Talk:The Flame and the Flower

Comments

• Background and historical context: I think it is imperative to give the historical context for the emergence of the romance genre - it didn't just evolve for no reason. :) Since some of the sources do mention this book in passing, you should have no problem justifying the use of those sources. In Rambles in Germany and Italy, I have a section discussing the travel narrative and its relation to Romanticism and the Napoleonic Wars. Happily, the sources themselves provided this background, but I think that even if they had not I would have at least provided some background on the "travel narrative" as a genre. I also begin the article with a discussion of the "Risorgimento", which is essential for understanding the political themes of the text. You might also look at Scartol's Le Père Goriot and Cousin Bette, which both begin with the kind of "Background" section you are looking to write.
• Publication: The publication material in "Background" should be integrated into the "Publication" section below.
• The plot summary was both a discussion of the plot and the genre of the book. I've inserted a section header where the genre discussion begins. This would be the place to insert a general paragraph about the development of the historical romance, in my opinion, and what this novel contributed to it. It is worth defining the genre, using some of that scholarship that only mentions this book in passing. You might look at how I discussed the conduct book in Thoughts on the Education of Daughters. I used a long discussion of the genre and then a short discussion of the actual text. :)
• I often think of articles about novels as ideally having some version of the following sections (this is not always possible, though): Historical context, Publication history, Plot summary, Genre, Style, Themes, Reception (including Awards and Adaptations), and Legacy. Do the sources say much about the themes of this novel or its style? Are there any reviews of the novel that could flesh out a "Reception" section?
• Sources (let me know if you need help finding any of these):

• Hinnant, Charles H. "Desire and the Marketplace: A Reading of Kathleen Woodiwiss's The Flame and the Flower." Doubled Plots: Romance and History. Eds. Susan Strehle and Mary Carden. Jackson, MS; UP of Mississippi; 2003. 147-64.
• Radway, Janice A. "Women Read the Romance: The Interaction of Text and Context." Feminist Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Spring, 1983), pp. 53-78
• Radway, Janice A. "The Utopian Impulse in Popular Literature: Gothic Romances and "Feminist" Protest". American Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Summer, 1981), pp. 140-162
• Ebert, Teresa L. "The Romance of Patriarchy: Ideology, Subjectivity, and Postmodern Feminist Cultural Theory". Cultural Critique, No. 10, Popular Narrative, Popular Images (Autumn, 1988), pp. 19-57
• Mulbern, Chieko Irie. "Japanese Harlequin Romances as Transcultural Woman's Fiction". The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Feb., 1989), pp. 50-70

I hope this helps! Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! This gives me a lot to work with. As for the sources you mentioned, I can use interlibrary loan to get the book the Hinnant essay is in, and I suspect the Radway works are highly similar to those of hers I've already used. The 1980s issues of Cultural Critique and The Journal of Asian Studies don't appear to be available for order (nuts), and I don't have easy access to JSTOR. If you have access to these, I'd appreciate your help in getting them; otherwise I can put them on Ealdgyth's list for the next time she goes source hunting. Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that about the Radway as well. However, I'll just send along all the articles, since they were easily available on JSTOR. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sent. Awadewit (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate it! I have submitted my ILL request, so now I should have fun reading material over the holidays :) Karanacs (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Flame and the Flower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nypress.com/16/30/news&columns/feature.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Addition of ISBN from Wikidata

Please note that this article's infobox is retrieving an ISBN from Wikidata currently. This is the result of a change made to {{Infobox book}} as a result of this RfC. It would be appreciated if an editor took some time to review this ISBN to ensure it is appropriate for the infobox. If it is not, you could consider either correcting the ISBN on Wikidata (preferred) or introducing a blank ISBN parameter in the infobox to block the retrieval from Wikidata. If you do review the ISBN, please respond here so other editors don't duplicate your work. This is an automated message to address concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists. ~ Rob^Talk 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Problem in "Publication" section

"Avon purchased the publication rights from Woodiwiss for $1,500 and agreed to pay her 4% of the royalties.[8]" The part of this sentence concerning royalties must be misstated. Does it mean that Avon agreed to pay a 4% royalty? On its face, it raises the question who got the other 96% of the royalties. Royalties generally go only to authors, although in some cases an illustrator or translator may possibly get a share. Cognita (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Amen! Four percent royalties is niggardly (though niggardly is not unusual in the industry when the subject is publishers and authors). Today the publisher sells to a bookstore. On a $9.95 list, the publisher will want 60%. That pays the publisher's profit, printing, copy editing, cover art, ... Maybe 15% of the publisher's 60% is allocated to the author. The question here is does the author get 4% of list (40 cents for a $9.95 paperback, today) or 4% of publisher's net (24 cents) or 4% of authors' royalties (less than 4 cents).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart (talk • contribs) 16:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)