Talk:Thoughts on the Education of Daughters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

GA Passed

This article is well written, well referenced, and covers the topic well. The automated peer review suggests:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Congratulations, DoomsDay349 01:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Teleology?

I think I know what is meant here, but it's a very loose sense of the word. I'm not sure at the moment what should replace it: "evolutionarily"? even "ontogenetically". But much the same point would be made either by omitting the phrase or by saying "scholars view it retrospectively as". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, "teleology" is not being used loosely. It is being used to mean "we can see an endpoint or telos that Wollstonecraft is purposefully driving toward", that is, we can read Wollstonecraft's works as leading towards her Rights of Woman. Jones uses the word in the section of her essay that I cite for that section, so I feel justified. Awadewit | talk 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say that I somewhat disagree with the use of the word without a phrase of explanation ("stepping stone" is useful but doesn't mean quite the same thing) in such a vital position in the article. I had to look it up (I knew it; but I had to look it up to reassure myself that I knew it!).qp10qp 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This word is so perfect, I hate to change it (and look, you relearned a word!). I have slightly altered the explanation you provided. Awadewit | talk 05:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Awadewit; I like the use of "teleology" here and it seems precise as is. The only qualm might be whether typical readers will be familiar with it? Just a stray thought, Willow 21:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Teleology" is linked and explained now, so... Also, the "typical reader" of this article - one who made it to the end - is not the ordinary wikipedia reader. This is an obscure work. Perhaps we can rely on them to click or know the word? Awadewit | talk 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC comments by Qp10qp

I thought my minor comments would be best placed here, out of Raul's way.

• Can you "fuse" a book with an ethos?

• No, but I thought you could "fuse" genres with with an ethos - you think not? Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is being fussy, but a genre and an ethos are not like, in my opinion. What about "adapts...to"? qp10qp 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Better. Awadewit | talk 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Its ability to attract reviews/no other journal reviewed the book. Is there a contradiction here, or was it reviewed in the papers, or something?

• One way to judge a book's popularity is through the number of reviews - TED received only one. However, it was extracted in other places, which means that it gained a bit of attention, but not much. I have changed the lead to "a review". Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine.qp10qp 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have actually revised the lead even more. I don't know why, but suddenly it started to sound like the book was more successful than it was. Awadewit | talk 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• she chafed at her lowly position and refused to accommodate herself to her employers. This seems to me rather vague. I don't really know what "accommodate herself to" means here. Wouldn't do what she was told?

• Exactly. I didn't want to go into all of the details here. MW just couldn't get along with Lady Kingsborough, for many reasons. I didn't think it was worth explaining here. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure; but my point was really that "accommodate herself to" is unclear. Even in itself, I don't think it means much. Not to me, anyway. By all means disregard such nitpicks... they are just one reader's instinctive responses.qp10qp 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is vague - do you think I should add details here? There is really no good way to describe what happened without adding details. Awadewit | talk 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• friend and publisher Joseph Johnson. Was he her friend before publishing the book? How did she get to know him? How did such an unknown person manage to get published? Was it commissioned?

• See Joseph Johnson (publisher). :) The page is a joint project between Willow and myself. I have added a small detail to this article. In the eighteenth-century, it was not nearly as hard to get published as it is now. Pretty much anyone could. The book was not commissioned. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK.qp10qp 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Although one can piece it together once one is told when she wrote the book, I think it would help if the book was mentioned briefly in its chronological position in the first paragraph of "Biographical background". This is because one emerges from that paragraph naturally assuming that after she announced she would become a writer, she wrote the book. But she had already written it.

• Section is revised. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Neat.qp10qp 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• The text begins with advice on the care of a baby, arguing that a mother should breastfeed her own child (a hotly debated topic in the eighteenth century),[3] and ends with a chapter delineating the appropriate "public places" for young women to frequent. This whole paragraph (the weakest in the article, I think—rather listy, for me) leaves me unclear about the point of view of the book. Is it addressed to mothers or to older girls/young women as well? Clearly, the babycare, childhood reading stuff, etc., is addressed to mothers. Is the "rational approach to love, friendship, and marriage"/ the benevolence bit/household duties/ places to frequent, etc. all addressed to mothers too? To both parents?

• I have added a description of the audience. The book is difficult to describe because it is a disconnected set of chapters. The listy-ness is a common feature of descriptions of the book. If you have a better solution, let me know. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a way, but I wouldn't wish it on you because it would take an awful lot of redrafting and trial and error—and I can't attempt it myself because I don't know the book. I think to improve this sort of passage, one has to restructure the list into smaller groups and then colour each grouping with some descripive touches and use a different sentence structure for each grouping. Then maybe insert some separate points or material between the groupings. The listiness becomes less apparent.

It's not at all easy: when I was trying to summarise all Shakespeare's plays in four paragraphs, I must have spent several days on it, and it's still not totally satisfactory. I tend to trust the rule of three. For me, prose becomes ugly when more than three examples of anything are given in a row. After that, I suspect that the reader is unable to hold the contents of the sentence together in the head. This might just be me, though.qp10qp 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I'll start working on a draft here. Awadewit | talk 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision pasted in. Let me know what you think. Awadewit | talk 11:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely terrific. You have transformed what felt like a perfunctory reeling off into an excellent passage of writing. (When I made the suggestion, I really didn't expect you to bother. I hope you feel it was worth it.) Bravo! qp10qp 00:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I do feel it was worth it. I take your comments very seriously - how could I not revise? Awadewit | talk 03:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• "pervasive". This in itself does not strike me as a negative word: a good education can and should be pervasive too.

• I meant that Wollstonecraft thought that the damaging kind of education was pervasive. How best to fix that? Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think "pervasive" could go, with no ill effect on the meaning, since education is assumed to have a long-term effect. Once again, sorry to niggle over such minutiae: it's only because I know you care about every last detail.qp10qp 17:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it. Don't worry about the niggling! I really enjoy working to find just the right wording. It has helped my writing enormously to engage in these projects. Awadewit | talk 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I cut the "skills such as dancing" phrase. On its own, I felt it gave a false impression. If it goes back in, I feel it should have at least one more example with it. This point was, though, already covered in the "artifical manners", theatre-going sentence higher up.

• Fine. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Catharine Macaulay: since she is introduced with Chapone, I feel she requires a phrase of description, to balance the information given about Chapone. I felt the context set me up to expect that, but it didn't come.

• A bit added. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I can relax now! qp10qp 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• challenged the primacy of the aristocratic code of manners. I wasn't sure what this meant. The aristocratic code of manners was a separate matter, I would have thought. If a source makes this point, then perhaps it should be explained.

• It may have been separate, but it was the most respected code. The middle class developed a code to challenge the aristocratic code - they wanted their code to be the basis of British morality (that is what the source says). How could I communicate this better? (They succeeded, as you know.) Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about the relevance of aristocratic morality; but since I'm disagreeing with the source rather than you, it doesn't matter.qp10qp 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that Newington Green has a phrase of explanation. What was the origin of Wollstonecraft's Dissenting background, by the way? It seems a slightly random element in the article, but important, particularly as Dissenting beliefs are mentioned as distinguishing Wollstonecraft from Locke.

• I have added a bit on that in the biographical background and in the pedagogy section. She got them from Priestley and Price, mostly, is that not clear? Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is now. Thank you.qp10qp 19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• earlier interpretation. Should this be fixed in time, since there must have been still earlier interpretations?

• The "the" doesn't make it clear? Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I read it to mean that there was only one earlier interpretation (the earlier interpretation). Of course, it's true that scholarship has only been addressing this stuff in recent decades; but there would have been earlier interpretations according to the morality contemporary to the books—for example, the review you quote.qp10qp 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Foucault should date it. Awadewit | talk 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• political conservatives. Perhaps one or two of these could be named, to balance the names given for the other view.

• Unfortunately, my sources on TED don't list them. I could list them, of course... Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha: this is the old synthesis trap again. I'm not going to try to tempt you with that apple, but I don't give a figleaf for the synthesis rules, myself. I think they were designed for political and controversial material, and I would insist on them rigidly in those areas, of course. In cases like this, however, I don't see why a smidgen of shrewd synthesis wouldn't benefit the encyclopedia. I believe policy can be interpreted to allow something to act as a source for itself when no other source is available. So my mental process would be: a) this book mentions political conservatives but doesn't say who they were; b)look, here are the very conservatives with their educational policies and writings; c) add to article and give the cat another goldfish; d) result, benevolent synthesis. Evil, eh? One scruple I'd observe would be to avoid putting the synthesis into words. My format would be: a) However, political conservatives, who also believed that childhood was the crucial time for the formation of a person's character, used their own educational works to deflect rebellion by promoting theories of compliance. b) Walter Plinge, in his book "Children Should be Crushed"..... By observing that scruple, I could say that though original thought went into the selection, I did not actually lead the reader by the nose, m'lud.qp10qp 18:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is so synthesis. :) I understand the reason for the synthesis rule (who is the editor to judge that two authors mean the same thing by "conservative", for example), but I chafe under it as well. I could add Hannah More, since she is described as a conservative in opposition to MW, just not in opposition to TED. Awadewit | talk 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In my defence, I wouldn't do it unless it was certain. For example, if it was obvious who these conservatives were. If there were doubt, I wouldn't dream of it. Sometimes I add something left out by a source. For example, it might say, "he wrote to his daughter...". I might add, "in June 1873". Sometimes one book tells you what the letter says but doesn't give full details, and another one paraphrases it but gives the details. I have no hesitation in combining the two and referencing both.qp10qp 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wollstonecraft leaves women without much of a place in society. I thought this was a rare example of weak writing in the article. Sharper wording would help here, I suggest.

• Ah. Me paraphrasing. New version: Wollstonecraft leaves women without a specific position within society. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine.qp10qp 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• by envisioning a masculine role for women, one that they could not actually perform in the public sphere.... I couldn't follow this bit, which no doubt stems from Kelly. The article largely informs the reader that Wollstonecraft was advocating women being wives and mothers, albeit with a rational approach. This is the first we hear of the masculine role, and the point is not developed fully enough for this reader, at least, to make sense of it. If the point is important, I feel it should be expanded and the contradiction made clearer.

• I can't explain much more as Kelly does not. They two interpretations you are pointing to are contradictory readings of the text and the masculine point is only made by Kelly, so I am afraid to give it undue weight (as I told the peer reviewed, I'm afraid to blow up a dispute between 10-15 people into "schools of thought of Thoughts"). I'm not sure I can say "these contradictory readings of TED...", as that is evaluative. Please advise. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it's evaluative. It's descriptive, surely; and we are allowed to describe contradictions, I think. Or we can say: "A different view is held by...". This is factual: to the extent that original thought is involved in noting the difference, it is permissable because it states the obvious. It does not advance a position beyond what is evident from the sources used. As far as the feel of the article is concerned, it does not work, for me, to suddenly have a point mentioned that is unconnected to anything else. One solution may be to see where Kelly joins this stuff to his other points about Wollstonecraft and try to imitate his transition.qp10qp 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing seems to be factual in literary studies. :) Working on a revision... Awadewit | talk 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I'm looking at this again, it doesn't really seem contradictory. Rationality was considered masculine at the time, so Wollstonecraft was envisioning masculine motherhood in a weird way, I guess you could say, but she also seemed to want more for women - a political role beyond that - but couldn't find a place for it at this point. Does that make sense at all? Awadewit | talk 11:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a typo in this quotation: ...He who is training us up for immortal bliss, know best what trials will contribute? Should it be "knows best"? One can never tell with these old quotations.

• Yes - it is a typo - thanks for catching that. How could I read over it 50 million times and not see that? Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Because we read what we intended. We all do it. qp10qp 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• extracts/exerpts. Is a distinction intended here? I'm not quite sure there is one, in this context.

• I was just trying to vary diction. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I hereby find you guilty of elegant variation. May you atone for your synonyms.qp10qp 18:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I reject your doctrine of so-called "elegant variation". Here I stand. Awadewit | talk 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I say, these comments are very minor. Congratulations again on the article.qp10qp 03:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor question

The MW navbox used to have centered fields and now everything is left justified. I don't know why that changed, but I liked it centered. Does anyone know how to change that? Awadewit | talk 07:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. (Someone converted to a different template on Sep 3.) –Outriggr ₪ 08:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sentence about modern analogs?

It might be nice to add a sentence somewhere noting that Wollstonecraft's book is a forerunner of modern works on educating daughters to be self-reliant, some of which have been very popular. If you like that idea, here are some citations that might be useful. :) Willow 12:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Preuschoff, G (2006). Raising Girls: Why Girls Are Different-and How to Help Them Grow Up Happy and Strong. Celestial Arts. ISBN 978-1587612558.

• Deak J, Barker T (2003). Girls will be Girls: Raising Confident and Courageous Daughters. Hyperion. ISBN 978-0786886579.

• Hartley-Brewer, E (2001). Raising Confident Girls: 100 Tips for Parents and Teachers. Fisher Books. ISBN 978-1555613211.

• Mackoff, BD (1996). Growing a Girl: Seven Strategies for Raising a Strong, Spirited Daughter. Dell. ISBN 978-0440506614.

• Pipher, M (1995). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls. Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0345392824.

I feel like such an analogy would be original research (I haven't seen any such comparisons in the scholarship). I'm so sorry - you spent so much time looking them up! Also, from my own knowledge, I can tell you that the tone of these books is much different than the tone of Wollstonecraft's book, which is how to raise a rational wife specifically. Awadewit | talk 02:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's alright; it didn't take very long at all! :) I had the intuition that the sentence wasn't right, although I couldn't exactly say why, which is why I posted it here first. That's interesting about Wollstonecraft; do you think that she muted some of her critiques to make her first book more acceptable to the reading public? Being a first-time author, she might want to make a positive first impression on her audience, to foster the reception of future, more challenging books. If I understand the article correctly, she didn't receive a portion of the book sales, did she? It's all OR of course and doesn't belong in the article; but I'd be glad to hear your thoughts, whether or no there's a clear answer. Willow 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Wollstonecraft was not muting her criticism - she didn't have much of a criticism to make yet. I have actually read all there is to read of Wollstonecraft's writing (letters, published works, reviews, etc.) and it seems to me that she becomes more radical after 1788/1789, particularly after she moves to London and starts socializing with the JJ circle. Also, her two most important works (Rights of Men and 'Rights of Woman) were written in response to ongoing political events, therefore she could not have been planning to write those more challenging works.

You are correct that she only received the 10 guineas and not a percentage of the sales, but this was probably the better deal for her at the time. She was an unknown writer and the sales were not brisk, so she probably made more money this way. As we know, JJ took risks on people he thought would make good authors. :) Awadewit | talk 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)