This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Alright. I consider my main work on the article finished. I think the only real work left to be done is making the summary clearer (which I shall continue to do) and adding some links in the reception section to interviews.
I should add that Franzen himself found the original essay's form to be rather unclear, and mentioned revising it for its ideas rather than its style. And I find the style kind of rambling and unfocused at times. Which is what the content summary should evince. I would encourage anybody who could find a better way of summarizing it to suggest it or edit the that section of the this article. --Artimaean (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
It isn't clear whether the title of this encyclopedia entry should be the original essay title as published in Harper's or the revised version. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Full original title is "Perchance to Dream: In the Age of Images, a Reason to Write Novels". For some reason, it is not mentioned. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's generally poor form to start the lead section off with a 14 word parenthetical mentioning the original title and publisher. That's the kind of thing that should be explained in the body and in the lead. There's no need for a parenthetical here. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
concerns the persistence of reading within the context of technological growth and distraction
While cute, that statement fails to convey the meaning of the essay in clear terms to readers unacquainted with the subject. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
between the publication of Franzen's novels Strong Motion and The Corrections
In other words, between 1992 and 2001. Why not say that? My preferred format is to place the year of publication in parentheses next to the name of work, but there are other ways to do it. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
In the introduction to the collection, Franzen attributed his doing so
Not clear. "Attributed his doing so" refers to what? I'm going to guess, you are talking about his revision of the essay and retitling. Then, why not say that? Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
a long defense of the solitary act of literature in a modern world
If this was a brief synopsis it probably would not need references to chapters and page numbers, but this section is what I call a hybrid synopsis; it has more than 1000 words and contains multiple quotes, with many interpretations thrown in for good measure. Long, complex summaries should have at least one citation (chapter/page numbers of primary source will suffice) per paragraph, whereas simple and short summaries might not need them at all. In this instance, you need them. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
There needs to be at least one full reference to the original publication: Franzen, Jonathan. (April 1996). "Perchance to Dream: In the Age of Images, a Reason to Write Novels". Harper's Magazine. 292 (1751). Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Rebein is poorly cited to editor Toth (2007) rather than to the essay, "Turncoat: Why Jonathan Franzen Finally Said 'No' to Po-Mo". Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Full original title ("Perchance to Dream: In the Age of Images, a Reason to Write Novels") should appear somewhere.
Clear prose preferred. Statements like "concerns the persistence of reading within the context of technological growth and distraction", "meditations around the state and possibility of the novel form", "potential cultural agency", "paradoxical drives of both culture and author", and "media assent to the jingoism" are not clear. This might be acceptable wording on a blog or at a cocktail party to impress the ladies/gents, but on Wikipedia we want to communicate as clearly as possible, without unnecessary ambiguity. You can keep it both smart and simple. If John von Neumann can communicate complex quantum mechanics in clear and simple language, then you should also be able to describe a work of literary criticism with clarity as well.
MOS: quotations for essay titles, not italics.
Need to summarize main points in lead (such as reception).
Doesn't mention the wider context and dispute involving Ben Marcus[1][2][3] or Cynthia Ozick[4]
Doesn't mention James Wolcott's critical review, "Advertisements for Himself", which provides a renewed perspective from the author that is essential for this article
It is not clear if the reception section focuses just on this essay or other works.
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
b (citations to reliable sources): 
