Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Our Time (short story collection)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2015 [1].

---

In Our Time (short story collection)

Nominator(s): Victoria (tk) 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway's first collection of short stories is In Our Time, which has a tortured publication history. Hemingway was in his early to mid-twenties when he wrote the pieces that make up the collection, some of which are considered among his best. This article is a concise account of the themes and style in the collection, to be developed and expanded in each separate article about the stories, i.e. "Indian Camp" and "Big Two-Hearted River", whereas the events surrounding its publication are described in greater detail. I'm hoping to have this run as TFA in October or November as a reminder of WWI literature. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC) .

Comments from Belle

• " ... he slowly wrote six new paragraphs ... It was a work that grew, with sections published in 1923, 1924 and 1925 ... The prose pieces ranged from 75 to 187 words and were about war and bullfighting ... In June of 1923, Hemingway took Hadley, with Robert McAlmon and Bill Bird, to Spain where he found a new passion at the bullfights, during the summer he wrote five more vignettes" This leaves me totally bamboozled as to what is in the "Little Review".

• There were six vignettes/prose paragraphs in the Little Review and he wrote another twelve for the 1924 edition of in our time. I've tried to clarify, but it might take another pass. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• The most confusing thing there now is the prose pieces "were about war and bullfighting" and then "he found a new passion at the bullfights"; he was reinvigorated by the spectacle of the bullfights I guess, but the current phrasing makes it appear that he was discovering bullfighting for the first time when he'd already been writing about it. Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's correct. He'd been writing about it but had never been to a bullfight. I've reinstated a bit I previously trimmed explaining where the material came from for those first six vignettes. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• The style section covers the iceberg theory twice with his description of it in A Moveable Feast but only mentions it by name the second time; perhaps you could combine these two.

• The first is about imagism and prose style, the second about leaving out information on a more meta level - have tried to clarify. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's clearer now. Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The sense of discordance is intensified because the action is about anonymous men and soldiers, only referred to with pronouns, and unspecified woundings; and reticences are rife" I edited it to that as I couldn't understand it, but I have no clue if that's the right sense. Reword it?

• Trimmed some, will take another pass. This goes the idea of writing silences and empty spaces, as in the empty space in the Goya print, but if reticences doesn't make sense then it's best to leave it out. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• The problem was that "unspecified woundings" was floating around; I didn't know if they were part of the "action" or were "rife". Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's fine to do without "rife reticences" - we get that he omitted stuff and I tried to pack in too much there. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Nick features in eight of the stories, as an alter ego, a conduit for Hemingway to express his own experiences, from the first story" I can't understand that.

• Sorry. I've tweaked and tried to clarify. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• "wrote some of his best short stories, telling Scott Fitzgerald of the new material that "Indian Camp" and "Big Two-Hearted River" were superior" (originally) v "wrote some of his best short stories, telling Scott Fitzgerald that, of the new material, "Indian Camp" and "Big Two-Hearted River" were superior" (what I changed it to); if the sense of my change isn't right then I'd leave out "of the new material" from the original as it just muddies the waters.

• Yes, thanks. It's fine as written. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Hemingway scholar Jim Berloon disagrees with Tetlow" He seems to not really disagree with her; there is a problem in the later sections knowing which collection each critic is looking at.

• I don't understand Berloon's point; he says that the collection is intricately structured; the vignettes were "probably" thematically linked (hedge hedge) and then that the 1925 edition has lost the structure; that means that the 1924 edition should be exactly what he is after and he should be able to tell if the vignettes are thematically linked by looking at that or the "Little Review"; no idea what he's trying to say. Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's incomprehensible because I didn't paraphrase well. I've tried again, but, yeah, it's literary criticism. I'll give it another pass if it's still hard to follow. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Never really got into Hemingway; I can't get excited about this; it seems a solid job apart from those niggles; I'll support it if you fix them up. Thanks Belle for your effusive praise of my hard work says Victoria. Belle (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Belle, thanks for these points. This is a difficult article because it's mostly about modernist literary theory, and there's a reason so few of us are still writing about lit., let alone at the FA level. I've managed to address a few and hope to get to the others tomorrow. Off the top of my head I want to say that the structure section addresses all iterations of the collection, i.e. 1924 in our time and 1925 In Our Time but I'll have to pull all those sources and re-read to be certain. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit; it leaves you with "14...two", "18...six" etc. which is a nasty experience for the reader; not really nasty; not beaten up behind the bike sheds or anything; more like a small fly going in your mouth while you are cycling. WP:MOSNUM doesn't mandate numbers above nine being in numerals unless they are of the twenty-eight--million-three-hundred-and-two-thousand-six-hundred-and-thirty-eight-and-a-half variety (more than two words in the compound actually; I'm just making the point with my dainty lil sledge hammer). Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting. It's standard for the American style manuals I'm familiar with, so could be an issue of doing it differently in different parts of the world. I'm not really fussed - was trying to avoid "chapters seven to eleven" and "chapters eleven to seventeen" (difficult to chunk), and make the numbering consistent. It's really a preference issue, so feel free to change the numbers or I will if you'd like me to. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I did change it back; my way or the highway, MOS people :P Everything seems fine now, so I support (I'd like to say that, unlike Ceoil, I'm NOT a friend or collaborator because I'm trying my best to cultivate a poisonous, unfriendly and unwelcoming atmosphere on Wikipedia, so when they hand out the money I get a bigger share; joke; love you really.)Belle (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for the insightful comments, the copyedits, and for the support. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"unfriendly and unwelcoming" - Belle, you may might not be Vic's friend (you say), but would make a seemingly fine admin, haha. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocking you the moment I get the power ;) Belle (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Re the "friend" comment: as it happens Ceoil seems to have been reading my mind, because recently I've been thinking about (the old days) at FAC when the norm was to disclose collaborations, etc., and that we should go back to that again. Your review, Belle, was really helpful; not being familiar with the topic, you poked holes where they were needed, so again, thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Sources?
• Hlinak is out of order in Sources
• Missing full bibliographic details from Baker 1972, Benson 1975
• No citations to Baker 1980, Baker 1981, Benson 1989
• Be consistent in how you format editors
• Hlinak: italicization is reversed
• Why abbreviate Oxford UP but not Cambridge University Press? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks Nikkimaria - I think I got all of these. As always, I live in envy of your eagle eyes. Thanks for taking the time. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Hemingway admitted that the book's publication history was complex; his biographer Michael Reynolds describes it as the most confusing of Hemingway's canon, to the point that "any analysis will be flawed - confusing in terms of publication history or content? Otherwise leaning support; although I am a collebrator and friend of Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Both. I've clarified by porting in Reynold's full quote, which conveys it better than I can. Thanks for the help on the lead, the copyedits, and the leaning support. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Have spent another two hours reading, on top of watching this dev. Support - Comprehensive, highest standards of sourcing,and given the particular writer - economically written. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry if there were edit conflicts - I was dead tired last night and made the mistake of leaving the edit window open as I was trying to fix everything, top-to-bottom, and hadn't realized others were working there. Thanks for the copyedits - very helpful! I think I got the last of the inlines, but poke me if I haven't. Yeah, trying to make it economically written was a goal that only took about four years! Victoria (tk) 16:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Note to coordinators - This hasn't attracted any comments in three weeks, so it's fine with me if it's archived. Thanks Belle and Ceoil for reading and posting comments, and thanks Nikkimaria for the SR. I appreciate the time you all put into it, and to the delegates as well for the paperwork, so to speak. Victoria (tk) 01:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: I'm going to put it on the Urgents list and leave it a bit, if you don't mind, since so much has been done on it. If there no more action next time one of us goes through the list, we can archive it. --Laser brain (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Laser brain, okay, I'll keep at it. The reason I posted that is that I've gone fairly inactive, and this is the only thing keeping me around. So I thought if it doesn't get attention, or supports, then that's fine. Victoria (tk) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Don't generally need cites in the lede unless for controversial contested info, just have cites back up same info later in body of article. Great job on overall structure and layout of the article. I fear there is too much use of quotes, and those should be trimmed down and/or paraphrased. Structure, Themes, Style, Reception and legacy -- these sects are all quite good and high quality, just rely a bit too much on direct quotes when paraphrasing or trimming would help. — Cirt (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Cirt, thanks for taking the time to read through and to comment. I removed one of the cites from the lead, (the second is a direct quote and is required). I've trimmed a a few quotes but generally I don't think this piece can stand unless written as it is (I've been working on it for about four years). It is an unconventional WP article, about an unconventional piece of literature. The article is about 14 short stories and 18 or so vignettes (depending on the edition), it details the historic collaboration between Ezra Pound and Ernest Hemingway, which is documented in their extant letter. And it includes literary analyses of the stories/vignettes, as well as the earliest reviews that Hemingway received. I think it would lose flavor to take out Hemingway's and Pound's voices in the background section. The quotes about "form" in the structure section are included in all the critical analyses I've read, and it makes more sense to use the author's own voice there. The quotes in the themes section about the war are written better than anything I can produce in a paraphrase, and again I think the flavor of the horror that was WWI would be lost if those were taken out. Hemingway is famous for his style, and the iceberg theory quote (which is quite famous), as well as others, are commonly used when writing about him, even here on WP. Finally, the review section includes historic material (took some researching to find), that is educational and nice to include, as well as the words from his modern biographers. If you choose not to support, I understand why not. Thanks again. Victoria (tk) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I've re-read it through, again, and your specific argumentation makes sense. Thank you for being so polite and responsive to my comments, most appreciated. Good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Cirt. Victoria (tk) 22:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• You're most welcome! Hope the rest of the FAC goes well, — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comments from Lingzhi
  • Sorry, just noticed this nom. My bad. I just wanna chime in here because I saw some mention above of archiving it. Well, if that's the best thing, then do what you hafta do. But I think I'll have time tomorrow or the next day (probably not today) to start looking at it. Later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Lingzhi, I think I have to stick with it - quite a bit of work has gone into it, and I suppose I shouldn't bail out at the last moment. I'd be pleased to have you take a look whenever you have time. Thanks for posting. Victoria (tk) 01:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Benson, Jackson (1989) in ref section but uncited. And the chronological order of the refs seems inconsistent.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Good catch; removed Benson 1989. I do them alphabetically instead of chronologically, but Nikki queried this earlier, so will take a closer look to see where I've gone off Victoria (tk) 14:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The convention is alphabetical by author then chronological for cites to same author. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Ok, will change. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Bill Bird, unless I missed something, seems to kinda magically appear with no explanation of who he is or why he's involved.
    • You're right he did; I've fixed that now and introduced him earlier. Victoria (tk) 14:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Victoriaearle: Hey, I'm kinda copy editing and rewording a bit as I go. Please do not be intimidated by the fact that this is a FAC review and I am a FAC reviewer. Sometimes my edits may not be optimal.
    • Not to worry - I've seen your reviews in the past. You're quite good at what you do. The ping didn't work for some reason. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm also skimming very quickly, though I will read in depth as time goes on. Did I miss the mention of initial sales figures? I actually didn't see sales for The Sun Also Rises in its FA article either (congrats on that FA BTW), but as I said, skim, skim, skim.
    • Looked through what I have at hand, but not finding it. Might be in one of the essays compiled in the Reynolds book, but that book is long gone back to inter-library loan. I can order it again and check. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Adding: I spent quite a long time today trying to find this information in the sources I have at hand on the bookshelves or where I'd expect it to be on g-books, and am coming up empty. It might be in Tetlow, but I can't see all the pages on g-books. It could be in Reynolds, but that's snippet only on g-books - to get hard copies I'd have to order either of those via interlibrary loan. That's not a problem, but it takes time. Can we leave it, that I'll order the books that I think are most likely to contain that information and add it to the article if I find it? In the meantime, I can keep looking, and might find it on the web. Certainly we know that all the books of the initial print run did sell eventually, and the issue is clouded by the fact that within months of the book's publication Hemingway broke his contract with Boni & Liveright, so it is possible they never recorded the sales. They were quite livid with him. Victoria (tk) 01:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Adding: I have found info that when EH broke the contract he told B & L they could have "20,000 in sales" - have added that. He was finished with them four months after the release of IOT. Victoria (tk) 21:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Well of course we can only add what we can find. Some day or other soon-ish I'll devote another hour or more to looking for this and for a good cite about the reason Up was censored, but for just now, everything is probably the best we can make it. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay, I've added that the B & L edition had 4 reprints; the Scribner's edition had one. Still can't find hard numbers re sales, but that's better than nothing. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Semicolons go between independent clauses (or between items in a list which itself contains commas, but that is irrelevant here); commas go before direct quotes.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • So I tell my students; they never listen, though. Thanks for fixing; I missed it. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we need a cite for the "overshadowed, ignored & forgotten" assertion? [I actually added the word "overshadowed", but it was implicit in the extant text].  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That is cited to Benson, compiled in the Reynolds book I mentioned above and now gone, but I believe the overshadowed was in the text I'd written so should be ok. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Syphilis or gonorrhea? This article said syphilis. I don't actually have a copy of IOT, but I changed it to gonorrhea (and added that it was from "A very Short Story") based on review texts etc. Please revert me if I am wrong.
  • Also that sentence about "filthy" needs its own individual cite to a specific book and specific page because it includes a direct quote (even tho the quote is only 1 or 2 words long).
    • • That's a good catch. In the story it's gonorrhea. Added the ref to the sentence. Victoria (tk) 12:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • was there a story called "Up in Michigan" that was censored/removed? And another put in its place, maybe "Indian Camp", or...?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • When he submitted to Boni & Liveright they expressed concern over "Up in Michigan", the second story - a very early story he wrote, the only one to survive loss of the suitcase incident, one that Gertrude Stein thought not very good and is now generally considered juvenalia. In response to them, he pulled "Up in Michigan" and wrote "The Battler", which became the fifth Nick story. I can spin that out in the article later today - had wanted to avoid the "Up in Michigan" issue because it's somewhat peripheral, but probably should go in. Victoria (tk) 12:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Adding to above: I've added in a little bit about this, but ideally it would be fully developed in the Up in Michigan article. I don't have that story at hand and I wonder if what I've added begs the question of why it would cause censorship problems? I'm not finding anything anywhere to suggest why - simply the Boni & Liveright were worried. Victoria (tk) 21:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I found a source that said there was a brief sexual scene, but not sure how reliable the source is.
        • Seduction scene; Stein thought it too graphic (and clumsy). Added. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "features Nick as a child" should/can we add "witnessing both a birth by Caesarean section and the immediate aftermath of a suicide"? It fits with earlier mention of juxtaposition of life versus death
    • Yes, excellent point. Done. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "and sheds a rare light on Hemingway's childhood" Again I do not have IOT gosh darn it, but does this fit in with earlier mention of weak being exploited by strong? Didn't H's mom bully his dad or something? Not sure if that's right, but if you add it, you need to find a cite to back it up.
    • Would prefer to leave this as is here and then spin out fully in the article on that story. Lots of little bits to trawl through and pull together and I think the mention here of hostility is enough, but I've restored a small snippet more that I'd previously snipped out. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Whether the collection has a unified structure"... apparently D. H. Lawrence called it a "fragmentary novel"
    • Another good point. Found it; added it. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (more later, this will take days, sorry) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No prob. Yesterday I was sidetracked mid-edit with real life (and thanks for fixing the mess I left). I'm not in a rush. Thanks again for the good comments. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm happy to help, of course
  • I perceive some tension between assertions that early critics went bananas with slobbery love for this book, and later assertions that everyone collectively said "Whatever". What happened? Did it somehow start out well but then fall off everyone's radar? Or were those laudatory critics just a pitiful few feckless ivory tower types? Is this article's characterization of either the early praise or the later tepid response overstated? [I suppose it could be the "overshadowed by Sun Also Rises" reason, but that just seems odd, because the way this article currently reads, the opinions actually seem to have changed]. BTW, the early praise section mentions "Fitzgerald", and our article on The End of Something says this was F. Scott Fitzgerald. If that is true, then please spell out the name, and if it hasn't been mentioned earlier, please wikilink. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The overshadowed sentence, as first written, was meant to speak to studies from literary critics. I.e how much attention have scholars given it over the years? Because it was, to an extent overshadowed by SAR, then bundled together with other stories, losing its structural integrity, for a long time only the separate stories were written about. As a stand-alone work it received less attention for a time. But Tetlow's 1978 work is a full length book, and Cohen's 2012 work is a full length book. That statement was taken from an essay written in the 1980s, so yes, at that point it was getting less attention from scholars. I can delete it because I see how it's confusing; I can wait for the book to arrive and when I have source in hand rewrite; or I can do both: delete now, rewrite later. Fitzgerald is linked higher up.Victoria (tk) 12:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
      • So … I had to think about what to do here. Obviously, the way I wrote was misleading. I tried deleting, but it's a point I think is worth making, so I've rolled back to the original version and rewritten. I'm trying to differentiate between attention it garnered from scholars vs. critical reviews it received. I'll be happier when I have the source at hand to check it's correct, but from what I remember I'm fairly certain it is. I have re-ordered the source via inter-libaray loan; not sure when it will arrive. Hopefully it's more clear now? Victoria (tk) 16:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I've rewritten it. But it is definitely about scholarship vs. reviews. Not sure it's necessary, but I found it interesting. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Lingzhi, just to let you know that this morning I picked up the volume of essays about IOT Michael Reynolds edited from the library. Hopefully some of the issues you've raised above will be in it and will get resolved over the weekend. I should be able to find more about Up in Michigan as well, but that will take some trawling through all the sources. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Groovy. I'll have another look at it soon. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• "They claimed American copyright for the works published in France" who claimed?
  • Boni & Liveright. Added. Victoria (tk) 23:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Victoriaearle:. I'm almost ready to support, but in the bit where you talk about reviews, it almost seems the first two paragraphs ("Hemingway's style brought" and "In Our Time is considered") are referring to different editions... Is that so? If so, please check each review carefully to make sure it is in the correct paragraph, and clarify that the two paras refer to different editions. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Excellent catch. Something got lost there, but now found. Victoria (tk) 23:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Lingzhi for the support! That was a truly excellent review - I very much appreciate your time and the thoughtful and incisive comments. Victoria (tk) 23:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.