Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/P. G. Wodehouse/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

P. G. Wodehouse

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

P.G. Wodehouse was a prolific author whose career stretched from his 1902 novel The Pothunters, through over ninety books to his unfinished 1977 novel Sunset at Blandings. In-between he brought, and still brings, joy to millions through the stories of Bertie Wooster and his valet, Jeeves; the immaculate and loquacious Psmith; Lord Emsworth and the Blandings Castle set; the disaster-prone opportunist Ukridge, the Oldest Member, with stories about golf; and Mr Mulliner, with stories about many things from film studios to the Church of England. He was also much admired by his contemporaries, many of whom publically acknowledged Wodehouse's talent. A misguided action during the Second World War saw his popularity take a large knock, especially in the UK, but he was forgiven, both by the public and officialdom over time.

This article has undergone a major re-haul recently, bringing it up to scratch and much more appropriate for a writer of his ilk. Pip pip! – SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk, 20:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments

  • An excellent article. A few quibbles.
  • I have all the Wodehouses (I think) apart from the Globe By the Way Book, the only one which has never been re-published. However my fanatic phase is long ago so apologies if I get things wrong.
  • The Commons link is to an old page.
  • There are two short story collections not in the works template. Tales of Wrykin and Elsewhere, latest issue is by Everyman, Kid Brady Stories and a Man of Means, Everyman is first pub.
  • "The talks were comic and apolitical, but broadcasting over enemy radio was contrary to UK law." It is many years since I looked into this, but as I remember the issue was a claim that the talks were pro-Nazi rather than a technical issue about law. Note - I see that this is what the main text says below. I did not see anything there about broadcasting over enemy radio being against the law.
  • Is the account of his early career a bit anodyne? As I remember (again) the semi-autobiographical Not George Washington presents him as a not-too-scrupulous writer on the make.
    • Cards on the table: I haven't read Not George Washington, but PGW co-wrote it with Herbert Westbrook, whose name comes first on the title page and who was something of a chancer à la Ukridge. I wonder if it was he whose character peeps out in the book. I drafted the para in question, and I honestly think I've represented Donaldson and McCrum faithfully here. – Tim riley talk 16:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to David Jasen's intro in my copy, published by Continuum, Westbrook (Julian Eversleigh in the book) supplied the plot and Wodehouse (James Orlebar Cloyster) wrote it. However, I do not know of any source commenting on the book - apart from Jasen citing as a real life example of the plot Wodehouse publishing under Westbrook's name and they divided the proceeds - pretty innocuous. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'Oyly Carte - No "sir I grow thinnah and thinnah"?
    • Tempting. Shall consult my conscience. Throughout the drafting of this rewrite it has required strict self-discipline to refrain from adding too many glorious Wodehouse phrases. Tim riley talk 16:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having wrestled with my conscience I think we must deny ourselves the pleasure of this quote (particularly as - see footnote - there is some doubt which of the Carte brothers was quoted to Wodehouse.) Tim riley talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He returned to England, where he rejoined The Globe" - when?
  • I think the account of the 1910s does not give a picture of his work then. It was a period when he was experimenting with different styles (as I think he says in one of his prefaces) - some more successful than others, and when he mixed comedy with social criticism. A prime example is my favourite pre-WWI novel, Psmith Journalist, with its expose of corruption in New York politics, also Something Fresh, where the portrait of the snobberies and jealousies of the servants (based he said on his childhood much of it spent below stairs at the houses of his aunts and uncles) is a different world from Beach in the later Blandings novels. Another example is The Coming of Bill with its expose of health faddism (which I see is mentioned below). (Of course I know this is just my opinion - you have to base the articles on RSs.)
  • Was not Ethel Wodehouse disliked by his friends?
  • "the publisher Michael Joseph identifies that Wodehouse understood human nature" A bit clumsy - rare in a very well written article.

Dudley Miles (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

Just to get things started, more soon:

Lede
  • "joint British-American citizenship". "Dual" for "joint" in my view, unless this is the British term.
  • "although he slowed down in old age" strike "down" as needless.
Reluctant banker
  • " it was well received and launched a theatrical career that spanned three decades" With admiration for the prose, I must in candour point out there's some ambiguity as to whose.
  • " is partly based on Herbert Westbrook, with whom Wodehouse collaborated on The Globe, and co-wrote two books, two music hall sketches, and a play, Brother Alfred, between 1907 and 1913." I think you're trying to do too much in the part of the sentence after "Westbrook" and I'm not sure the structure supports it. Possibly recast?
  • "to add topical verses to new or imported shows." I can understand why the imported shows might need topical verses, but why the new? Surely they are as topical as it gets? Or if not, why is "new" of note, then?
Psmith etc
More anon.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1930s
Aftermath
  • It would be interesting to know what 1941 defenders of Wodehouse had to say. That seems to be given little space. We have comments against him, and also the reader will likely "get" why it's a bad idea to broadcast over enemy radio in wartime. All the more reason to know how he was defended in a wartime Britain which didn't have much time for tolerance of such things.
American exile
  • "Upper East Side district of Manhattan" I've rarely heard it called a district. Perhaps "Manhattan's Upper East Side"?
    • Here is an excellent example of the benefit of Peer Review! A touch on the tiller to point the vessel towards the idiomatic form. Duly changed.
Technique
  • "such as the Drones Club" as this is the sole mention of this venerable group, perhaps the reader could be told which set of works features it.
Reception
  • Waugh "opines" and Leavis "wrote". Both are dead (ditto Asquith, who is mentioned with Blair, who is not). What is the rationale on tenses?
  • The blocking of the knighthood ... it's separated from the information earlier about him getting his knighthood. Can the reader be given a hint there that it had been previously blocked?
That's about it, really. Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BB

edit

The first half: apologies if I am listing points that others have already raised. This is a most enjoyable article and I am devastated that I was unable to participate in it.

Lead
  • The description of P.G. in the first line as "an English author" is a little dull. The Oxford Companion to Eng. Lit describes him as "the most widely-read humorist of his day" – something like that, I think, would kick the article off with more oomph.
    • Yes indeed. Done. I have slightly watered down the wording, as in the form you quote it would need a citation, and I hate citations in leads, with a Florentine fourteenth-century frenzy. Tim riley talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After his release he made six broadcasts from German radio in Berlin..." If he was still in Germany, in what sense was he "released"?
    • I'm inclined to dig my heels in over this. We mention a few words earlier that his internment had ended, and surely no reader will suppose that this meant he was free to toddle down to Tegel Airport and hop on a plane to Croydon. Tim riley talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like to take the accountancy approach, but the figures in the final paragraph are a bit confusing. If he took "up to two years to build a plot and write a scenario", and then three months to write the book, it's hard to see how he could write 90+ books between 1902 and 1974 – along with all his other projects. I imagine that the answer is that he worked on many projects simultaneously, but it might be worthwhile tweaking the prose to clarify this.
  • I'm not sure that the writers' roll call is necessary in the lead
Early years
  • "Eleanor Wodehouse was also of ancient ancestry" – well, I'm sure we all are, aren't we?
    • Certainly. I myself can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. But I take the point, and have added "aristocratic". (And of longer lineage than the Wodehouses, too, it seems, going back to the court of Edward the Confessor.) Tim riley talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Bertie Wooster, in his recollection of a "penitentiary", actually name Malvern House? If so, I think this needs to be worked into the quotation.
    • This is a bit tricky, because Bertie sometimes calls it "Malvern House" and sometimes "St Asaph's, both under the frightful headmaster Aubrey Upjohn. I don't want to labour the point, and I'd rather leave it as it is. Tim riley talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant banker; budding writer 1900–08
  • When did he take up the Globe appointment? Presumably he held it initially alongside his banking job?
    • Indeed. Now clarified.
  • "and devoted himself to a career as a full-time author" – I might stick a "thereafter" or "from then on" before "devoted".
    • Now redrawn.
  • Surely "prentice" is archaic, acceptable within a quote but not otherwise?
  • "In April 1904 Wodehouse sailed to New York.." It would be useful to include in this some indication of his motivation, e.g. "seeking to widen his range of experience".
  • "launched a theatrical career" — "launched a theatrical writing career" – otherwise it sounds as though he became an actor.
Psmith, Blandings, Wooster, Jeeves and Broadway 1908–17
  • "It was published in hardback in the US and (under the title Something Fresh) the UK in the same year" – something about that formulation bothers me, I'm not sure what, but it doesn't read right. An alternative arrangement might be: "That year it was published in hardback in the US, and in the UK under the title Something Fresh.
    • Redrawn.
  • "It was Wodehouse's first novel to be farcical" → "It was Wodehouse's first farcical novel"?
  • "the first story about Bertie and Jeeves" – is this really encyclopaedic? In the leader you refer to "Bertie Wooster" and Jeeves, and I would have thought that "Wooster and Jeeves" was the proper degree of formality.
    • I'm following the example of Usborne, Lady Donaldson, McCrum and French in referring to the character as "Bertie". It is true that Benny Green and Jasen tend to call him "Wooster", but I reckon the "Bertie" camp considerably outweighs the Woosterites.
1920s
Hollywood
1929–31
  • Rien
Best-seller 1930s
  • "... but at the last minute their version had to be almost entirely rewritten by others". I think some of what you have consigned to a note could usefully be incorporated into the text, especially the factor that th producer disliked the script and wanted to jettison it anyway.
  • As Tim knows, I am an opponent of formulae that purport to give present-day equivalents of historical values, but I think that Wodehouse's £100,000 a year needs a 1930s context. With this in mind I have discovered, from a 1950s House of Commons debate that the average earnings in the manufacturing industries was £3.9s a week, or £180 a year. So P.G. was earning more than 500 times the average British industrial wage. Maybe worth a footnote.
  • "would have been overwhelmed" – is what I believe is the conditional perfect the righyt grammatical form to use here? If, foe example, I say that "my father would loved that", the implication is that my father wasn't around to experience what he would have loved. Yet here you are talking about something which Wodehouse actually experienced.

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really excellent stuff so far: many thanks. Looking forward to Round Two. Tim riley talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest:

Second World War, internment and broadcasts
  • What happened to Ethel when P.G. was sent to Loos? No further mention of her in this section.
  • "On 21 June 1941 ... Wodehouse received a visit from two members of the Gestapo. He was given ten minutes to pack his things before he was taken to the Hotel Adlon in Berlin. He was thus released..." Does being carted off to Germany at 10 minutes' notice really amount to "release"? Particularly as he was not allowed to leave the country.
  • The footnote "Sproat says that Wodehouse was "tricked" into making the broadcasts" seems unnecessary. In the main text you say "...Wodehouse was, in the words of Phelps, "cleverly trapped" into making five broadcasts...", which seems sufficient.
Aftermath – reactions and investigation
  • Was Connor's broadcast really a "bulletin" within the generally accepted meaning of the word?
  • "... but the Department of War used the interviews as an ideal representation of anti-Nazi propaganda". It rather defies logic how this could be so; what was the Department's reasoning?
  • Because Wodehouse managed to mock the Germans in the programmes, despite broadcasting from Berlin. Unfortunately Connolly gives no explanation (even of the reason I've just given) but just reports the fact and moves on. - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Wodehouses remained in Germany until September 1943..." – ah, so she was with him! This needs to be made clearer rather earlier in the narrative.
  • "On 9 September Wodehouse was visited by an MI5 investigator, Major Edward Cussen, a former barrister, who was to formally investigate him..." There's some awkward repetition there, which suggests a slight rewording is necessary.
  • " which states that" → " which stated that"?
  • Give date for the egregious Cooper's appointment as ambassador.
  • "They were subsequently arrested and placed under preventive detention". Who arrested them, and on what grounds? I understand, reading on, that it was the French authorities, but there's no indication given as to why they acted.
  • The French arrested them on the grounds of a dinner party conversation...! No charges were ever bought (Wodehouse having committed no crime on French, German, British or American soil) - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but it was not until June 1946 that all charges against him were officially dropped". What were the charges?
American exile, 1946–75
  • What was the location of the off-Broadway revival of Leave It to Jane?
  • (aside) Ethel must have been barmy, coming to England in 1948 to shop!! There was little to be had, whatever there was was on ration and the place was a right dump. Or so my elders and betters tell me.
  • Benny Green should be pipelinked
  • Robert McCrum is linked in a footnote but not in the main text. And we should be told in the text who he is (and Green, too, for that matter)
  • "He was considered for the award of a knighthood at least three times from 1967..." Can you say by whom he was considered, and who the "British officials" were that blocked the award? Wilson, who was PM in 1967, had the powers to overrule them, but obviously didn't. (Later: I see the matter is dealt with in more detail in the Reception and Reputation section. It doesn't really fit there. My preference would be to bring it all into here; readers would then get the whole story in one go, rather than half here and half later.)
    • SchroCat, The second block was under the Heath government (I have a dim memory of reading in Private Eye that Reginald Maudling blocked the honour, but Lord Cromer will suffice). How about this: give the dates and the culprits in the American exile section, but keep the reason why the ambassadors were against it for the reputation section? As to who recommended him for an honour on any of the three occasions, I don't think we know. Anyone can recommend anyone else for the honours list. We might find the records in the Public Record Office at Kew, but I don't think I've seen them in print.Tim riley talk 08:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with moving the detail northward on the page, leaving the Ambassador's comments where they are. I'll have a hunt rund for any relevant further details. I seem to remember that he was recomended by smeone in Liverpool, (possibly trade unionist), although I'd have to dig round a bit more to seejust how faulty my memory is! - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My memory less faulty than I thought as I found one of the refeences straight away (It's the one we use there already from The Daily Telegraph, who say "... in 1967 Wodehouse was put up for an honour by Walter Citrine, once Mersey district secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, given a peerage after serving as TUC general secretary" - SchroCat (talk)09:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technique and approach
  • " In his younger years, would write around two to three thousand words a day..." Word missing?
  • I think the lead tweak that I asked for also needs to be worked in here (about working on several projects simultaneously)
  • "The literary critic Edward L. Galligan also considers that Wodehouse's stories adopt the form of the American musical comedy for literature, and sees that Wodehouse's work within those constraints shows his mastery of the form." I'd like to shorten this if possible; it meanders somewhat untidly at present. Suggestion: "The literary critic Edward L. Galligan considers that Wodehouse's stories show his mastery in adapting the form of the American musical comedy for his writings".
  • "correctly" is followed too quickly by "correcting"
  • All four points address, hopefully adequately. -
Language
  • First paragraph: "Wodehouse would also create new words by splitting others in two" → "Wodehouse created new words..." etc. Also I'd try and avoid the close proximity of "splitting" and "splits"
  • Second paragraph: the first sentence definitely needs to be split. At present it goes on and on. And on. Also, I thing "prize-giving" needs a hyphen.
  • I can't easily grasp the context of the conversational extract, the main purpose of which is to display Wodehouse's hobbing and nobbing joke. This could, I suggest, be achieved by using just the last three lines.
  • Sorry Brianboulton, I'm being a bit dense: could you elaborate on this? Do you mean so something with the "To offer a housemaid a cigarette is not hobbing. Nor, when you light it for her, does that constitute nobbing." bit? (The "last three lines" changes depending on screen size, so I'm not sure what you're looking at. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies: my notes got completely mixed up here. Forget the hobbing and nobbing, that is perfectly OK. I was referring to the conversational extract that begins "it seems to me..." What I meant to say is that the purpose of the extract is to demonstrate Wodehouse's ability to make something interesting out of a cliché, in this case "the mind boggles". I thought that this could be achieved by just using the last three lines of the conversation. But having mucked things up pretty comprehensively, I'm inclined to leave well alone, now. What was the other point you wished me to pronounce on? Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reception and reputation
  • "the influential literary critic" Puffery per WP:WEASEL
  • Why is Michael Davie's observation in the past tense, and the Times obituarist's in the present?
  • Brianboulton Here...:
  • I've put Davie in the present tense, but the sentence now reads "After his death six weeks later, ... Davie, ... observes that...": Are you OK with that? - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm not, and I have (negotiably as ever, of course) put a couple of writes/wrote into the past tense where the present is jarring. I think it's more important to be readable than consistent, if the two collide. Tim riley talk 14:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a slight problem with "1,750 quotations from Wodehouse in the OED". I suspect that there are very largely words devised by Wodehouse, rather than quotations from his prose, which is what "quotations" suggests. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations has 17 entries for PG (including the one about the Black Shorts leader Roderick Spode, who has "the sort of eye that can open an oyster at sixty paces". Wish I'd thought of that.
    • It's quite the opposite. There aren't all that many words actually invented by Wodehouse (as opposed to popularised by him). A familiar Wodehouse word like "rannygazoo" turns out to be "US regional and colloquial" from the 1890s, and a "hornswoggling highbinder" has one part dating from 1829 and the other from 1806. In the main, the OED quotes quite ordinary sentences from the novels to illustrate the use of all sorts of words, from Aberdonian, adj. and n … 1931 P. G. Wodehouse Big Money iii. 53 "Her idea of expense-money is little short of Aberdonian" all the way to zowie, int … 1972 P. G. Wodehouse Pearls, Girls, & Monty Bodkin xi. 171 "He gets out and zowie a gang of thugs come jumping out of the bushes, and next thing you know they're off with your jewel case." The statement about the 1,750 quotations is from McCrum, here – Tim riley talk 08:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a real pleasure to review, and a real regret that I'm not part of the writing team. Instead I've got Jeremy Thorpe. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brian, many thanks, as always, for your throughts and comments. There are a couple up there that could just do with an affirmation that we've followed the right line, or asked for clarification, but the rest should all be done and dusted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from the Holy Land

edit

Looks very well done from first glance. Will have a look through and note any thoughts. (I haven't looked through the above comments yet, so please excuse me if any of these are repetitions.) Most places I've just copy-edited directly, feel free to revert anything you don't like.

I found very little to quibble about. A fine effort indeed—one that I very much enjoyed and look forward to seeing at FAC anon. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hearty thanks for your attention, Cliftonian. Some excellent points there. Tim riley talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssilvers

edit

I am going through slowly. I notice that there is some very English idiomatic writing that would not be clear to readers elsewhere, and I have added some hidden comments/questions and attempted to translate to an international standard in a few cases. Feel free to modify, but note that where I have made a change it was likely because I found the phrase obscure, so please consider alternate wording. It may be that some contributors have tried to emulate Wodehouse's style, but we must emphasize clarity over charm. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Emulate Wodehouse's style? We'd be struck by lightning. He is impossible to imitate successfully. Sebastian Faulks managed a beta plus with Jeeves and the Wedding Bells in 2013, but I think I speak for both nominators of this PR that we have sedulously avoided deliberately attempting Wodehousean style in our prose. I'm going to revert "asthma", as the sources all say just "a weak chest" (Green, p. 9, Donaldson, p. 43, McCrum, p. 22, Jasen p. 8 - never knew such unanimity on a diagnosis in all my life) but as to your other changes, for my part I'm thoroughly content, and if SchroCat concurs I suggest we adopt them. Thank you for your very careful attention. Tim riley talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I will continue section by section. "Weak chest" is not a diagnosis that should be stated in an encyclopedia. In this case, I really must ask you to try again to translate that into something less vague, or else merely say that his doctors recommended the move "for health reasons". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that four of the main sources—Green, Jansen, Connolly and McCrum—specifically describe it as a "weak chest". Neither they, nor any of the other sources I've gone through, speculate as to what that may have been, or provide any further detail. I suspect it may have either been the diagnosis of a Victorian doctor, or the description later given by PGW. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could perhaps meet Ss's concern by making it "was diagnosed with what was described as 'a weak chest'". Tim riley talk 16:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Or "an unspecified respiratory complaint". Tim riley talk 16:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one works, I think, as a footnote. I just added one that needs the page numbers seen by Schrocat. How's that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more along Tim's line than anything. I don't think we need to say it one way in the text and repeat it in a footnote, so I've added the words in a quote, showing Wodehouse was the origin of the term. I hope this suits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly suits me. Seems a perfect compromise. Thank you, SchroCat. Tim riley talk 20:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's OK, although I'd rather remove "according to Wodehouse" from the text, and put him into the ref: "Wodehouse, quoted in Jasen...." Jasen does not specify when or where Wodehouse said so? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, Ss, I think I-Bs for arts biogs are a waste of space, but having inherited this one, it seems to me that the pen names are the only justification for keeping the thing at all. Without the pen-names the box would be pretty much a useless rehash of the lead. My vote would be to keep the I-B with the pen names or blitz the thing altogether. Tim riley talk 21:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I get a vote, then, I vote to remove the IB, but keep the signature somehow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a reasonable proposition. Keeping the signature and glueing it to the lead picture would present no problem. As to the pen-names, if we remove the info-box ought we to mention them all somewhere in the main text instead? PGW didn't write anything of consequence under them, and I incline to the view that their relevance verges on trivia. SchroCat, Ssilvers (and anyone else, natch), your thoughts, s.t.p.? – Tim riley talk 15:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps mention them in a footnote to a statement like, "Wodehouse generally wrote under his own name, but during [late/early in] his career he used various pen names for _____ sorts of works, [none of which are considered to be of consequence - if you have a cite for that proposition]." In the footnote, if possible, mention which names were used for novels, plays, poetry, journalism, etc.? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ambivalent on this one. We seem to be going the long way round on the issue. Still, if there is a consensus and someone removes it, I wouldn't be sad to see it go. – SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I'm mildly surprised. Well, I suggest we leave the I-B as it is for now. Tim riley talk 17:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exile in America. Isn't it a bit over-dramatic to use the word "exile" in the heading? Apparently, Wodehouse settled happily in Remsenburg/Southampton. It wasn't literally an exile -- if he had returned to Britain, it seems that he would have very likely been cleared of any remaining accusations. How about: Three decades in America: 1946–75. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

edit

Will review tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it, but no rush whatever, dear Doc. Tim riley talk 21:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • "Some critics of Wodehouse have considered his work flippant, but among his fans are former British prime ministers, and many of his fellow writers." -some examples might be good here for comprehension's sake, I understand though if they're too numerous to mention.
  • I agree it's all or nothing with that impressive roster. We've only had one request to remove it. If any later reviewers agree with the Doctor we can easily put the list back again. Tim riley talk 13:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • Delink Hong Kong
Broadway
  • "The show was successful, but they thought the song lyrics weak" -sorry, who thought it weak?
  • "In these musicals Wodehouse's lyrics won high praise from critics as well as fellow lyricists such as Ira Gershwin.[69]" -any quotes from critics worth adding to elaborate a little?
  • "In the Grove Dictionary of American Music Larry Stempel writes, "By presenting naturalistic stories and characters and attempting to integrate the songs and lyrics into the action of the libretto, these works brought a new level of intimacy, cohesion, and sophistication to American musical comedy."[73] The theatre writer Gerald Bordman calls Wodehouse "the most observant, literate, and witty lyricist of his day".[74] The composer Richard Rodgers wrote, "Before Larry Hart, only P. G. Wodehouse had made any real assault on the intelligence of the song-listening public."[75]" Mmm, a lot of this looks like it belongs in a style/legacy section further down than in the biography. I'd have expected his impact on the American musical to be discussed in detail further down but just mentioned briefly further up.
Hollywood and 1930s

Is there really nothing else worth mentioning? Something more about his life in Hollywood I'd find interesting. You mentioned Ethel loved the social aspects of it. Highly interested in Hollywood during that period I guess I'd like to know a little more about his involvement in Hollywood and what he did while there. Perhaps We hope could find something interesting in the old newspapers.

Just getting started with this. The Film Daily page 3 17 September 1937. Wodehouse was again signed to a contract to write for films; this time it was with Warner Bros. (see page on right). The photo of him shows his being awarded the International Mark Twain Society gold medal as the greatest contemporary author of fictional humor. This was a daily trade paper published by Wid's Film and Film Folk (NY). If anyone wants the photo, a quick check of copyright renewals should find the paper is PD. We hope (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Movie Magazine December 1930, page 30. Gossip of the Studios. Tower Publishing. Wodehouse, his wife and stepdaughter were very popular with the Hollywood set. We hope (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Variety 16 May 1919 front page-Wodehouse and Bolton dissolve their writing partnership. We hope (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silver Screen Magazine page 72-October 1935. Hollywood-the Writers' Heaven by Ruth Rankin. Wodehouse told MGM he was only able to work outdoors. This was where he thought about his novel work--while working in his garden at home. The studio set him up on an out of the way Western set on the lot. When Wodehouse went to lunch, a prop man who was unaware of the arrangement, removed his table, typewriter and chair. When Wodehouse returned from lunch, his outdoor office was gone. Wodehouse felt it wasn't worth the effort to try getting the equipment back and decided to work from home during his tenure there. We hope (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is all excellent stuff, which would be marvellous in a full-length book, but is perhaps a bit too detailed for an encyclopedia article of a few thousand words. (I loved the last one - so typically Wodehousean.) Tim riley talk 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Manchester Guardian to The Guardian. We really ought to have an article on the pre 1958 The Manchester Guardian by now though, I asked Sitush a while back to create one.
The Manchester Guardian is now up an running, please consider linking directly to it from your other articles citing the pre 1959 Guardian!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it needed? The change in name was all there was (they had moved their main office down from Machester 6 years previously, if memory serves), so it's just the name that changed, nothing more substntial? - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Le Tourqet, in the Pas-de-Calais department of northern France. -my immediate thought was southern France..
  • "His other books from the decade include Right Ho, Jeeves, which Donaldson judged his best work, Uncle Fred in the Springtime, which the writer Bernard Levin considered the best, and Blandings Castle, which contains "Lord Emsworth and the Girl Friend", which Rudyard Kipling thought "one of the most perfect short stories I have ever read".[17] Other leading literary figures who admired Wodehouse were A. E. Housman, Max Beerbohm and Hilaire Belloc;[17] on the radio and in print Belloc called Wodehouse "the best writer of our time: the best living writer of English ... the head of my profession".[106] Wodehouse regarded Belloc's plaudit as "a gag, to get a rise out of serious-minded authors whom he disliked".[107][n 19] " -I find this a bit difficult to read with some of the punctuation and repetition of "best", even if in quotes. Is there any chance you could restructure/paraphrase a bit here?
WWII and Aftermath
  • I think there will be some readers who don't know what internment is. Happy to be pushed aside if the consensus is against me - Tim riley, your thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I say above, I like to be sparing with blue links, finding too much blue hard on the reader's eye, but the OED gives four other very different meanings of the verb "intern", and I think we should err on the side of caution here. Tim riley talk 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swiss embassy in Berlin and British ambassador to France, -links?
  • Isn't it formally "Hôtel Le Bristol"?
  • "Wodehouse worked on his novel Uncle Dynamite" -(1948) or later published in 1948?
    • I think, and indeed hope, all our bracketed dates for books are publication dates. With PGW's method of drafting over long periods, and also for having different publication dates in the US and the UK, the first publication date is the only consistent way to go. Tim riley talk 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
American exile
  • "Ethel secured a comfortable penthouse apartment in Manhattan's Upper East Side," -do we know the street? The address if known might be interesting to NY enthusiasts like myself in a footnote perhaps.
  • "An off-Broadway revival of the 1917 Bolton-Wodehouse-Kern Leave It to Jane was a surprise hit, running for 928 performances, but his few post-war stage works, some in collaboration with Bolton, made little impression.[1" -928 performances is very remarkable, I'd expect some more detail on it here and some critical commentary.
Writing
  • not sure on the use of linking Edwardian in the slang context, but I think we ought to have an article on Edwardian slang. Perhaps Cassianto would be interested in creating an article on it?

♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Thoroughly enjoyable read, thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Doc. I've addressed a couple, but the searc facility is playing up at the moment, so I can't do a couple of the wikilinks requeted: I'll deal iwth shortly, adn between us, TR and myself will cover all these points one way or another. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from CorinneSD

edit
  • I had added a no-break space between first initials of names, and I see those edits have been reverted. According to MOS:SPACEINITS, the period after initials should be followed by a no-break space. Also, all article titles containing first initials have a space following each period, so I think the same style should be followed for names in articles. If there is an exception to this rule that is being followed, I'd be interested to learn of it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi CorinneSD, I was following BrEng practice of avoiding the "initial-full stop-space-initial-full stop-space-surname" format, which makes most good British writers wince. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MoS guidance on intials is as remote from reality as its invariably ignored guidance that we don't put blue links from quotations. Tim riley talk 16:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh no. The final proof. I always put spaces after stops. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In an ideal world I wouldn't have the full stops in there: they dropped out of common use a few decades ago! – SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • They were dropped by Her Majesty's Government in official documents as long ago as the late 1960s. I had to unlearn what I had been taught by old schoolmasters when I joined the civil service. Tim riley talk 16:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not as much of an issue for Americans since few writers here use only their first initials. I wonder if this spacing issue is an AmerEng/BrEng difference. CorinneSD (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe for names such as P. J. O'Rourke full stops and spaces are still generally used in AmEng. Over here I see SchroCat and I are actually lagging behind modern British usage: the BBC and The Guardian drop the full stops and the spaces: "PG Wodehouse": here and here. I'm old fashioned enough to prefer spaces, but we must move with the times, I suppose. Tim riley talk 17:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • I personally use "JP Asher" on social media and the like, and "J P Asher" in more formal settings. For what it's worth. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • (edit conflict) So you don't even use periods after initials? Wow. I think we should continue to use periods and spaces after initials since they represent separate names. I think modern media cut spaces, punctuation, even words, whenever they can because they've realized that the more that is printed, or written, the more ink and paper is used (for newspapers, magazines and books), and the more time that is spent on typesetting/keyboarding means paying typesetters/typists/keyboarders more, so time is money. I think whatever style is used by publishers of books and academic journals should be used. CorinneSD (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The current form is one used by some journals etc: the Oxford English Dictionary use the version we have (which I presume means this will follow the OUP style guide). – SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I assume that you mean the formatting of Wodehouse's name (with no space after "P.") in the title of the article in the OED because I don't see any other names with initials in the article. But isn't that different from the formatting of most WP article titles containing two initials? The ones I've seen all have a space after the first initial + period/full stop. CorinneSD (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're probably happier with no space between the two—it's more common in the UK than the American over-use of full stops and spaces. – SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "over-use" is a subjective term. Shall we leave out vowels, too? CorinneSD (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we will retain British formatting for this British subject. I have no idea what vowels have to do with it, or why you suggest what you do? Just because you are unfamiliar with the differences between British and American formats on this doesn't mean that we ignore a common British usage. - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing review

edit

Warmest thanks from SchroCat and self to everyone who contributed to this review. We are taking the article to FAC, where all will be most warmly welcomed. Tim riley talk 21:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/P._G._Wodehouse/archive1&oldid=1136084848"