Talk:The Riddle of the Sands

Errata

The article says: "Carruthers... asking him to join in a yachting holiday in the German Frisian islands."

No. The request is to join him for yachting (and duck hunting) in the Baltic; specifically, the "Schleswig fjords". They then leave the Baltic for the Frisian islands.

There are numerous other errors in the plot summary. It should either be expanded into a real -- and accurate -- summary, or just condensed into a vague, 50-word description of the book.

Excellent book. Crappy article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.247.0.21 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Be Bold and please fix it your self, everyone is allowed to edit this article. Dabbler (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Using "Allusions/references to actual history, geography and current science" as a section head

User:Kevinalewis has reinstated "Allusions/references to actual history, geography and current science" as a section head. Apparently (and I didn't know this) it comes from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, contributors who "define a standard of consistency for articles about novels". However, it seems that the project members are not wholeheartedly behind this particular form of words (see here) and the option "Historical context" is also considered as a suitable header, a point conceded by User:Kevinalewis. (I hope I'm interpreting the discussion correctly.) Furthermore, they enjoin: "do not forget the spirit behind these guidelines. If they make editing or reading more difficult for a particular novel or for novels in general, change them or ignore them, preferably with some explanation on talk or meta pages." Additionally, of course, the Wikipedia manual of style has "special characters such as the slash (/), plus sign (+), braces ({ }) and square brackets ([ ]) are avoided" in titles and headers. I propose using here the alternative "Historical context", which would keep within the style guidelines of the project, yet not overwhelm the article. Other comments, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as a particularly ugly construction. I would suggest that while it may be useful as a hint or guide to article writers, as a heading should be avoided if at all possible and replaced by something more relevant to the article being written. Dabbler (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The disfiguring header replaced by the project's shorter alternative, "Historical context", as discussed above. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edward Frederick Knight

I am a new user and do not know how to add this, but there perhaps needs to be a link to the Wikipedia article on Edward Frederick Knight, to whom Childers refers in chapter xx page 172 using only his surname as the author of "Falcon on the Baltic" which Knight published in 1888. I have been trying to track down Childer's references and it took me a good bit of work to discover this reference listed in Wikipedia but no link provided. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

needs a plot summary

couple paragraphs would be helpful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.57.163 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks User:Dabbler. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category: Irish novels

The book was written during Childers's "most English" period, a couple of years after serving the Empire in South Africa, about two "most English" characters, dealing with the German threat to England. Is the recent new Category "Irish novels" really justified? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, yes, since the author considered himself Irish.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is true but, to quote his biographer Andrew Boyle (1st, page 39), at that stage very much as "an Englishman in Ireland", sharing the views of the Bartons, his adoptive family, who felt themselves "naturally superior to the native Irish over whom the Lord had set them in authority." Is this what you mean? His Irish nationalism was, at best, still five years away. This wouldn't of course preclude his writing an "Irish" novel, dealing with an Irish topic (I'm thinking, perhaps, of something like The Irish RM here), but this surely isn't one such. Furthermore, the lede states that the work was written by an "Irish nationalist" but this isn't justified in the text: It's very obviously true from an historical perspective and there is some scope for an editor briefly to explain the contradictions! He took Irish nationality seventeen years later. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than this novel, Childers is best known as an Irish nationalist. He did consider himself Irish, at least later in life, so I believe this can be applied retrospectively.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is certainly valid for having "Irish nationalist" in the lede, although it does need an explanation later on to comply with WP:LS. For me the problem is categorising this very "English" book as an "Irish novel". The book itself isn't Irish at all.--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The character of the book is not the issue - but the nationality of its author. James Clavell write highly competent novels about set in and about Japan, but they are not Japanese novels. They would be written by a Japanese. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

O.K. To accept that definition just for a moment: Childers was born in Mayfair and wrote the book in Chelsea, while holding British nationality and working as a British civil servant. He left Chelsea for Dublin and adopted Irish nationality seventeen or so years later, only to be shot by the Irish government three years after that. Did the book change its nationality as well, as a result of the three years in which the author held Irish citizenship? I need to point out I'm not quibbling about this from any nationalist viewpoint, on either side: the issue is the credibility of Wikipedia. Readers just won't get it if we classify this quintessentially British work as an "Irish novel". --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the category "Irish novel" is dubious for a book written by someone who considered himself a loyal British subject at the time. He wrote about Englishmen, working for the defence of England with no direct connection to Ireland except that both were part of the United Kingdom at the time. I would also remove the reference to Irish nationalism in the leading para as it has no connection to this article and is only explained on Childers' page and we have a link to that for people interested in the author, not the book. Dabbler (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

James Clavell never claimed to be Japanese - not really a valid comparison. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Irish nationalist" from lede: it didn't reflect the content of the article as required in MOS:LEAD. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the beef is. In certain respects, it's not an English novel either - it's set in German Friesland. Why not categorise it as both Irish and English (as in "from England", rather than English language)--MacRusgail (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that James Clavell is a red herring in this case, but I find any link between the book and Ireland to be less than tenuous. Apart from a few years as a child living with his mother's family in Ireland after his parent's death, Childers in 1903 had very little connection with Ireland and none with Irish politics. He was English born, English schooled and served in the British army and British civil service. His book is about two English people finding a threat of an invasion of England in the closest part of Germany to England. Ireland is not mentioned in the book, it has no Irish characters or, dare I say it, Irish sensibility. Can you indicate what it is about the book when it was written that in any way merits the statement that it is an Irish novel? I discount Childers later attachment to Ireland and the Irish nationalist cause because then we would have to investigate every writer's life to categorise their books according to all the later vicissitudes of their personal lives. The Picture of Dorian Gray is classified as an Irish novel, perhaps it should be classified as an English or French novel because Wilde moved away from Ireland. Dabbler (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"James Clavell never claimed to be Japanese", No, but if Childers was Irish then the illustrations holds. The point I was making was "the nationality of the author", period. If it turns out that Childers was not Irish the it is not an Irish novel. That was the point. It would appear from the research of others that he was not. so it is not an Irish novel. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) But if Clavell took out Japanese citizenship after having written Shogun etc. would that make the novel Japanese? What if he had been ethnically half Japanese? Childers could not have had Irish nationality until the Irish Free State came into being, he had some Irish family so there was an ethnic connection to Ireland but culturally he seems mostly to have considered himself English until well after the book was written. What is/should the nationality of the novel be based on? Dabbler (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a far too large a debate to have one one novel. It is a general category principle. Normally novels take the nationality of the author that writes them. This particular one and the theoretical example you give would make this a more complex issue - however this does not deny the notion that artistic works (of which novels are but one example) have an identity derived from the culture/nationality out of which they come. In this can the author and their background. As I say too big an issue for this arena though. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the particular, again: Having removed "Patriotic novel...by Irish Nationalist...", which was perverse, I thought it needed "British" back in (pace User:Dabbler) to indicate to which country the patriotism referred. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If Clavell became Japanese, then yes, he would be a Japanese writer. But he never did. Childers did become Irish, and very much so.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chalkfoot Theatre Company

I've just provided a ref for this recent addition, but I'm far from convinced it's notable enough for inclusion. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, no defenders: deleting. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|The Riddle of the Sands|b00bzdg4}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Sequel

• The sequel section should be restored or given a separate page.
• “The Shadow in the Sands”--by Sam Llewellyn
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Llewellyn

Kenixkil (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)