Talk:Mary: A Fiction/Archive 1

Title page

Can anyone locate the title page for the 1788 printing of this book? Awadewit | talk 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

I am extremely impressed by this article. It's coverage of the topic is comprehensive, it's well cited with scholarly sources, and displays excellent prose. I also like how the critique of the work was worked into "Themes" instead of dumped haphazardly into a Criticism section. My suggestions for improvement are: provide a clarifying caption for the Scholderer painting. The other pictures easily make sense, but this one caught my eye due to the woman depicted; not because of something in the text as I was reading. Second, there seems to be something unencyclopedic about the tone of the article in some places - but it is an extremely vague impression at the moment and I cannot quite yet put it into a suggestion, maybe later. --Meowist 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tried to add an explanatory caption to the painting. If you figure out the problem with the tone, please let me know. Awadewit | talk 08:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

O.A.R.

Awadewit: It's a fine article as usual. I just have a couple of comments outside the edits I made.

• The notion of a "genius" in the modern-day sense is not really present in this article. Is it possible to elaborate more on how Mary is a genius in the lead... qualify it? I find that the word sways the reader's expectation away from the core themes of the novel... a little. A quote displaying this aspect of Mary--"thinking powers"--outside such emotional contexts as are currently quoted might be helpful.

• I have added some details to the lead. Awadewit | talk 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• The following passages are close together under "Gender and genre", and seem repetitious, especially since the second one forms the topic sentence of the second paragraph:
  • Juxtaposing this new heroine with the traditional romantic one, Wollstonecraft criticizes the "fatuous" and "insipid" romantic heroine
  • Mary presents an alternative heroine to the traditional sentimental heroine

• I have eliminated the repetition. Awadewit | talk 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I for one would find another couple of sentences of plot summary helpful.

• Would you mind indicating where you felt the plot summary felt thin? (This is not a long novel, by the way). Awadewit | talk 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I read (past tense) each new plot paragraph as marking some passage of time. I suppose I wasn't sure if Mary's motivations (love for Ann) carried on throughout the plot, because Ann didn't entirely reciprocate the loving friendship. Or maybe it was that motivations weren't clear to me in general. Is being "stunned" all it takes to agree to marriage, for example? How is, or isn't, Mary and Ann's friendship affected by the marriage [new paragraph]? Such questions were what prompted that comment, I suppose. I realize this may not be helpful. I also noticed "family" is used as singular and plural (an inconsistency I may have introduced!) in the second paragraph. –Outriggr § 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, I see. Let me answer your questions one at a time.

• It is a matter of interpretation whether or not Mary's love for Ann continues past Ann's death.
• Perhaps we would like there to me more motivations for Mary's marriage and I think that we could definitely come up with some, but, again, I feel that this would be interpretative. For the plot summary, I wanted to stick with what the text overtly said.
• Their friendship is barely affected by the marriage, in my opinion, since Charles immediately goes to Europe and Ann dies. This statement is probably on solid "summary" grounds. I'll try to find a way to indicate that Mary's marriage affects her life later rather than right after she is married.
• I must be blind, because it looks to me like "family" is only used in the singular. Awadewit | talk 14:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

–Outriggr § 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. These are helpful suggestions. I will work on them in the next few days. Awadewit | talk 09:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I like your revisions. –Outriggr § 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Headings

I really like the article but I am wondering if there is some way to condense the headings. There are a lot and one of the headings only has one subheading, which I thought was frowned upon. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's frowned upon? I didn't know that. Which heading has only one subheading? As "Themes" is the only section with any subheadings, and it has three subheadings and three sub-subheadings, I'm not quite sure which section is the problem.

On a more content-related note, which sections would you condense? I did have difficulty creating subheadings under "Themes" because the scholarly discussion of all of these themes overlaps quite a bit. If you have a better scheme, I am all ears. Awadewit | talk 19:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Themes > Gender and gendre > "A Fiction" has only one subheading. I don't think it is an absolute rule but one of those "try to avoid" rules. As for how I would organize it, I would have to look at it more. But I would look for more inclusive headings. For example, maybe Ann and Henry could be merged into a heading such "Love, friendship and sensibility". Since your topic in that case is "Love, friendship and sensibility", I am assuming that Ann and Henry are specific examples of that general topic. Likewise, does "A Fiction" need its own heading under "Gender and genre"? That is the way I am thinking. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean that some sections have only one sub-subheading. I guess that I think that such rules are made to be broken. :) I am more concerned, though, if the headings detract from the article and make it difficult to follow what is being said. I thought that the "A Fiction" section was important because it was talking about a different concept than the "Gender and genre" section. To include both in the same subsection seemed illogical to me. I have renamed them - see what you think. I have eliminated the "Ann" and "Henry" sub-subheadings. See if you think the section still flows. Awadewit | talk 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, where did you read that having only one subheading is frowned upon? I don't see it at WP:MOSHEAD, but I was scanning quickly. Awadewit | talk 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it. Maybe I hallucinated it. Or perhaps I am going back to my academic days where it definitely is not tolerated. I can ask Tony1 the expert if you like, but if no one else seems to mind, then don't worry about it. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the idea behind the non-existent/existent rule, I think. One doesn't say "first", for example, in an essay without having a "second" (and usually a "third") - it is totally illogical. However, I usually bend my rules on that sort of thing for article layouts and headings since I am aiming for readability above all. I would welcome Tony1's thoughts on the coherence of the sections. What do you think of the new headings, by the way? Awadewit | talk 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)