causal claim - the sheer preponderance of thoughts about "small" things - which would be a descriptive claim - this sentence would be stronger. Sindinero (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Some more outside sources would really help to support this section. I recommend Devin Fore's article on the minute (see the talk page, where someone has linked to it) and Marcus Paul Bullock's book, as well as Sterling's introduction to the NYRB edition. Sindinero (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I may have gone a bit overboard with "original research" when I did this part... I used Fore's article to start, but I'll go back and support these ideas with more scholarly evidence or try and reword some of these claims after I reread Fore's piece.Mikeocan (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I still think we should go more in depth on the war segment in the themes, since war is such a reoccurring theme. Jfuess (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The war segment needs to be edited. Right now it is pretty much a repeat of the ideas in the Technology vs. Nature and Present vs. Past segment. Ns5000 (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The themes and motifs section is very well written and overall very strong, however I would suggest that we condense the section discussing the value of the minute just a little bit because as it stands its a lot for the reader to go through.Jba57 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The "value of the minute" section is indeed interesting, but a tad too long. Would anyone object to me shortening the summary of this just a little?WikiMaster287 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph can be split into two, for readability. Seems like more active voice can be used, though. Headdesk (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Reception

• I changed the section to Critical Reception. Definitely more appropriate based on content. We looked at how critics in literary journals and publications viewed the novel, not the general reception.Devin42092 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)devin42092
• This section is strong. I would only have two questions: 1) Is the reader to understand reception in the sense of the reception that greeted the book when it was first published, or in the broader sense of "how critics have interpreted the book"? If the latter, could a few sentences be added to give the more current critical views of scholars like Sterling, Fore, and Bullock? Sindinero (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree because the original critical reception has 3 critics from the late 1950s. Another critical review could be added to make this section stronger to give a more modern or recent critical view of The Glass Bees. Td238 (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a good argument which could strengthen the section but all in all I really liked this section. It successfully remains neutral by pointing out both the positive reception and negative reception without focusing on one or the other. It is well cited. The only problem is the hyperlinks to certain names which appear red because they are inactive links. Onurilingi (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that "reception" should include both contemporary and modern reception, so we definitely should include some more modern interpretations. I mean, we do have the sources. --Dc552 (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a little bit i had originally on later criticisms, which focused mainly on the way the book addressed metaphysical and philosophical questions, so i summarized what main points these later critics pointed out. However, consciously made the decision to include the 1950s stuff primarily because "critical reception" sounds more like what the critics thought when it first came out, thats the bulk of the criticism. 40 years later all i could really find is like literary analyses, which isnt really "reception" and thats why we took it out.

"Later criticism was more receptive of its the novel's philosophical value and explored and highlighted the tough questions Junger tackled. In “Ethics, automation, and The Ear”, Gray Kochhar-Lindren brings up the metaphysical question Junger implies of human existence being threatened by by the impending domination of technology. While technically ensures that destruction continues, as Junger had seen in World War One, pain and death -the only true measures of humanity- will not, at least for these technological creations. Thus, the “dasien” or human existence will cease to exist. Kochhar-Lindgren goes on to deal with the metaphysical questions Junger seems to address and this represents the revival of intense philosophical criticism of the novel.

In a review of the Violent Eye: Ernst Junger’s Visions and Revisions on the European Right Hildegard Glass praises Junger's job of engaging in a “radical revision of human reality”, and cites Bullock for praising his methodical reconstruction of “the foundation of experience by substituting absolute ideas in an artificial environment. This, Glass argues, forces the reader to question and re-question his or her own ideas of reality and the values on which we base these ideas. Bullock and Glass clearly admire Junger's literary genius in posing and exploring these deep metaphysical questions."

--Devin42092 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry, I edited your indentation a bit. Anyway.) Ah, I remember these. I've added the first paragraph in, but I'm leaving the second one out due to the same reason I gave you before - we should just cite the actual book instead of a review of it. Hopefully I'll get to that later today. Actually, my criticism of the first paragraph still remains to a certain extent (seems more like literary analysis then reception), but it's good enough, I guess. --Dc552 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also added a bunch of working links in this section.Devin42092 (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)devin42092

References

• If you add further sources to various places throughout the article, they should be referenced here as well. Sindinero (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing how it turns out! Sindinero (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I'm just going to remove that final glaring "citation needed" part. It was a leftover from when I compressed some sentences in the intro, and I don't think anyone actually knows where its from.Mikeocan (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Article?

Is this article good enough to be nominated for Good Article status? Please evaluate it thoroughly based on the Good article criteria - does it meet each one or not, and why? Sindinero (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Prose needs to be edited in many places, but is very nice in a lot of other places.
• Citations ahh! I really want to fix up the historical context citations but I wasn't in the group and don't have their sources; I found the one with the quote by googling said quote but I'm not sure what to do with the rest of it, since the content itself also needs a reworking.
• I think it mostly stays focused except for some of the historical context section. If we're going to redo the organization of summary section completely we need to get started on that though, but I'd rather reach consensus before making a drastic change.
• Neutrality? If I knew more Jünger scholarship I'd feel like I'd know, but as it is I have no idea where it stands bias-wise.
• I don't think we'll have a problem with stability one it's done and we added the only relevant image, so that's all good. Amelehjay (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think the major improvements we need to make are to make it more concise and to get everything properly cited. A lot of spots still need citation, but that will likely be an easy fix. Even though we're no longer working on this in our individual groups, I think it would be helpful if the groups that wrote particular sections indicated which sources they drew from. We could then use these indications as a starting point and look into these particular sources to search for the parts to be cited instead of guessing where information came from. As for it being concise, I'm sure that as we continue editing we'll remove unneeded parts and that will be fine. We definitely cover the breadth needed for it to be a good article as we fully explore all the relevant aspects of the novel. The book isn't really a hotly debated topic, so I think we're good with the neutrality part. Likewise, we only have one picture so i think we're good with the parts about images. Overall, we're doing a pretty good job. Mikeocan (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe the article is at "good article status" yet, but it has the potential to be:

• With further editing the prose will become more clear and concise. It's just hard to get everyone on the same page since we all have different writing styles, and something that may sound clear to one person, might not be clear to the next one. Upon further editing, the spelling and grammar should work itself out to be a well-written, clear article.
• This is probably one of the most important subjects that needs to be worked on in our article. We NEED citations for a lot of work presented; however, it should not be too meticulous a task to find the sources. I was in the historical context group, and i'm in the process of searching for various references. Citing our information maybe should be one of the last things we do since the information of the article will change slightly from peer editing.
• I feel like we do a very good job of addressing the main topics of this novel. There may be some superfluous information throughout, but that can be dealt with very easily. Granted the historical context section is not in regards to the novel, but this is a necessary section.
• It doesn't seem like the article is biased in its presentation of information. The themes and motifs could have different meanings to them, but nothing extremely contradictory is presented.
• Stability will be accomplished once the final draft is up. Right now it is necessary to revise and edit the article before the date it is due.

Overall, the article is coming along nicely. With the final draft due tomorrow, i feel as though one final push will have this article to where we want it to be.WikiMaster287 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My eval

• For the prose, i would suggest go through a section thats not yours and proof reading it and editing it for style and grammar, harder to do your own.
• Yeah, with the citations thing, get your citations and references up even if we might take it out so we know what to work with.
• Yeah I'm very satisfied with the main parts, our plot summary hits all the main points, and maybe even more, im going to go through that and maybe look for stuff that it can do with out. I'd prefer if the plot summary team did this though, even though it looks like you shaved it down a lot, i'd feel bad taking out of your hard work.
• I definitely thing we don't show any bias here. I tried to show both sides of the reception, and technically anytime you write about something there'll be bias for example motifs that we left out or something, but as far as wikipedia goes i think its very unbiased and holistic in its approach.

*Stability, looks like it'll be fairly stable. time will tell.

Yeah, overall I'm very pleased this article i think its great and very informative and well put together. Try to take 10 mins to go through a section thats not yours and clean up the prose but other than that i like it. We'll see what the wikiworld thinks.

Devin42092 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)devin42092

My evaluation

• I went through the article and made some grammatical fixes that I was able to see. Im sure I missed a bunch of errors but I hope all of you would do the same.
• No wikipedia page is perfect and I think comparing our, "The Glass Bees", page to any other page, I think it meets the criteria for a good article.
• The point of a wikipedia page is not to read it instead of the book but to use this while or after reading the book to help understand certain parts of it whether it includes the writer's thoughts, backround info and other peoples comments on the book. I think this page fulfills that.
• I showed some random people in the library this article and to give me feedback on anything they saw in the article(I did not tell them that this was a project or that i worked on it till after). They read through it and said, "It looks like a good normal wikipedia page." To be honest i think thats all, as a class, were trying to accomplish.
• Great project idea! Ill try to find more mistakes and fix a few things up later but keep editing it everyone else but im pretty sure it looks great.

Td238 (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My Evaluation

• I think the prose for the most part is quite clear a nd concise. Of course it is not perfect but under certain circumstances it is good for now and perhaps with the continuing revisions could be even better.
• The articles are factually accurate from my understanding of the book, which I would like to presume is a good one. It is well cited, perhps in some instances cited too frequently, but I tried to go back to my writings and fix that.
• I think the article successfully stays broad in its coverage while remains focused on the book. HOWEVER, THE SECTION REGARDING "OTHER WORKS" IN MY OPINION SHOULD BE DELETED. After looking at the section pointlessly for 30 minutes I could not think of a way to properly augment it to relate more to glass bees without risking changing its credibility and meaning.
• I think the artice is very fair. I especially likes the reception section which effectively added both negative and positive reception without focusing too much on either or. All the other sections were merely informative, and by nature neutral.
• We may have been changing it greatly day by day but simply augmenting it. Not undoing changing back and forth and waging war.

I definetly think this is a GOOD wikipedia article especially if we use the guidelines provided.

Onurilingi (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My evaluation

• I went through the entire thing and couldnt find any grammatical error. Also, it seems to comply with guidelines for lead section after our revision.
• It is now perfectly factually accurate. The only problem was with our "historical context" section but now that we deleted all parts that didnt have evidence to backed up, there is no bias or groundless claim.
• Our original plot summary was a bit more like spark note summary style. After revision, it only gives readers of this page a brief overview.
• Our reception section has never shown any bias. So, i would say it has always been objective to begin with.

Maestro0621 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Glass Bees/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

• File:Ej1957am.jpg
  • Book cover was uploaded to commons as "ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." I'm not clear if Image copyright (Germany) applies. How do we know this image is in the public domain? Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • User:Sindinero has followed up with this.[1] The image appears to be acceptable and meets the criteria. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• Lead section summarizes everything except for the historical context section. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• the novel is set in a fictional world, similar in many ways to our own
  • It's a bit redundant to say that a science fiction novel is set in a fictional world, and it is both cliché and expected by the reader that the world of the novel would be similar to ours in some way. It might be best to remove this or replace it with a specific description of the setting. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • McAllister (2001) refers to the setting as an "unspecified future".[2] Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
      • changed the wording to "a dystopic alternate world similar in many ways to our own" Sindinero (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Despite early dismissal by critics upon its first English publication in 1960, recent writers and critics have hailed the novel's "speculations on technology and industry as so prescient as to be uncanny."
  • This is a nice summary but as a reader, I wanted to know why it was first dismissed in 1960, so it would help to briefly explain in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Couldn't find source for this claim, so I removed it. Sindinero (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Lead mentions "theme of technology", but a bit more should be said about this. For example, Stableford (2004) calls it a "powerful antitechnological allegory" which is essentially technophobia, whereas Goudreau (2010) says the novel "foretells much of what today is the reality of life in a technological society". It's surprising to find that the lead doesn't mention the most important element, the cybernetic/robotic bees. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Done, and done. Sindinero (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas - do you have more information on the 2004 Stableford text you mention? I can't seem to find it - do you have a title, or even a first name? Thanks, Sindinero (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Lead should mention Jünger as a veteran of WWI. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. He certainly was a veteran of WWI, but also of WWII; besides this, he was a prominent radical conservative, internationally known amateur entomologist, proto-fascist, and a host of other things. Picking any one of these (beyond "German author") as his one salient characteristic may be a fraught choice, especially since his own posturing (not intended negatively) at various points in his career, as well as the extreme right-wing embrace of his work, relied upon foregrounding this one aspect. The fact that he was a WWI veteran is often problematically used to grant him a halo of authority or authenticity in questions of technology, politics, or war - and prominent critics, such as Walter Benjamin (in "Theories of German Fascism") have taken issue with the sort of chivalric self-promotion that attended Jünger's early work and reception. For these reasons, I think it would be in the interest of both informative value and NPOV to simply describe him as a German author in the lead. Does that make sense? Sindinero (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. There was a significant reason I raised this point, but I've forgotten it for the moment. If it comes back to me, I'll revisit it, however, if I had to guess at why I said that, it's probably because I ran across literary criticism that linked his WWI experience with the novel. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Found it: Retica, Aaron (2001). "Marathon Man". Lingua Franca. 11 (1): 17:

In the course of his long life (he died at the age of 102 in 1998), Junger shifted restlessly from one intellectual phase to the next: from aristocratic-minded foe of the Weimar Republic to "national Bolshevik" reactionary, from "inner emigrant" during World War II to science-fiction novelist, from psychedelic-drug enthusiast to nonagenarian diarist--all the while conducting research as an amateur entomologist. In nearly all these incarnations, Junger's defining experience was his tenure as a commander of shock troops during World War I. According to Thomas Nevin, a professor of Greek and Latin at John Carroll University, in Ohio, and the author of Ernst Junger and Germany: Into the Abyss, 1914-1945 (Duke), in his early years Junger had a "chivalric perspective on war, almost an anachronistic position." He was, Nevin explains, "not directly a part of the Prussian tradition, but he represents the Old Germany, the old martial values. Schoolboys in his day looked to the military as we look to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs." But Junger, who was wounded thirteen times in the war and earned Germany's highest honor for bravery, came to feel that preserving premodern codes of soldierly conduct was impossible in the face of the mechanization and mass mobilization used to carry out the war's carnage...After the war, [WWII] Junger was "gray-listed" by fellow Germans as a suspect author. For many postwar Germans, Nevin explains, "Junger's Dionysian views of the First World War were unsettling, because they thought it led to Hitler's warfare state." It was during the postwar period that Junger began to write science fiction to address his long-standing concerns about technology. The Glass Bees, originally published in 1957, is an example of this approach, an allegorical novel that can be read--depending on one's perspective--either as a remorseful meditation on Junger's role in developing Nazi culture or as a surreptitious plea to resist technological barbarism by returning to the goals and methods of the old German right.

I think that explains the importance of his WWI career, as his "long-standing concerns about technology" are rooted in his WWI experience. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Historical context

• I wonder if this and the next two sections, "The Glass Bees and the Third Reich" and "Contemporary authors" would read better as one section titled "background and publication" with a bit of rearranging? I don't see a need for two different sections here. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• While some consider him to have been pro-Nazi, others do not, and at least one writer considers The Glass Bees to be a "rejection of Nazi state power."
  • I would recommend using a better set of sources that Slate here so as not to lose the nuance. Sure, it saves a lot of space to call Jünger "pro-Nazi", but it avoids discussing his penchant for fascism and authoritarianism, the influence his work had on the Nazis, his refusal to join the party, the nature of hidden evil in his work, his alleged criticism of the Nazis in On the Marble Cliffs (1939) and the claim that he helped plan to kill Hitler, etc. (Retica 2001) There's a lot here, and simply calling him "pro-Nazi" and leaving it at that is fine if we aren't going to talk about the relationship between the Nazis and the novel, but I think we should. For example, instead of just saying "pro-Nazi" (which is seriously debated) why not state the facts as we know them? We know that Hitler and Goebbels were fans of Jünger, and that he was in charge of a firing squad during the French occupation. I hope you see what I'm getting at. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary

• More than 1000 words. Too long. Please eliminate the subsections, merge all of the content into one section, and bring it down to ~600 words. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Sindinero (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

In progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Minor fixes to lead suggested

   Plot summary is too long fixed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   OR concerns with the theme section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Important elements missing from lead.

   Is it possible to add more information about the initial writing and publication process to the historical context section, and change this to "Background and publication"?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Checking on Image copyright (Germany)...

   License checks out.

   Would the article benefit from an additional free image of Ernst Jünger?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I recognize that editors have worked hard to improve this article, but I have major concerns with the size of the plot section and original research in the themes section. Cutting down the size of the plot section and making secondary sources explicit in the theme section (or adding more) will go a long way towards alleviating these concerns. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   I've made some changes, but there is still original research in the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Status

Just curious how this review is going, and its current status? I could do a tad bit of copyediting here and there, if that would help out, but probably defer to the major stuff to the nominator(s). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

copyediting would be very welcome, thanks for being willing to help. I'll be working on the major stuff (lede, plot summary, critical reception) over the next week or so, but feel free to play around with anything in the article that strikes you as being in need of improvement, especially if you're familiar with the novel. Sindinero (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's actually a lot of serious work that needs to be done here, and unless you have a lot of time and sources available, I don't see how this article can pass. The OR is a pretty serious problem; the length of the plot is secondary. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have the sources, and I'll be getting back to this article later this week. You're talking about OR in the themes & motifs section? Can you be more specific about what you feel is OR? Is any citation of the novel in this section OR? Sindinero (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

When we write about themes and motifs, we do so based on secondary sources that have already discussed these things. The only reason we would cite the novel here is to provide a footnote for the reader. In this case, it looks like the novel is being used as a reference to support the claims made about the themes. If you have secondary sources that discuss these themes, then simply add them in place of the citations to the novel. The plot section generally doesn't require sources because a brief summary of the novel is usually widely sourced and available. The characters section is a bit more tricky. Take some time to review GA and FA novel articles to see how this works. Themes and motifs refers to commentary about the novel, in which case we need to make the secondary sources explicit. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sindinero, why did you add for the second time that the novel is set "in an alternate world similar in many ways to our own". I previously removed that wording as problematic, and I explained that McAllister in The Times Literary Supplement (2001) refers to the setting as an "unspecified future". All fiction requires that the author create a world that is similar in many ways to our own, otherwise the reader won't be able to identify with it. Perhaps you could be more specific in your wording? Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this note. "Unspecified future" isn't entirely accurate, since the novel's setting is more in line with a parallel universe than some general future. I go into some detail at the beginning of the plot summary, but essentially the novel's setting both has recognizable referents with real-world equivalents (Treptow, mechanization of warfare, booming culture industry) that would seem to tie it to the 20th-century Europe we know, and yet other aspects (the "Asturian civil war", the compressed transition within a single career from traditional cavalry to advanced nanotechnology and suggestions of drone warfare) make it impossible to fully calibrate with the real world, either in any past or imaginable future moment. Jünger uses "Asturia" as an idiosyncratic, imaginative geography in other novels as well, so it's clearly a fixture in a narrative world he develops. The historical, technological, and social compression (seen also in On the Marble Cliffs and Storms of Steel) is also particular to Jünger, and arguably stems from a conservative imaginary that draws from technological modernity (among other things) a decadent narrative and nostalgic valuation of the past. Long story short, I think something more specific than "unspecified future" is needed, since the particular historical and technological configuration of the novel's future wouldn't really fit into any real-world future (because the novel world's past is also "alternate"). What would you suggest? "Parallel universe" seems too, I don't know, quantum-mechanics-y, and might imply that the novel really foregrounds this aspect, when in fact it's just there, but not really made a huge deal of. Sindinero (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Before I make a suggestion, I would like to know why you think it is important to say that the novel takes place in a "world similar in many ways to our own". As I said, this is true for almost every science fiction novel and it does not need to be said. Now, you have made it clear in your response, that this is not what you intended; this ambiguity is even more reason to remove it. Your response indicates you are attempting to point to the prescience of the author, which has nothing to do with its setting. You're talking about hindsight and you are making a comparison between our society in the real world and that of the novel. That has no business being in a description of the setting. Having just read the novel several times, and keeping it fresh in my mind as I write this response, I would say that the description of an "unspecified future" is accurate, but not necessarily ideal. Is there solid evidence of a parallel universe or alternate history? I was looking for it as I read it, and couldn't find one on par, with say, The Man in the High Castle (1962). I think you should try looking at this from a different angle. Instead of telling the reader what the world is or isn't, show it to them with a brief description. This is actually house style. That's what I attempted to do, but you added back "Set in a dystopic alternate world similar in many ways to our own". I'm not convinced this is a dystopia nor even an "alternate world". I realize you might have found a single critic who describes it that way, but that's like writing film articles based on Armond White reviews. Just describe the setting and the plot without commenting on it. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on this. Not sure yet what pithy description of the setting would work well for the lead, but I'll try to come up with something. You're right that it's nothing like The Man in the High Castle (since there's no one unambiguous branching that shunted the novel's world off from our own), and that's why I'm not satisfied with "parallel universe," as I mentioned, but I'll think of something. For me, it's really the "Asturian Civil War" as the major global conflict that drew a line between good-past and bad-present (is this supposed to be WWI? WWII? an amalgamation of both? neither?) that makes "unspecified future" untenable. Sindinero (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how an "unspecified future" is untenable, nor do I see how the novel is a good example of a dystopia or an "alternate world" as we use the term in science fiction. While it is acceptable to use these terms in sections devoted to discussing opinions of critics, I'm not happy with this appearing in the lead. Sindinero, without divulging any private information, can you confirm that you are not the author of any sources being used in the current article? Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not the author of any of the sources being used in the article? Why do you ask? The reason I still find "unspecified future" to be untenable is because the novel, while maintaining certain real-world referents of 19th and 20th century Europe, has a different past as well as a different future. In other words, where a novel like Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is set in an alternate future (because the social, geopolitical, technological, etc. conditions of the novel's setting rely on fictional events posterior to the novel's production, publication, reception, etc.), The Glass Bees necessitates an alternate history; fictional events anterior to the novel's context of the 1950s, the shift to mechanization, the demise of cavalry, etc., while matching somewhat to actual historical referents, are temporally compressed and set during events, such as the "Asturian Civil War," that didn't actually happen in our world. In this sense it's more like Man in the High Castle than DADoES?, because the novel's narrative setting implies a radical historical difference not after the novel's release (this would work with an "unspecified future") but rather before. Does this make sense?

And I agree, "dystopia" is a stretch - it has been argued by some of the sources, but I'm not committed to it, and think that the novel's actually more interesting than that. "Parallel universe" is strong, because it foregrounds a narrative strategy that's only backgrounded in GB, but I don't think it's technically incorrect. Sindinero (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Best to stick with what most sources say about the setting and genre. What do the vast majority agree on? Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• The "Horses" and "Meaning of words" sections appear to be original research. Are there any secondary sources that support it? Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not super committed to those sections, and I haven't found any substantial discussion of them in the sources yet, so I've deleted them. Salient, relevant, and sourced aspects of those sections (like the lack of a difference bt. war and peace, e.g.) can be incorporated into other themes. I'm still sourcing and reworking the other themes, which will take me a few more days. Sindinero (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • As a general wikipedia question, though, I'm wondering about OR for a case like this. I see how OR relating to themes is undesirable in a novel like, say, Absalom, Absalom, since describing the themes for the article without other sources would require the editor/novel reader to first figure out what they are. But the category - OR - doesn't seem quite as applicable to an essayistic novel like GB, since tracing out the major themes requires no more digging on the editor's part than writing the plot summary. The narrator speculates openly and extensively on the changed nature of war, the relationship between technology and morality, etc., for large sections of the book. If GB were an essay on these topics, presumably no outside sources would be needed to briefly summarize what this essay were saying. If editors are permitted to write "what happens" in the novel for the summary without outside sources, then it seems arbitrary in the case of novels like GB to declare themes categorically distinct, when themes are a major part of "what happens" here. Again, I'll be sourcing all claims for this particular article, but this is a larger wikipedia question that's been bugging me, since it seems like an instance where the (normally incredibly useful) categories of WP don't tally so well with the categories of its objects, in this case, literature. Sindinero (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Understood, and you've made a good argument. The problem is, a discussion of themes is essentially interpretation, and a discussion of plot is not. The distinction is important, and that's why we rely on secondary sources when we cross the line. However, you have raised important points that should be brought to the attention of WikiProject Novels for further discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I think that's an important distinction to maintain, to be sure, and I will be providing the rest of the claims in 'themes' with RSs. Thanks for your suggestion to raise this issue at WikiProject Novels, I think I'll do that. I would (gently) push back, though, at the hard-and-fast distinction between discussion of themes and discussion of plot. To my knowledge, this distinction, relying on a presumed neutrality or legibility of plot on the one hand and necessary interpretability of themes on the other, doesn't fully correspond to the state of literary scholarship - perhaps especially not for SF literature. Jameson has argued that this genre continues (and modifies) the project of high modernism by working through formal problems on the level of plot, a compelling argument that would give reason to hesitate before assigning to plot automatic transparency. If you've ever had twenty people summarize the same novel, let alone short story, you quickly see how much interpretation a plot summary actually involves: deciding what's salient, and why, already constitutes a particular "reading" of a text. I'm not trying to carp or split hairs here, and I agree that the distinction generally has a useful heuristic function. But it interests me in cases when it seems not to hold up perfectly, since it suggests a disjoint between wikipedia's, well, "epistemology," I suppose, and that of the specific field of knowledge, in this case literary scholarship. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this, as a literary question and as a wikipedia question. Sindinero (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I apologize for not being clear. The point is that on Wikipedia, plot summaries are exempt from secondary source requirements. If a dispute arises, then they are required, otherwise, one can write plot sections without encountering much of a problem. Now, with that said, I can tell you that the problem that does come up in this regard, is the matter of inclusion and exclusion; in other words, disputes will arise over whether it is important to include a trivial plot point, or something outside of the plot itself. We often get disputes where an editor will attempt to include a theme in a plot section, or mention criticism. And yes, Wikipedia does do things differently than academia, and the NOR policy is a good example of this difference. We are a tertiary source, after all. Academia, on the other hand, is focused on publishing original research. If an editor composes a theme section based on an interpretation of a primary source, then that is considered OR by Wikipedia's standards. However, when we compose a plot summary, we are not engaging in interpretation but rather summarizing the story as described by the primary, secondary, and tertiary literature. Yes, you tried to make the point that this summary is sometimes an interpretation, and when it is, we generally have a dispute. When it isn't, however, we can look at the secondary sources and see that the summary is accurate and without errors of inclusion or exclusion. Essentially, plot sections can be sourced to secondary sources, but we are not required to do so. Theme sections, on the other hand, are not summaries, but interpretations of what is or is not important. Editors can't make that determination based on the primary source alone. When we are talking about themes, we are discussing critical commentary. Editors can't engage in this kind of writing without good sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, perhaps either a decision should be made by the reviewer or a second opinion requested, since there seems to be a deadlock on the plot issue above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

could you be more specific? I don't think there's a deadlock - I haven't made the suggested changes yet since I haven't had time, but hope to in the next day or two. Sorry for the hold-up, that's my fault - as far as content goes, I don't have any objections to V's suggestions. Sindinero (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to wrap this up tonight. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

• "Set in an unspecified future" - This is McAllister's (2001) wording. Either paraphrase or quote. In this instance, paraphrasing is preferred.
  • This needs to be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Deleted. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• "bizarre job interview" - That kind of wording is bit POV. That some critics might consider the job interview bizarre is one thing, but because the story is considered science fiction/fantasy, the words "unusual" or "strange" might be better.
  • done Sindinero (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• "In recent years, Jünger's pessimistic prognostications on the future of technology, variously interpreted as technophobic allegory or insightful critique into the altered relationship between technology, nature, and the human, have received renewed enthusiasm." This might work better as two separate sentences.
• There's no need to keep refs 4-7 separate if you are only going to use them once. See WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:CITECLUTTER. Try "James 2007, p. 2; Nevin 1996, p. 6; Featherstone 2005, p. 311; Simkin."
  • done Sindinero (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• "The Glass Bees, with its simultaneous nostalgia for militaristic order and deep suspicion of technocratic modernity, is exemplary of this ambiguity in Jünger's work." Needs ref.
• "The Glass Bees, like another of Jünger's novels, Heliopolis, thematizes the altered relationship between technology, society, and nature which was central to many of Jünger's contemporaries such as Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin;" Is this supported by Nevin 1996?
• "However, despite the pointed differences between Jünger and the theorists of the Frankfurt School, at least one critic has pointed out commonalities the The Glass Bees' critique of technological modernity shares with both the enlightenment critique of Adorno and Horkheimer, and Benjamin's critique in "Theories of German Fascism" (1930) of Jünger's earlier work." Please rewrite or split this into two sentences. It doesn't make sense.
• ""the most notable of which are perhaps". Omit needless words. Clearly, it is notable if we are talking about it. That's the basis of inclusion.
  • done Sindinero (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• The plot section needs to be synchronized with the character section. You mention Richard's wife Teresa at the end of the plot ("On the way home, Richard buys Teresa a red dress") but you never introduce her as the sole reason Richard considers taking the interview in the first place. In the character section you say, "Richard makes every decision mindful of the effect it will have on Teresa." For this reason, I think much of the character section should be merged into the plot section, or the plot section should be cut down to a simple synopsis and the character section expanded. It doesn't matter how you do it, but each section needs to stand on its own. Reading the current plot while pretending I know nothing about the story, I'm surprised to find Teresa mentioned once, at the end.
• "The Glass Bees combines the semi-autobiographical narrative and essayistic reflections of the narrator, explicitly thematizing such topics as war, technological and historical change, morality, authenticity, and semantic change." If that is indeed supported by Fore 2008, that's the kind of tight sentence I would prefer to see in the lead.
• "Many of Richard’s flashbacks and musings concern war." When you make a statement like this, be sure that the reference supporting it is a secondary or tertiary source. You've used a primary here. You did the same thing with "It is through the concept of war that Richard delineates the past and present - the past has cavalry, the present tanks." Both need secondary sources. Otherwise, rewrite it to conform to the sources that you have at hand.
• Ref 35 and 36 could be grouped into one citation.
  • done Sindinero (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• "Marcus Bullock sees the novel..." First thing I want to know as a reader is, who is Marcus Bullock?[3][4] He is English Professor Emeritus at University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
  • done Sindinero (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• "He often directly states that the past - when horses were used in battle and men saw who they were fighting - is better than the present, where one cannot see one's opponents. He sees happiness..." It isn't clear what "he" refers to here. Is it Bullock, Junger, or the character of Richard?
• Are the examples offered in refs 39-41 supported by secondary sources? The use of Bullock 1992, p. 167-71, implies that it is.
• "Scenes in The Glass Bees such as the discovery of the severed ears..." You are missing a few commas.
• "the novel's focus on the nanoscale throws the very distinction between the organic and the mechanical into question, threatening to render it obsolete." This is a very common theme in science fiction. Surely, there must be more on this important point?

Alright, thanks for the feedback. I'll work on these over the next week. Sindinero (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How's the progress coming on the reviewer's notes? This has been under review for nearly two months so hopefully everything can be wrapped up soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. I've been busy, but I'm planning on working on this over the next couple days. Sindinero (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going over the current version, but I'm seeing lots of problems. I'll have to make a decision in the next few hours. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Final review

• Lead section. Problems as outlined above not fixed.
• Historical and literary context. My two comments in the above review about the proposed background and publication section and its broadness (see 2:22, 6 May 2011, and 04:44, 10 May 2011) have not been addressed. There is virtually no information about the publication and translation (except for what I've just added). For some reason, the "Historical and literary context" has morphed into repeating the theme section and duplicating elements of the lead. In other words, this has become an overview section instead of merging the relevant content into the lead and the theme section.
  • I merged the setting from the plot section into "Historical and literary context", even though this section needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Paraphrasing. Issues with citing sources throughout. When we cite sources, we either need to write the material in our own words or use quotes. Looking at the sources (for example Fore 2008), I'm seeing the same content here in the article—without quotes.
  • I removed the use of McAllister (2001) "unspecified future" from the lead and the use of "essayistic" by Fiore (2008). Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Plot. Moved setting. Still no mention of Teresa until the end. See above where I talk about this.
• Themes and motifs. I'm having trouble verifying the Bullock 1992 material. For example, where it says that Bullock "sees the novel as a reversal of Jünger's earlier technological optimism." Where does Bullock actually say that? Same thing with "The novel's portrayal of technology is closely tied to a nostalgic lament for the perceived loss of a natural, idyllic past, contrasted to a mechanistic, technologically-determined present." Please quote a passage that says this. A primary source is still being used to support material in this section, for example when it says "he sees happiness and technology as directly opposed". The following quote is supported by several secondary sources but they should be used. The subsection on The value of the minute is still original research. I'm also concerned about how the sources are being used. For example: "Devin Fore has read the prevalence of the nanoscale in the novel as a prescient shift of emphasis from an anthropocentric mesoscale to the a-human, microscopic scale of the insect, constituting a meditation upon "the cultural and anthropological challenges that would attend this process of technical recalibration." In order to make that statement, someone has combined two separate passages, one on p. 29 and another on p. 30, and left out important detail in between, such as the point Fore makes about metric reform.
• Critical reception. "On a similar note, much like Neaman, he [Cooley] mentions that Jünger seems to be on a warmer level with the fact that the individual's necessary compliance with the new dehumanized worlds of technology." That doesn't make sense. The word "praise" is repeated twice in reference to Loose. When talking about Zapparoni in this section, it sounds like material for the character and/or theme section (same thing with Kochhar-Lindgren). It also reminds me that there's nothing about the Disney comparison in the article. There's no need to say "Kochhar-Lindgren goes on to deal with the metaphysical questions Jünger addresses"; either address them in the relevant section or remove it. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't even see that first broken sentence. One of those sentences that changes horses mid-train. On a logistical note, V., since many editors cowrote this article, if you say "you" can you specify who you mean? Sindinero (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll fix it. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've placed a {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag in the article due to the problems with paraphrasing and close copying of sources. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Good. I'll come back to some of the problems later this summer.

Again, V., I do appreciate the patience and care you put into this review, but I'm a little confused. By 'rewrite' do you mean addressing your most recent list of problems, or is this above and beyond that?

Also, I'd like to reinstate 'essayistic.' This is not from Fore - he uses it, yes, but it was in the article before I read his piece. 'Essayistic' is a pretty common word in literary studies (it's also in the American Heritage Dictionary, so it's not just a technical term), and is a descriptive, economic way to describe a novel like GB. I don't feel that it needs a citation, since it involves only slightly more interpretive effort to recognize GB as 'essayistic' than it does to recognize it as a novel. It's a question of genre, like calling Werther an epistolary novel, and without this label, we'll need a cumbersome circumlocution to convey that this is one of those novels where nothing much seems to happen. Is this adequate justification for restoring the word? Sindinero (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me, but it looked suspicious as only Fore was using it. Do other sources use it to describe this novel? And why did you choose essayistic over, let's say, calling it an allegorical novel? By rewrite, I mean, rewriting the article with one eye on the problems I've raised and another on good article structure for GA-Class novel articles. For example, the background and publication history of this novel is not clearly described as it should be, and several sections have too much overlap. Content in the critical reception section could probably go in the character and theme section, etc. Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)