Talk:The Secret Garden

Which one is original?

There are many versions of the secret garden and all of them is different. I don't even understand which one is the real one . Can somebody tell me where can i get the original one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.45.205 (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2011‎

The theater notes for the Shakespeare Theatre Company (Washington DC) 2016 production says that the novel version is different from the serialized version but does not explain it further. What are the differences? Conscientia (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Added the 1919 film, and some links

I added the 1919 lost film to the list of adaptions, and links to pages for several of the versions. Alot of these don't have articles. Could someone start them? 66.43.44.85 22:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

None of these seem to particularly notable to warrant their own article. One stub has already been redirected. Please consider merge proposal below. --Rodhullandemu 19:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

When was the story set?

Although it states that the book was published in 1909, it does not state when the story was set. Was it during the first decade of the 20th century, or a while earlier? I have seen one film adaptation of the book, and I guessed that it was set in about 1900. But does anyone have any idea when the book itself was set? Tripod86. 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben speaks of the Royal Family "and Prince Consort" which would mean Victoria and Albert. Of course Albert died in the middle of the 19th century but I think the 1890's or 1900 would be a good guess.Saxophobia (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds right. It's not Ben Weatherstaff, actually, but Roach, the head gardener, who's a middle-aged man. He says of Colin "he's got a fine lordly way with him, hasn't he? You'd think he was a whole Royal Family rolled into one— Prince Consort and all". (ch. 20). But in the opening during the cholera epidemic, Mary's stylish mother is described: "All her clothes were thin and floating, and Mary said they were 'full of lace.'" This sounds like 1895-1905. The railway carriage has lamps that are lit (ch. 2) and Mary is picked up at the station in a smart brougham (ch. 3). --Wetman (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, Ben himself does say to Colin (when handing him a small potted rose from the greenhouse), "Set it in the earth thysel' same as th' king does when he goes to a new place", but Ben may be unconsciously reverting to the memory of an earlier reign from his own youth. --Wombat1138 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that must be Edward VII - he certainly planted a number of trees. I don't think a mere reference to the Prince Consort is enough to place the action in the previous century. Victoria and Albert still loomed large. Robina Fox (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The commemorative plantings seem to be established as a tradition of royal visits at this point, but I don't know when the practice first began. Edward VII does seem to've left shrubbery etc. in his wake throughout his lifetime, though-- there's an old NYT article from 1908 that mentions the death of an oak that the then-prince planted in 1860: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9500E4D61631E233A25755C0A96F9C946997D6CF --Wombat1138 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Victoria reigned from 1838-1901, so any reference to a king would have to be before or after those dates. Colin's obsession about inheriting his father's deformity fits the late 19th century when talk about heredity was very much in the air (as in Ibsen's GHOSTS, Galton's pseudo-science of eugenics and the researches of Mendel). If Bennett was setting the novel 50 years earlier than her own time, she would probably have been more obvious about it. All in all we could probably assume that the story is contemporary with the time of writing.CharlesTheBold (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

proposed merger of Back to the Secret Garden

This was an undistinguished sequel of dubious notability. I suggest it's always going to be a stub and therefore its proper place is as a subheading of this article. At least then all the "Secret Garden" versions will be in one place. --Rodhullandemu 19:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Dickon Sowerby

The Dickon Sowerby article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own, nor does it establish its notability through secondary sources. It should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense to me; his characterisation is already largely covered by this article, and the lengthy recitation from the Sparknotes is dangerously close to a copyright violation. A separate article adds nothing to this one, and Dickon Sowerby should be redirected here. --Rodhullandemu 13:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Being bold and ignoring all rules, I cannot see how Dickon Sowerby could survive as a separate article. Once you've removed the copyvio and the material already here, there is virtually nothing left, and the image linked was also a copyvio and too small to be encyclopedic. There is certainly no assertion of notability for the character independently of the novel. Accordingly, I've redirected it here. --Rodhullandemu 14:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Japanese film

I'm afraid the Internet Movie Database has it wrong. There's no resemblance between the story as outlined in the article about the Japanese film & FHB's story. But take your time & have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The IMDB entry is terse; however, the reference I subsequently added (and I assume they know what they're talking about) is more confirmatory, and specifically refers to the 1991 version. Are you sure you're not confusing this with the 2006 version, which is much more weakly connected to the original? Rodhullandemu 22:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the new reference is clearly to the FHB story. But the other one, with the Japanese names, as outlined in the WP article, bears little resemblance. Is that what you mean by the 2006 version? Rothorpe (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) - Ah, yes, but that's not directly referenced here, only the IMD, so OK, no problem.

(edit conflict)There seem to be two versions in anime of Himitsu no Hanazono. Our article refers to the 2007 TV programme, which shares only a title, and is why it was unlinked earlier this evening. As for the IMDB entry, I think it's clearly *intended* to refer to the 1991 version but falls down when orthogonalised against the newer source. Hopefully, this is now sorted out. Rodhullandemu 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

According to ANN[1], the title of that anime is Anime Himitsu no Hanazono. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.180.183 (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've removed this section for now as it seems to be a direct copy from here. If Amazon are using our text, it should be credited per the GFDL, but on the other hand, we shouldn't be using theirs if they wrote it first. Rodhullandemu 21:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the novel about? Should it go into Category:Novels about orphans? Should I write my own plot summary? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I can write a new plot summary. It was deleted because it was a copy - the first post on this thread. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct area to make this comment however, I believe the book explicitly refers to a fall from a tree as the cause of Mrs Cravens death. It may be implied by Mr Craven's thoughts at the end of the book that the cause of death was childbirth, although this does seem to be somewhat uncertain. Surely, the plot summary should site her cause of death as a fall from a tree (and if not explain in depth the justification for the interpretation of death during childbirth). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.172.80 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Current description of Lilias's death says something fell on her. Story says she fell from a branch that was a natural seat. I will repair in Jan 2017 when I do other editing I have mentioned in this talk section.Conscientia (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Created section for plot summary

I have moved the plot summary to its own section, consistent with the way in which other books are treated. Summarising the plot in the introduction is not appropriate, as well as constituting too much of a 'spoiler' without warning. Other facts could move to the introduction. -Lindosland (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Themes

This section appears to be almost entirely original research. Unless these interpretations can be verified by reliable sources, they should be removed pretty WP:OR. 49.98.144.94 (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

These cribs for high school essays should not be in the article. As pointed out in 2013 above, they should be removed. They have no source, no authority, and are someone's personal opinion. If justification is not made, or the interpretations cited to a wikipedia worthy source, I will remove them in January 2017.Conscientia (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Removed the Theme section because it had no references and was entirely inappropriate, as pointed out in May 2013. Retained the only sentence that had an (apparently) valid reference.Conscientia (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Blue Peter

I am quite sure that 'Blue Peter' featured the story, with Valerie Singleton reading it each week. This was my own introduction to the story, probably the 60's. I realise that it may not be a significant event, but I'm sure I can't have been alone in this. PeterM88 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Editions, illustrators

Which edition is illustrated by M.B. Kirk? Do the images display Kirk illustrations?

• OCLC 261270498 - 1910 American Magazine, ill. J. Scott Williams
• OCLC ??; digital copy - August 1911 US, Stokes, ?
• OCLC 557480175 - 1911 UK, Heinemann, ill. Charles Robinson

--P64 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph currently in the Publication History section about inspiration for the book should not be there. In January, when I remove the Themes section, I will move it to its own section.Conscientia (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Major Changes to Plot Summary

On 2 December 2020‎ the IP address 148.64.28.131 made major changes to the plot summary, describing them as "I've changed the whole plot summary, to make it understandable, catchy and informative". The wording is colloquial, fairly full of errors, and does not read like an encyclopedia article. The former version of the plot summary was not inaccurate, nor was there any discussion of the changes to be made in the Talk section. I feel that a plot summary of a book on Wikipedia should be accurate rather than "catchy" and suggest this major edit be reversed. Kavindad1 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The previous summary, though a little lengthy, was preferable.--- Robina Fox (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. Informal expressions such as "posh, spoilt kid", "didn't" and "picky" make this quite painful to read. It also uses American expressions such as 'jump-rope' that appear nowhere in the text. The changes need to be reverted in their entirety. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I've done the revert. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Father's sister / mother's sister

In Chapter 2 of the book, Archibald Craven says "Captain Lennox was my wife's brother and I am their daughter's guardian." Mary's father was the brother of Lilias Craven. I believe that this may have been altered to Mary's mother being Lilias's sister in at least one filmed version, perhaps so as to have the same actress play both women (film versions typically give more time to the adult characters than the book does). But this article is primarily about the book. Any differences worth mentioning should go in the Adaptations section. --- Robina Fox (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)