Talk:W. Somerset Maugham/Archive 1

Archive 1

link?

Why has User:Wik removed the external link http://maugham.thefreelibrary.com/ ? The site looks OK to me and would be pretty useful I think. User:AtStart may have linked the same website on plenty of articles, but is there a policy that disallows this kind of linking ? I guess what finally matters is whether the link is relevant to the article or not. Jay 00:03, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I too was puzzled that that link was removed. I visited the site before and after the link was removed and I did not see anything obviously wrong with it. Dominus 04:08, 2 February 2004 (UTC)

error

As it turns out, when I edited the page, my internet browser's filter software removed the words boondage (with one 'o') and hommoseexual (with one 'm' and one 'e') so if someone would go back through and replace those where there are big blank spots in the code, that would be appreciated. If not, I can from school tomorrow. Zephyrprince 21:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• thank you to whoever fixed that Zephyrprince 16:43, 3 March 2005 (UTC)

W. for William?

Why has this article substituted 'W.' for 'William' throughout? Was this the man's preference? Should the article not then explain this? Otherwise, shouldn't we just put it back to saying 'William'?

I don't understand what explanation you would want. He almost never used the name "William" professionally; he was not professionally known as "William Maugham", although his personal friends did call him "Willie". Suggesting that his name be "put back" is akin to suggesting that all the references to Mark Twain in the Mark Twain article be "put back" to Samuel Clemens.

The usual convention in an encyclopedia is that you call people by the names that they are usually called by. Why does this require explanation? -- Dominus 15:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Additions

I've enlarged the article with new material. I don't think anything from the existing article has been deleted - moved, yes, subsumed, yes, but not deleted. Please feel free to revert, edit, alter, hack, slash and burn. And to correct typos. I regret that this is the last thing I'll be doing on Wiki, as I've decided it's taking up too much of my time, so I won't be around to answer questions on sourcing etc - but it's all verifiable, even if you have to go read an old-fashioned book to find the sources. PiCo 14:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Complete Periodical Contribution List

I have added a complete list in chronological order of the first printing date of every article or contribution made by Maugham to journals and periodicals during his lifetime. Maugham often tested his audience and his own interest in a story by serialising it through periodicals such as The Sunday Times and then later released the story as a novel or book. In later years particularly Maugham was adverse to wasting time or work and often rewrote or reworked these articles and they became short stories to be included in his various collections of short stories as detailed elsewhere in this Wikipedia article. My questions to other editors in relation to this addition is (1) can I have your comments as to whether you feel this addition belongs where it is (that is before the Short Stories sub-heading) or should it be placed further up the page given that it is a chronolical list that assists the reader in seeing how Maugham's periodical work developed also into his books? (2)I also intend to look more closely at the list of Novels and Short Story Collections in the near future with a view to adjusting the detail into complete chronological order. Towards that point it seems to me that item 6.1 Novels and Short Story Collections should change simple to Novels as item 6.6 is Short Story Collections. Views on this before I alter it would also be appreciated? VirtualSteve 06:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article candidate?

This must be getting to be one of the more comprehensive profiles of a writer on Wiki. Add references to the text (quite lacking at present) and it could begin the Featured Article process (rather like beginning the canonisation process in the RC Church :). PiCo 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! I have not participated in the beginning of this process before. Just tell me exactly what I can do to help - (process, style, content, etc) - and count me in. VirtualSteve 11:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been around on Wiki that long myself. But have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review. It sets out the steps to be followed. I think this article needs a little more referencing in the main text of the article - to show where our knowledge of his bio comes from, and to identify any quotes. PiCo 13:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

(Incidentally, this seems to be a good site with some excellent links: Maugham Free Online Library - the very first comment on this discussion page is about it. PiCo

Okay I have started to edit this page with a view to Featured Article and Wikipedia:Peer review and in particular set up first Harvard reference for a non-embedded link. I have gone through my own personal records - using the reference and copies of books to be almost absolutely certain that the list of Novels, Books & Pamphlets, Plays, and Contributions to Periodicals is chronologically correct. The changes made this evening do not remove any of Maugham's original works but I have removed 3 or 4 references to secondary books - that is books that were republished as a compilation of primary books either during or after Maugham's lifetime (and which are therefore already on the site at the section headings just mentioned). My intention next is to reference and as necessary clean up the list of short stories to see if it encompasses and cross matches with the Contributions to Periodicals. VirtualSteve 12:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For me my problem would be referencing the biography - I was writing from memory :). It's a bit mysterious - I had a hardcover biography of Willie that must have been written in the 80s, but I forget who by, and now I can't find it (which means $29 or so vanished - nothing unusual about that in regard to my personal finances). Anyway, point is, I can't reference anything I wrote. Maybe you have some biographies? (By the way, if you go to my personal apge and look at the left hand list of links, one is to an email contact - please feel free to write to me) PiCo 10:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have about 50 of Maugham;'s books - and his bibliography as referenced by me in the last couple of days is also quite detailed biographically speaking. I also will start with these first hand accounts because I do not have a lot of faith in the content from the website links. For example this link [1]] appears to suggest that he had his stammer/stutter before he went to England whilst someone has put in the wiki article that it developed after his parents death and that he did not have a stutter in French. These type of points will need verification. Another example is (and I have already adjusted this slightly on the book and Maugham link) many articles refer to Of Human Bondage being autobiographical whereas Maugham himself did not indicate this to be the case in a private note to a collector. Anyway I am keen to battle on with featured article status. Hope you find your book. I will keep in touch via email also. VirtualSteve 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My bio was the one by Ted Margan. Here's [2] a review or two about what appears to be the most recent bio, published 2004. It was Morgan who said that Willy didn't stammer ill he went to school in England. As for the autobio element in OHB, I think the point made by many is not that it slavishly follows every detail of Willy's life, but that it has some elements from it - notably the clubfoot/stammer. But what might be worth mentioning is the "pattern in the carpet" metaphore - I can't ermember exactly what is said in the novel, but it is along the lines that life has no more meaning than the pattern in the Persian carpet. If Maugham went one step further and said it's up to us individually to find the pattern/meaning, then he was an Existentialist well ahead of Sartre :). PiCo 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic - happy to know where the stammer issue came from and to my mind it fits in with the type of person Maugham develops into after the death of his mother and then father. Your link to Morgan would be a worthwile reference then wouldn't it? Will you put it in as a direct reference? Oh and yes the carpet given to him in OHB is a useful consideration - I will see if I can find the actual metaphor as a page link also.VirtualSteve 10:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Morgan's biography to the References section. Could you add the ISBN of that other book? Also, I see someone wrote in caps that he/she would like something on Maugham's style. Not the right way to ask, but a genuine request. Can you draft something?

"There was a young lady of Guam/Who peddled her charms, charm by charm/Inspired, I suppose/By the classical prose/Of W Somerset Maugham." PiCo 23:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

ISBN done. Happy to draft style request from anon editor over next few days. Can I suggest that we use Harvard approach for Morgan - at stammer (and any other point) to verify - either with exact page reference of where Morgan says this or that or at least a bit like I have at the bottom of Novels section with the words ...the complete list of original works (see Stott, 1973). VirtualSteve 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need to cite sources for the bio and anything like that, and Harvard is one of Wiki's approved styles. (Have you seen today's featured article on the Radhanites? - good article and well referenced). I think we need to use more than just Morgan - there have been more recent bios (at least one, anyway). Also anything that I wrote needs to be checked - I was writing from meory, which is a big no-no. As you'er (apparently) happy to be the Maugham-man, I'll leave all the hard work to you :). (but of course ask me for anything if you think I can help) PiCo 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Understood - Will do, will ask. VirtualSteve 04:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Violet Hunt

"Violet Hunt, at age 13, offered herself to John Ruskin, later refused a marriage proposal from Oscar Wilde, seduced the homosexual Somerset Maugham, was seduced by H.G. Wells and lived for some years as the putative wife of Ford Madox Ford."

Offering oneself to John Ruskin seems like a pointless proposition.

See this article.

PiCo 09:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting when you think Maugham turned her into the loving but unloved Nora in Of Human BondageVirtualSteve 12:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The doctor buries his mistakes, the architect advises his clients to plant vines, the artist writes them into a book. PiCo 15:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

Then article is getting rather long - 37kb. How about taking the Bibliography section (called, perhaps, Bibliography of works by Somerset Maugham and making it a separate article, with a reference frm here? PiCo 05:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Timely idea - was thinking similar a day or two ago. Go for it.VirtualSteve 09:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Done - the link should be in blue now :-). PiCo 12:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good.VirtualSteve 20:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

style edit

I've edited for style - not much substantive change. I think it could be put up for featured article candidate now. But please, check that reference to Alan Searle's background as a catamite to the rich and famous in London. Morgan says something about Searle having been well-known in gay circles in London (which is why Maugham sought him out after Haxton's death), but the question of his age at the time is very shaky, based on something I read somewhere about Searle writing a letter to a friend during a trip to Egypt with maugham, in which he says he "hasn't been so popular since I was 12 years old" - not exactly rock-hard evidence for rtaducing the man's reputation. PiCo 05:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'll look for the Searle detail in Morgan or elsewhere. I have been sitting back on Maugham a little as I closely read the bio. There are some sequence issues in our current version that need to be adjusted also. I expect to be able to adjust those next week or next weekend or so. Probably also would like to include a couple more substantial references. Would like to put it up after those changes/additions as they will appear quite substantial when I swop them around within the article. Your thoughts? VirtualSteve 06:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to wait till you finish the editing to your satisfaction. I might have a close look too to see if there are any points that I think need a citation. Cheers. PiCo 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Somerset Maugham and the Fountain of Youth

"I was in Romania a few years ago and heard much of Doctor Aslan, but after seeing what happened to Somerset Maugham at the hands of that Swiss quack I am reluctant to think of rejuvenation! However I am sure that Doctor Aslan is far better than the man [Dr Niehans] whose name I always Freudianly forget." Thusly Graham Greene to a friend, about 1969. It reminded me of this episode in Willie's life: apparently he went once a year to a clinic in Switzerland run by this Dr Niehans, where he had his bum injected with a brew of concentrate of lambs' testicles. It was said to endow the recipient with a smooth and youthful skin. PiCo 11:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

revert to version by user Feyday

The two edits subsequent to this version were (a) someone who believed, no doubt sincerely, that e.e.cummings was E.E. Cummings, and (b) someone who didn't like one of the photos. Both are mistaken. PiCo 12:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomination time?

I think we are about ready to nominate this article for Featured Article status now and wait for the input of other editors. As you will see I have adjusted the Searle quote - I just couldn't find the Coward link so I thought it better to remove. Give me your thoughts and then we can put it up if you agree. VirtualSteve 10:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that it be put up for peer review first, as so far only the two of us have done anything with it - it needs more hands and eyes.

• Remove in-text links to British Library - 3 links all to the same website? Anyway, I don't think they're necessary.
• The quote "Gerald was champagne" needs to be referenced (I've noted another quote in the text that I think needs a reference). It's from Morgan, but I don't know the page. (Well, hey, it's 25 years since I read that book!). Incidenatall, Ted Morgan has a new book out, about his personal experiences fighting for the French in Algeria - apparently quite fascinating.
• Re-arranged one paragraph, as the chronological flow seemed odd - you had us going from Willie's 1917 Russian experience, backwards to his 1916 trip to the Pacific, then fast-farward to the purchase of the Mauresque in 1928.
• Did Haxton die in 1944 or 1946? You've got both.
• I'm not really very happy with the critical assessment of Maugham under "Achievements". More is needed about his prose style - remember the young lady of Guam, who peddled her charms charm by charm, "Inspired, I suppose, by the classical prose, of W. Somerset Maugham"? (Apparently Maugham rhymes with Charm). Anyway, how would you characterise this style? More to the point, how does Morgan characterise it? What did Burgess and Orwell say? I remember someone saying that Maugham actually wrote a lot of cliches into his prose, but did so deliberately, trying to copy the cliche-ridden speech of ordinary people. Was he a modernist? (No, he was not - but why not?) What were his strengths? What made him the best-selling author not just just of one generation, but of several? How is it he's still being read today, when other best selling popular authors of the 20s and 30s are forgotten? (Sax Rohmer, where are you now? And you, James Hilton, and many another? Ah fame you fickle bitch!)

Do you know you can send me an email from the left-hand side-bar on my personal page? Might be useful if you want to discuss this further - not least because, would you believe, I'll be leaving at the end of this month on a 2-month trip through some of Willie's old haunts. (Well, Burma is one place I'lll visit). PiCo 12:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep all good points. (Actually I meant Peer Review but my fingers typed featured article - damn fingers!) Appreciate your chronological flow adjustment. I will get to quotes and Haxton soon. (I wrote the Haxton article and checked the date then so will make sure it's right). I am very busy at work at the moment but should be able to get to it fairly soon. Have a good trip - will email you as time and necessity dictates. VirtualSteve 10:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added about about modernism and his use of cliches. There is alot that can be added to the article, I'll try and help as soon as my final exams are over. Also, you may be interested in helping out on the Ernest Hemingway article which should be ready for feature status soon as well. It would be nice to do both these authors justice with excellent articles. Rizla 23:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Summing Up

Maugham's 1938 book "The Summing Up" has a wealth of information about Maugham's life as he saw it himself, and I am in the process of selecting what seems to me the most apt material from that book and inserting some of it into this article. Feel free to further edit my additions.

Andrew Szanton, 4/06

Hi Andrew, Yes I have read that book as well. Great idea to use it in his wiki article especially if what you add is referenced to the book (as we have done for other parts). Can I suggest care in terms of fact versus Maugham as he was quite often either mistaken (his memory failed him a fair bit in the end) or he was trying to cover his tracks (one of his last acts was to ask everyone that he ever wrote letters to to destroy them and he personally destroyed almost every bit of correspondence he had ever received in huge bonfires), and finally he lived in a kind of post-Wilde morbid fear of his alternate sexuality being discovered. VirtualSteve 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Somerset and all the Maughams did it," according to the song. Quite a few of them did, apparently - you could also use Robin Maugham's book, the one with the above-mentioned title. PiCo 08:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone check this?

The article says: "Maugham's father and three older brothers were all distinguished lawyers and Maugham asked to be excused from the duty of following in their footsteps." Given his stammer, did he really have to ask to be excused? I don't have any reference books handy, but someone who does might like to check this. PiCo 02:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the article's opening assessment of Maugham the world-famous author and the description of the fumbling young Maugham that immediately follows might be better connected, and will try to add a sentence or two here.

Andrew Szanton, 5/06

Significant works

How come the Significant Works section speaks nothing of The Razor's Edge and Moon and Sixpence? Even if Of Human Bondage was his most acclaimed, these atleast deserve a mention. - Cribananda 04:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it Cribananda. Be bold - Write! VirtualSteve 01:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially about The Razor's Edge. I've added mentions of that, The Moon and Sixpence and Cakes and Ale. InNuce 03:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What next? Peer Review?

For all those interested in W. Somerset Maugham can you put your points below this one as to whether you think that it is ready for a full blown Peer Review? I think that I have covered the last 2 of the unreferenced or unlinked components this evening and it is time to move the whole article up a notch. Anyway your thoughts below if you please? VirtualSteve 08:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

More work needed, I think, particularly on "Popular success" and "Grand Old Man", which are quite scrappy at present. Register also seems to be a problem. --Chips Critic 00:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maughan or Maugham??

After further research I am satisfied that MaughaM is the correct spelling. Apologies for setting up another page with the wrong spelling. David(Talk • Contribs) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gin And Bitters

What is the purpose / value of this note without a reference? TomyDuby 04:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maugham as playwright

The main article contains so little about his plays... TomyDuby 04:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Another book on Maugham

• Remembering Mr. Maugham by Garson Kanin Pub. Atheneum, New York, 1966. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.164.255 (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Just wondering, what is the correct way to pronounce "Maugham"?

There was a young lady of Guam

Who peddled her charms, charm by charm

Inspired, I suppose,

By the classical prose

Of W. Somerset Maugham.

(Although a rhyme with "form" is actually more common).

PiCo 00:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That was...incredibly confusing, though I suspect that was intentional. I can't figure the part about a "form" rhyme. How would one manage a rhyme between -rm and -am words without using a heavy accent of some kind? Anyway, would it not have been simpler to just say "maum"? :) That was my guess, due to the pronunciation of other -ugham words, but since I tend to randomly mispronounce words at inopportune moments, I thought I'd make sure. Anyway, thanks again. Kel - Ex-web.god 23:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

pedastry?

why is he in the category of modern pedastry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.74.161 (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Need to add a movie

Hello, new as a member, did not want to touch and ruin the page

1940 - Too Many Husbands Jean Arthur Fred MacMurray JABushell (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Head of MI6

Sir Wulliam Wiseman was not the head of MI6 or the 'British Secret Service'. See Wikipedia article on Mansfield Smith_Cumming 87.80.20.41 (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

IPA

Will one of the IPA gurus on Wikipedia please fix the pronunciation guideline in the first sentence of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.237.192 (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Assessments of Maugham's Work

I believe that a worthy addition to this already fine article would be a contemporary assessment of Maugham's work. Does he belong amongst the very finest of English writers? If so, why? Or, is he, to paraphrase his own words, forever delegated to the second string?

Is he forever trapped in the role of chronicler of an upper-middle-class lifestyle that has long since passed, or does his work resonate outside that frame of reference, and speak to more eternal human truths? Is his work ripe for revival, or is it simply too dated? Is the most popular of his work highly melodramatic (ie., Rain, Of Human Bondage), and thus of less literary value than one would assume it to be, given Maugham's privileged background? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.106.116 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates of parents' deaths

I'd find it more interesting when reading an article about a famous person whose mother died when he was a child to know what age he was at her death rather than what age she was. If the date of her death were given, I could work it out. Same for his father's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlwithgreeneyes (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the information in a bookshop, and will add it. Maugham was eight years old when his mother died. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Meyers biography states that Edith's last child was born on 24 January, and died on 25 January. So he can't have been stillborn. I've changed that too. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Biographical detail on William Somerset Maugham

I would be interested to know where most of this detail came from in the main article? I am a great admirer of his writing and have just finished re-reading The Razor's Edge. Liza of Lambeth is also one of my favourite novels. Is there a particularly good biography that can be recommended? If so, please let me know on my talk page.

Also, the article mentions 'In 1928, Maugham bought Villa Mauresque on 12 acres (49,000 m2) at Cap Ferrat on the French Riviera, which was his home for most of the rest of his life, and one of the great literary and social salons of the 1920s and 30s.' I would like to have more detail in it about this period of his life.Ivankinsman (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Influence

Among "Influence" it would be fair to list Raymond Chandler, who corresponded with and admired Maugham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.88.212.142 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Lost" Story

Could the originator of the bibliography please make the following addition:

The Criminal. By W. Somerset Maugham. Lloyd's Weekly News, July 31 1904, p.14

(The newspaper page is available at www.newspaperarchive.com )

This early story is not in Seventeen Lost Stories or A Traveller in Romance.

Johndoeqwe (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Another "lost" story

Attention originator of the bibliography. Would you please add this second additional story:

A Really Nice Story. A Short Tale by William Somerset Maugham. Black & White, November 30 1901, pp.768-769 of Vol.XXII, (pp.14-15 of No.505).

The newspaper pages are available at www.newspaperarchive.com . This a pay site.

This story is also available free at the PapersPast New Zealand website.

The Criminal is also available free at the Trove Australia website, but the author's name is omitted in this reprint; search for the character "Jimmie Loder".

Johndoeqwe (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Jane Lane did not write about Maugham

QUOTE FROM WIKIPEDIA ENTRY: Jane Lane (pen name of Elaine Kidner Dakers), a contemporary anti-Maugham writer, retraced his footsteps and wrote a record of his journeys called Gin And Bitters

---

My finding: i bought the book mentioned above as i was interested in Maugham's travels. But Gin and Bitters has a completely different topic (see Jane Lane entry in Wikipedia) and nothing to do with Maugham. Maugham mentions drinking gin and bitters repeatedly though in his travel book The Gentleman in the Parlour; that's why Jane Lane's book title might sound like Maugham-related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.247.49.233 (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire section is unsourced. Per your comment, I have removed the offending sentence. Rivertorch (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

'The Summing Up' (1938) is listed under Fiction. It is actually his memoirs, and ought to be listed under Non-fiction. Valetude (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Mary Elizabeth's father?

'He had an affair with Syrie Wellcome, the wife of Henry Wellcome, the American-born English pharmaceutical magnate. They had a daughter named Mary Elizabeth Wellcome, (1915–1998).'

Not clear whether 'they' is meant to include Maugham or Henry Wellcome. Valetude (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Adoption, yea or nay?

When I read this article, it sounds like his plans to adopt Searle as his son and heir happened. But on his daughter's Wikipedia page, it says, "the author was legally barred from his adoption plans." So, did the adoption happen or not? It is clear that Searle did receive funds from Maugham's estate after he died. But as his son or friend? 63.143.226.144 (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

'UK' Embassy

The author is stated as having been born in the UK Embassy. Should this be altered to be the British Embassy, given that it's the 1890s, rather than the 20th century context of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? 188.29.186.4 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Book missing?

Nowhere can I find any information about his novel "Where the Foxes Greet Each Other Tonight", set in Southeast Asia, and which I read in Swedish translation ("Bortom ära och redlighet") sometime in the 1960's. Ake Torngren (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the only missing book. I have added another one that I have read long time ago, and is even referenced on the internet, but this was removed. The book is "The Ten Best Novels of the World" (http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/maughamstenbestnovels.html) Unfortunately I don't find other references but the book exists... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensei2004 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"in the very first row of the second-raters"?

Can anybody source this more accurately, for example from Maugham's own writings? Does The New York Public Library Literature Companion say something about that? Waldstein1981 (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

superlative

The superlative of "wealthy" is "wealthiest" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language"). The word "most" modifies the only first adjective. (We wouldn't write "most beautiful and good" if we meant the most beautiful and the best. It's the same thing, mutatis mutandis.) Kdammers (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you because 'most' modifies both adjectives. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with Kdammers -- each adjective needs its own modifier. However, the present sentence structure is a bit awkward. It should read, "one of the wealthiest and most famous writers", rather than the other way around. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't broken so it didn't need fixing. Your suggestion of putting "wealthiest" first solves Kdammers problem, so let it stand. Each adjective does not need its own modifier. Never begin a sentence with "However, ...". (aside to Kdammers: Another superlative of "wealthy" is "most wealthy".) The sentence in question needs a citation. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I reversed the order of the adjectives, using DoctorJoeE's suggestion. But to beat a dead horse or two: In my various dictionaries (e.g., American Heritage) there is only one superlative for wealthy. On what grounds do you assert that one should never start a sentence with "However"? The Purdue University site on writing ( https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/) includes this sentence: "However, don't put a comma after the main clause when a dependent (subordinate) clause follows it (except for cases of extreme contrast)." It also specifically says " Common introductory words that should be followed by a comma include yes, however, well." Kdammers (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, enough. "Most wealthy" is technically acceptable, but it's grammatically awkward in most situations, and I can't say that I've ever seen it used in print for anything other than hierarchies, such as "the 10 most wealthy individuals" -- and even in that case, "wealthiest" would almost always be a better choice. The phantom rule against starting a sentence with "however" is just that. I personally hate seeing it, and try to avoid writing it whenever possible, but this is a similar situation to the "rule" against ending a sentence with a preposition -- it's inelegant in many cases, but not prohibited, and sometimes necessary. (Recall Shaw's famous comment, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.") Similarly, I know of no rule that requires OR prohibits modifying each adjective within a given sentence; you write what works best on a case-by-case basis. In general, the ideal structure for any sentence is the one with the best clarity and flow -- and if it violates a "rule", so be it. The sentence in question was broken, each adjective did need its own modifier, and now it's fixed. Can we move on now? Please remember, editing is not a competition; our egos are not at stake here. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed your indent, Joe. The way you had it over-indented, you were responding to Kdammers, not to me. (It's in the Talk Page rules somewhere and we all love rules, don't we?) The "phantom" rule against starting a sentence with "however" is found in "phantom" black and white in Strunk Jr's (1918) The Elements of Style, section V: Words and Expressions Commonly Misused: "However. In the meaning nevertheless, not to come first in its sentence or clause." It's also in all the later editions edited by E.B. White, who softens Strunk somewhat; same section title but now section number IV. To summarize what we've learned: The sentence in question was not broken (just about any Wikipedia sentence can be improved), each adjective did not need its own modifier, and now the sentence is fixed. Please feel free to move on whenever you like, after you've added the missing citations. PS: what do you think of my other edits on that paragraph? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, 71.178.50.222, for some reason I missed your reply to my note until now. I realize this is old news at this point -- but we all need to avoid being slaves to artificial linguistic rules. Regarding "however" -- I know many folks (including you, apparently) revere Strunk and White; but this is one instance in which nearly all modern style guides have decided that the classic advice is unreasonable, and do not call starting a sentence with "however" an error. (Multiple citations on request.) When you put a comma after "however" at the beginning of a sentence, everyone knows it means “nevertheless.” There's no reason to outlaw a perfectly reasonable use of a word when you can solve the problem with a comma. Some linguists even contend that it is preferable to start sentences with "however" instead of burying it in the middle, because it makes the connection between sentences clearer and the text easier to scan. I personally would not go that far; I don't think it's preferable in most cases, but I don't avoid it IF it conveys my meaning more clearly. I'm glad you agreed to compromise on the "wealthiest" sentence, because it was awkward, and is much less so now. The rest of your edits were fine, to answer your query. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

An IP user made an edit removing Category:Bisexual men and Category:Bisexual writers and adding Category:Gay writers. This was reverted by Dominus. I have no opinion on the "men" part, but the article states that Maugham was homosexual. This suggests that placement in bi rather than gay categories is inappropriate. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the record of Maugham's life shows pretty clearly that he was not exclusively heterosexual, and this could be well-supported with reliable sources. For example:

“I tried to persuade myself,” he said in later life, “that I was three-quarters normal and that only a quarter of me was queer—whereas really it was the other way around.”

(Quoted in hastings, Selina (2010). The Secret Lives of Somerset Maugham: A Biography. Random House. p. 39.) Hastings also says “The fact of his bisexuality had to be kept secret from most sections of the society in which he moved.” (p. 39) That's the same source that our article gives for the claim that Maugham was “homosexual”.

Maugham had multiple affairs with women, including one with Syrie Wellcome, which produced his daughter Liza; he was married to Wellcome for 11 years.

The point is certainly arguable (most of Maugham's attachements were to men, not to women) but in my opinion the support for bisexual categorization is clear enough to justify reverting an anonymous editor's unexplained change. If someone wants to actually discuss the point, that's fine, but that hasn't happened. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't blame you for undoing an unexplained change; I do that myself a lot. At any rate, we're discussing it now. My main concern at present is with consistency: if the article states outright that he was gay, it makes no sense to categorize him as bi. (The LGBT cats are obviously fine.) I want to be sensitive to potential bisexual erasure, but the fact is that countless gay men of Maugham's vintage did their utmost to hide their true selves and frequently married and had affairs with women. Sexual orientation isn't about behavior, so affairs with members of the opposite sex aren't necessarily indicative of anything, even today. Sources are bound to disagree on various points, including this one, so I think it really comes down to either deciding which sources we find most credible or explicitly acknowledging the lack of consensus in the article. In the meantime, if there's no objection, I'll change the categories to reflect what it says in the article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added a short section to the article discussing Maugham's sexuality and providing a more detailed discussion, with citations. There is further discussion later on in the article that I think should be merged here; I will take a look at it later. I have deleted the articles previous bald statement that Maugham was homosexual. This was cited to the Selina Hastings book I mentioned above, but with no page number. In actuality the Hastings book takes a much more nuanced view of the situation and variously describes Maugham as both “homosexual” and as “bisexual”. —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

One book describes him both ways? That's interesting. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the article about The Circle?

It looks like the article about The Circle (the play) has been deleted. If anyone with admin rights happens to see this note, it would be great to see it restored. Laughing sandbags (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin reply) Are you sure there was ever an article? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If you search for "The Circle", the results include a red link to "The Circle (play), a 1921 play by W. Somerset Maugham." I think that there was a detailed article there before but I may be confusing it with the article on "The Letter". Laughing sandbags (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I created a new article on this topic, any input from the Maugham scholars on this page would be much appreciated. Laughing sandbags (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on W. Somerset Maugham. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/maughamstenbestnovels.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117133221/http://www.lortel.org/LLA_archive/index.cfm?search_by=people&keyword=name&first=W.&last=Maugham&middle=Somerset to http://www.lortel.org/LLA_archive/index.cfm?search_by=people&keyword=name&first=W.&last=Maugham&middle=Somerset
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723090323/http://www.maleisie.be/en/literature_william_somerset_maugham.html to http://www.maleisie.be/en/literature_william_somerset_maugham.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819013730/http://www.selinahastings.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=62 to http://www.selinahastings.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=62

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

When did he learn Russian?

The article is unclear about his languages, which is important as regards his experiences as a spy in Russia. From some other sources it appears his first language was actually French, which was used by some of the upper class in Russia. I found sources that said he didn't know Russian, others that said he did, and one that said he learned it after he was sent there. Shanen (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sue Jones

In the section on “Sexuality” we have a footnote that quotes Fritz Klein:

By the time he fell in love with an actress (identified only by the first name of Nan) he was financially independent. … He was in love with her for eight years.

This is evidently Sue Jones (Ethelwyn Sylvia Jones) who was the inspiration for Rosie in Cakes and Ale. Maugham proposed marriage to her in 1913, but she married Angus McDonnell later that year. I can cite this to the 1984 Morgan biography, and will add it when I get a chance.

—Mark Dominus (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV.

"The posthumous allegation that Maugham was a homosexual is essentially unsubstantiated. The evidence to the contary is much more convincing.His peregrinating life style necesssitated a male secretary. In his works he clearly does not favor homosexuality."

As these four sentences violated NPOV, I removed them. Quite apart from the bizarre idea that Maugham would have openly "favor[ed]" homosexuality in his works if he were gay (an idea which indicates a faulty understanding of history on the part of whoever added it), calling the claim that Maugham was homosexual an "allegation" indicates an implicit bias. The worst sentence is "The evidence to the contary [sic] is much more convincing", which is editorial, and so violates NPOV. --Chips Critic 15:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that Willie's homosexuality is unsubstantiated is more than POV, it's just plain silly - Maugham made no secret of his relationship(s).PiCo 04:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, all -- I'm a bit of a novice here, so I apologize if I'm incorrect -- but doesn't the following passage seem to violate NPOV? "...Maugham's last years were sadly marred by several quasi-scandals which can probably be set down to an itch for attention mixed with cloudy thinking from approaching dementia. The younger Maugham was far too wise and discreet to have made such basic errors in judgement..." Reecesel 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it does. It seems familiar, and may have been removed before. I'll delete it now. --Chips Critic 00:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maugham was bisexual NOT homosexual/gay. See these articles that are a lot more factual and well researched than Wikipedia's articles: http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/W._Somerset_Maugham

Maugham was bisexual. His affair with the married Gwendoline Maud Syrie Barnardo, daughter of orphanage founder Thomas John Barnardo and wife of American-born English pharmaceutical magnate Henry Wellcome, produced a daughter named Elizabeth 'Liza' Mary Maugham (1915-1998); Syrie's husband Henry Wellcome then sued for divorce, naming Maugham as co-respondent. In May of 1916, following the decree nisi, Syrie and Maugham were married. Syrie became a noted interior decorator who popularized the all-white room in the 1920s. In 1922 Maugham dedicated his short story collection On a Chinese Screen to her. They divorced in 1927-1928 after a tempestuous marriage complicated by Maugham's frequent travels abroad and strained by his relationship with Haxton.

Directing us to a site which plagiarises an earlier version of the Wikipedia article is not an arguement. --Chips Critic 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The earlier version might have been perfectly accurate. Your "arguement" is what is generally known as a "non-sequitur." 72.74.66.70 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

NYT article says he went missing when Germany invaded France.

I am researching WWII and have read millions of newspapers of the day. I was just reading the June 23, 1940 edition and on pg 27 there is a tiny blurb saying that friends of the esteemed author are reporting having not heard from him since the day the Germans invaded Paris, which is where he was at the time, apparently. This link is to the article, which you can only retrieve if you are a NYT subscriber. I'll be happy to share my copy if need be, but you must ping me and remind me I have it filed in Zotero. I don't have time to write about it now. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 23:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Language links disappeared

There don't appear to be any links to articles in other languages. Anyone know where they might be hiding? DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have moved this article's title back to W. Somerset Maugham.

This article was moved a year ago from "W. Somerset Maugham" to "Somerset Maugham" by a user who claimed that Maugham "never used the 'W.' in his name professionally during his lifetime"–– yet the original editions of many of his novels listed "W. Somerset Maugham" on their covers/book jackets/etc; and almost EVERY reputable article that can be found online that's been written about this guy includes the "W." when referring to him in full. Furthermore, the user who made the decision to move this page from its established title, "W. Somerset Maugham", to one which omitted the "W.", by all accounts, seems to have done so without ANY proper consensus on this article's Talk Page agreeing to such a page move in the first place! Hence, I have restored this article's original and long-standing title of "W. Somerset Maugham" by reversing said page move... but I'm open to further discussion. CitizenKang414 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I did query the move at the time with JBW. You can see my message and their response here. DuncanHill (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I stand by what I said in the talk page discussion to which DuncanHill linked above: "Somerset Maugham" is what he is normally called, and that is what the article about him should be called, both in view of what Wikipedia's guidelines say and in terms of what seems, to me at least, to be the natural way of referring to him. I also mentioned the analogous case of Winston Churchill, whose books were published under the name "Winston Spencer Churchill", but nobody ever calls him that, and consequently we don't use that as the title of the article. Probably it would have been better to have had that conversation on this page, so that it was visible to anyone else interested in the question now. As for CitizenKang414's statement that I made the change without first getting consensus on this page, well of course I did. Do you always get consensus in a discussion before making any edit? If you do then you may find it helpful to read WP:BRD. Also I'm not sure why you chose to shout "ANY" all in capitals, or generally to use phrasing which gives the impression of angry indignation 😠 rather than friendly enquiry 🤔 as to my reasons. nor why you didn't ask me about my edit before making what were evidently intended to be critical remarks about what I did. JBW (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBW– my apologies, I only looked on this article's talk page, and not on your user talk page. In light of this, I'd like to furthermore say sorry for my harsh wording in the above post as well. However, I believe that changing the page's name to "Somerset Maugham" was/is still not a necessary move, and while I agree that the "Winston Spencer Churchill" argument you pose does make sense to a certain degree, I would argue that this isn't quite comparable to the Maugham situation–– Churchill's primary occupation was by no means an author or even an historian, but Maugham's was as a writer, so what he was best known as in his occupation as an author understandably would be what we'd call him today. CitizenKang414 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@CitizenKang414: Yes, I agree that the Winston Churchill example isn't really comparable, for the reason that you give. However, I still stand by what I said in my earlier answer to DuncanHill, including, perhaps most importantly, the last sentence that I wrote there. JBW (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: Got it, thanks. 👍 CitizenKang414 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Another Page

The authors may be interested to know that there is a rival page, less extensive than this, under the heading "Somerset Maughan". Note the incorrect spelling of the surname. The page mis-spelled the surname throughout, which I corrected, however the title remains. The main author is asking for proof of the correct spelling of the surname. Maybe the two groups of authors could get together. 22 May 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.152.94.198 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maugham's visits to the U.S.

This is purely curiosity and I wish I could find some confirmation. I live in Rockville, Maryland in a home that was built in the early 1930's. On the rear of the property is a small "playhouse", the interior is about 10' x 12' and is appointed with paneling and sconces, just like the living room of the main house. It is rumored that Somerset Maugham knew the owner of the home and when he visited, in the early 1940's, Razors Edge time frame, he would go to the "playhouse" to write. I would love to confirm this. Thanks Larry P. 24 July 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Rosecroft (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Medic

This British English article uses the word medic: "Maugham, who had qualified as a medic, dropped medicine..." Was he accredited by the college of physicians?

• In British English medic means "a medical practitioner or student", implying Maugham achieved some sort of formal qualification as a "medic" before he abandoned medicine?
• In the sense of a paramedic in the armed forces, medic is an Americanism, and is out of place in this article. Maugham served as an ambulance driver so this might confuse the issue.

Could someone with deeper knowledge of Maugham and early 20th century British medical terminology resolve this? A minor edit would clarify the situation. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

His death

We show him dying on 16 December 1965, as do most sources.

However, Ted Morgan's 1980 biography, which I've just finished reading, says this (p. 617, my bolding):

• On December 12 ... Alan [Searle] took him to the Anglo-American Hospital in Nice ... On December 13 he slipped into a coma ... On December 14 he was given oxygen ... On December 15 he died in the hospital but because of a French law that required autopsies for hospital deaths, he was taken back to the Mauresque in an ambulance, and Alan announced on the sixteenth that he had died at home.

Has this ever been refuted? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

In one of the few definite errors I found in the book, he has Queen Victoria dying on 19 January 1901 rather than the correct 22 January. Maybe he has a thing about the correct dates of things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jack! This is impossible to judge from the various, contradictory sources: the biographies I have read that came out after Morgan's 1980 book say:

• Willie, the life of W. Somerset Maugham by Robert Calder, 1989: WSM was taken from the hospital, still alive, back to the Mauresque in the early hours of 16 December, and died there at 3.30 a.m.
• Somerset Maugham by Frederic Raphael, 1989: much the same as Calder's account, but times are not mentioned
• Somerset Maugham, A Life by Jeffrey Meyers, 2004: says the same as Morgan – that WSM died in hospital on 15th but was moved to the Mauresque and was announced to have died there on 16th.
• The ODNB article, by Bryan Connon, 2004: Maugham died in hospital in Nice on 15 December.
• The Secret Lives of Somerset Maugham by Selina Hastings, 2010: Maugham died in the hospital in Nice in the early hours of 16 December and his body was taken back to the Mauresque.

I've tried to cover both possible dates in a footnote, without overcomplicating the point. Suggestions for improving my wording will be gladly received. Meanwhile, I'd comment that Morgan is excellent, but no more infallible than any biographer of anyone. He dropped a clanger by attributing to Maugham a remark he certainly didn't make where Morgan says he made it, and didn't make anywhere else either, it seems: see footnote 19 of the present text of the article. Tim riley talk 08:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Tim riley. I guess that covers it. Since biographers seem to disagree, we must be guided by the official death certificate, with which at least some sources agree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

After an excellently helpful peer review − my thanks again to those who contributed − I have nominated the article for WP:FAC. Suggestions and comments on the FAC page will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Peer review

I've added to the article and rejigged it with the aim of taking it to WP:FAC. To that end I have put it up for peer review, where suggestions for further improvements will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 10:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've read the article and the peer review. I can't make any suggestions as to how it can be improved despite being a grammarian and creative writer by trade. I'm sure you'll soon be adding it to your magnificent row of little gold stars - I wish I had your patience for such work. Thank you also for defending British English. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Kudpung, for your encouraging remarks. My tally of gold stars is only about half that of my mentor, BrianBoulton, whom I continue to miss sorely, and who remains more often than not the imaginary reader for whom I write when I work on Wikipedia articles. There are, however, a few other editors whose opinions I particularly value... Tim riley talk 17:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:Biography attributes

The following attributes should be added. In WP:Biography, the military history attributes of the following should be added: |military-work-group=yes|military-priority= - I'm leaving the priority blank as someone with more knowledge of the article can independently assess its importance. The a&e-priority= - Priority I thought wasn't included on a second look, it was indeed there. No need to add that, only the MILHIST in the WP:Biography. Adamdaley (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

bisexuality needs mentioned

W. Somerset Maugham was bisexual, and So were his male partners. This is a well known biographical fact and needs to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article.100.34.234.175 (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered reading the article? You will see that Maugham's relationships, gay and straight, are addressed throughout. Tim riley talk 08:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor copyedits

Hi Tim riley. Can you help me understand what isn't beneficial about the copyedits you reverted here? Middle-aged is hyphenated. Authoress is an outdated term, and not gender-neutral. Conforming to norms and exacting tolls on both read more natural to me, though I concede both could go either way. gobonobo ^{+ c} 10:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The article has been through a recent peer review and a featured article assessment by several editors. The points you make were not at issue in either review, but as you raise them now: "Conform with" has been standard English since at least the 18th century; "conform to" is perfectly acceptable, of course, but the "con"/with connexion is strong. You added a superfluous AmE-style comma (in the King's English we add them where they are helpful to the reader, and not as a robotic rule, so that in, say, "on first meeting Joyce Beckett became his admirer" could have the reader momentarily wondering who Joyce Beckett was if we omitted to add a comma after Joyce", but the opening lines of the Bible are perfectly fine without one in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".) What you say about "authoress" is in general true, I think, but see the COD (and the current edition of Fowler): the word is still used "when sex is purposely emphasized", which is the crux of Maugham's story, and is why I chose the word. By all means hyphenate middle aged in the alt text, though I don't think it will affect the user of a screen reader either way. One can find rare examples of "exact on", but "exact from" is the norm (OED). I'm glad you chose the article talk page for your comments. Aggrieved editors sometimes leave their objections on another editor's talk page, where they will be unseen by most. Much better to have them where all interested editors will see them and can comment ad lib. Tim riley talk 11:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you for the reply and, I should have said from the outset, thank you for this delightful and well-written article. I surrender to your logic (and appreciate the explanations), with the exception of the inclusion of the term authoress. My copy of Fowler's says of authoress, "like many other female designations that stress gender irrelevantly, it is now largely verboten". OED notes, "the gender-neutral author is now often preferred" and Collins English Dictionary labels the term "old-fashioned or derogatory". The pronoun in that sentence already carries the burden of stressing her sex and our manual of style directs us to "use gender-neutral language" (MOS:GNL). gobonobo ^{+ c} 16:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The beauty of having discussions like this on the article talk page is that other editors interested in the topic can have their two'pennorth. If there is a consensus to neuter Mrs Forrester's calling I'll of course go along with it. Meanwhile, thank you so much for your kind words about the article. It is always pleasing to get a pat on the back. Tim riley talk 16:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Copy edit redux

The wording "fend off the encroachments of age" may well be appropriate for a novel, but the purpose of an encyclopedia is to straightforwardly convey information. "Prevent aging" conveys exactly the same information with 1/5 of the verbiage. What justifies overly flowery language, and in an FA? Similarly, abusing passive voice in the lead makes it less readable; I'm certainly open to different wording than my shot at it, but I find "marred by senility" even more clunky to read than "mistakes were made". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia is also supposed to deal in facts. Nobody can prevent ageing (or even "aging" as you spell it). I don't know what your schoolteachers have told you, but the passive voice is not the spawn of Satan, and is useful in the right place, as here. Why do you imagine all the reviewers of this Featured Article have approved the text? Or do you know better than everybody else? Tim riley talk 19:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• passive voice is not the spawn of Satan – Sure, but that doesn't mean every use of it is a good choice.
• Why do you imagine all the reviewers of this Featured Article have approved the text – I imagine it's because they aren't the gods you imagine them to be, and didn't recognize writing that can be improved when they saw it.
• do you know better than everybody else? – He very well might know better. And a bunch of us working together are even more likely to know better.

EEng 08:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

”And a bunch of us working together are even more likely to know better”: like reviewers at PR and FAC, you mean? (And no-one is claiming they are gods, so save the strawmen for someone else? They know how to review text to its highest and most engaging standard; attempting to demean them does you no credit, so maybe just stick with discussions about the content, rather than other users?) - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That an article was approved as an FA doesn't mean the wording is set in stone, people copyedit FAs all the time. (You may have guessed that I'm American, I'm usually good with ENGVAR but I'd forgotten that one) I'm sure you're familiar with "omit needless words", using 6 words to say what can be said in 2 adds verbiage without adding understanding. And I didn't say the passive is Satanic, only that in this instance it's clunky and takes our readers for fools; it's unlikely someone would think his life was enhanced by senility. Would also appreciate an outside view on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

People perpetrate comma splices all the time, as above, but that doesn't make them good writers. You appear to have missed the point that your proposed two words are inaccurate and the despised six words are accurate. But by all means see if you can assemble a consensus in support of your contentions. Tim riley talk 20:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Care to point out the inaccuracy? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

He's still going on about how prevent aging is a blunder but attempted to fend off the encroachments of age is all factual and literal. Which is nonsense, see below. EEng 08:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Note: Sentence fragment and comma splice employed for shock value, thanks.

• fend off the encroachments of age and marred by senility are phrases that I would expect to see from a book, and not an encyclopedia entry. I agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights above that this is flowery language and I find their copyedited version to be better. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Once someone starts arguing (or argueing, I guess) that prevent aging (or ageing) is wrong (because "Nobody can prevent ageing"), while fend off the encroachments of age is concrete and factual (as if age literally makes "encroachments" which one might attempt to "fend off"), then we can safely make a provisional determination of blind article ownership. Not that I would have made precisely the same edits as BOTNL did:
  • "Senility" and "memory loss" aren't the same thing.
  • I actually don't mind marred by senility in its second use, in the article proper, because it's part of a larger list of things that marred M's final years; but in isolation, in the lead, it indeed sounds a bit flowery. I'd have to think about what to substitute, however.

But the main point -- that this article's prose can stand some deflating -- stands. EEng 08:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Storm ... meet teacup and waste time dancing on the head of a pin when over six and a half million articles are a pile of crap.
  The wording as it stands is entirely acceptable within the limits of encyclopaedic writing. Sure, some people my think it too wordy, but that’s preferable to dead boring, particularly when there isn’t anything wrong with it and a lot right with it. However you try and twist it, Maugham did not try to “prevent aging”, so it’s wrong to say he did. I agree with Eeng that "Senility" and "memory loss" are no the same thing (although one is a symptom of the other), so let’s not mislead readers on that point either, eh? The key point to note is he became senile as he aged and it marred his final years. The extant version says it well.
  And Eeng, is there any reason to accuse someone of ownership just because you disagree on a minor point of content where an attempt to replace something correct is being being done with something misleading? No-one wants this to turn toxic, so maybe keep the sniping and incivility in check? - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  • The wording as it stands is entirely acceptable withing the limits of encyclopaedic writing ... there isn't anything wrong with it – Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved, so that's an irrelevant point.
  • Maugham did not try to “prevent aging” – You guys keep saying that, insisting on a literal interpretation of "aging", but since OED gives (for "aging") Growing old, showing signs of advancing age ... becoming elderly or aged. Also: giving the appearance of (old) age, then if he tried to "fend off the encroachments of age", there's no avoiding that he tried to "prevent aging". Not if you're honest about it, anyway.
  • is there any reason to accuse someone of ownership just because you disagree on a minor point of content – It wasn't just a disagreement on a minor point of content. It was reflexive reverts with edit summaries appealing to "agreed FA text" -- as if that's somehow an overriding consideration -- followed by the ill-considered and repeated insistence that "prevent aging" is somehow a blunder.
  • preferable to dead boring – I'm all for lively writing, but c'mon ... "fend off the encroachments"? In Wikipedia's voice? Really? It's a matter of taste and judgment of course, and opinions may differ, but it's hard to engage seriously on that question when this specious "you can't literally prevent aging" argument gets trotted out over and over, when "fending off encroachments" is every bit as figurative.
  • And no-one is claiming they are gods – Well, no one comes right out and says that, naturally.

  EEng 09:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved, so that's an irrelevant point": What I've seen suggested as a replacement for good, engaging prose is poor

  I am being honest about the "prevent aging": it's far superior to the dead and misleading suggested replacement

  "Ownership" accusation. Nonsense. It was reverting poor edits back to a consensus version. Don't jump straight into the usual uncivil accusations based on that. It's a very, very minor content dispute: don't start with incivility.

  Yes, really. Engaging prose is better than the dead boring version that will get people clicking away to something else. And yes, this is within encyclopaedic acceptability.

  No-one says it, not thinks it. But PR and FAC reviewers are also "a bunch of us working together" and are equally "even more likely to know better" than most.

  No-one is saying FAs can't be edited or that no prose on WP can be improved, but so far the suggested improvements have been a step back in precision, understanding and engagement. If people would like to suggest here how those parts could be improved - and in language that is not as misleading or dead as the versions already put forward, then lets see them and discuss their respective merits. (But let's knock off the insults while that happens, eh? It doesn't help anyone, unless you're playing some version of wiki-bingo in trying to jargon into a thread; if you are, I'll start with WPLBRD and WP:STATUS QUO while I await the suggested text.) - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Would "combat ag(e)ing" work? The current wording doesn't sound precise, it sounds like someone trying to increase word count; he was actively trying not to age, I'm pretty sure this says about the same thing but in much plainer and more informative language. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am being honest about the "prevent aging": it's far superior to the dead and misleading suggested replacement – Great! That's four of us (you, me, BOTNL, 0xDeadbeef) who agree "prevent aging" is far superior, so I'll install that change in the article now. EEng 17:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I concur with Tim and SchroCat. How could I not when you bear in mind EEng's track record of "improving" featured articles. You shouldn't be allowed anywhere near articles of this quality. Cassianto^Talk 13:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we focus on the content, rather than the editor?

Now that you've attacked another editor, care to address the substance here? I'm certainly willing to find alternative wording from what I tried. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC) I just did. CassiantoTalk 15:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Must be invisible text then, because all I see is your ad hominem above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Capping this before it goes off the rails even further - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)*:If you reread the edits carefully you will see that I haven't. Tim riley talk 22:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Uh, @Tim riley: you just violated the three revert rule. Not sure why you'd call EEng's rewording to be edit warring when that is their only edit to the page from the last 50 edits. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  • If you reread the edits carefully you will see that I haven't. Tim riley talk 22:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I know you're still a new admin, but wWhen an editor joins in reverting of material previously edit warred over and still under discussion is still edit warring, even if it's only the first time that individual has reverted.

  Can we all please remember WP:STATUS QUO (as I pointed out earlier) and discuss to come to a consensus, rather than fight over text? - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• 3RR is a bright-line rule and a policy, and WP:STATUSQUO seems to be a section from an essay.. From my point of view, the two comments with do you know better than everybody else and by all means see if you can assemble a consensus came off as quite combative to me. Thanks for reminding me that I'm a new admin, but I fail to see how that connects to this discussion. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• I am (clearly) not talking about 3RR, but edit warring in general. I fail to see how "by all means see if you can assemble a consensus" is combative: I though we were supposed to gain a consensus from discussion? Maybe I am misremembering how things work.

  Again, this is a rather an aside: can we return to the question of the text, rather than finger-pointing? Nothing constructive comes from moving away from discussions about the text. - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely. Now since you and I and Deadbeef and Blade all agree that "prevent ageing" is superior wording, shouldn't we go ahead with that? EEng 20:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Three for and three con ain't a consensus. Tim riley talk 20:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  But it's not 3-3, it's 4-2. Can't you count? EEng 02:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  “Prevent aging” sounds like an advert for a facial serum! - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then why did you say I am being honest about the "prevent aging": it's far superior to the dead and misleading suggested replacement? EEng 02:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think you'll find the consensus at FAC was larger than your three. Cassianto^Talk 22:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Was there discussion at FAC of "fend off the encroachments of age"? It would save a lot of time if you'd link to that for us. EEng 02:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've been waiting for that evidence too. The aversion to writing in plain and readable English here is pretty staggering. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Again, can you focus on the wording rather than attempting to belittle others. The two suggestions provided so far are not improvements on the status quo, so rather than sniping, come up with another alternative to discuss. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I did above, and no one has responded to it yet, so I'll re-up it. "Combat ageing" would also work for me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately ageing cannot be combated (aetat 71 I wish it were otherwise): see the OED: "ageing: of a person, animal, or thing: to grow old". WSM was not so stupid as to suppose he could stop the calendar, but was trying to avoid the deleterious effects of ageing. Which is what the text says. Tim riley talk 22:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's just sophistry. It can't be combatted, but its encroachment can be fended off? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Precisely: one gets older every day and year, and cannot stop that. WSM thought he could fend off the adverse effects of old age by his stratagems. Tim riley talk 22:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Then "fend off ageing" would work just as well. To my American English reading "prevent" and "fend off" in this context mean exactly the same thing, but I'm fine with that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If there aren't objections I'm happy to implement this, or someone else can who's so inclined. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• There was a silent majority at FAC who were happy with it. I think that's how Wikipedia works (depending of course which side of the infobox debate you're on). Cassianto^Talk 09:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

How many more times has one got to explain what ageing means? It cannot be avoided. What we are talking about is the detrimental effects of ageing, which is what the agreed text says. Tim riley talk 17:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. And "fending off ageing" says that, as I proposed above to no (as of yet) objections. It's not the way I'd put it myself, but it's still more straightforward. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Fending off ageing still has the same problems. One cannot fend off ageing any more than one can combat ageing or prevent ageing. One can fend off the encroachments of age or "fend off the effects of ageing", but they are different things. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite so. It's surprising how deniers deny so passionately. Tim riley talk 18:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually think our readers would understand it's not "literally" fending off aging. If it's totally necessary to specify, "Slow the effects of ageing" works too and is a bit more compact. Otherwise I'm happy to look for outside input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Clearer and best left as it is, I think. Tim riley talk 20:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

6.7 million articles to work on and so much time wasted on something that is perfectly good. Peak Wikipedia! - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely time to get another opinion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite so. I suggest the attackers ask each of the PR and FAC reviewers for their opinions, if they can be bothered with so trivial a matter.Tim riley talk 19:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Or anybody else of course who is interested in this article. Tim riley talk 19:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"Attackers"? This isn't a battleground. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

To echo the above, none of this is an attack on anyone. The article I've edited by far the most is Genie, and I never once thought that someone else editing it for clarity was an attack on... well, anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

None of what I’ve seen so far is related to editing for clarity, unfortunately. Nor have any suggestions brought clarity; quite the reverse seems to be the case. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

And here I thought the sentences you and I reworked in the lead demonstrably improved readability. Removing fustian is a positive in writing, especially when doing so assumes the reader is reasonably intelligent; arguing really, truly, no other combination of words in the English language could possibly convey the message that "fend off the encroachment of ageing" does insults the intelligence of our readers. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It didn't really improve anything, particularly before it had to be fixed.

I am still waiting to see something that is an improvement on the other text that is actually correct or an improvement. So far, it's been failure on both counts and an increasing wordcount on the talk page that demonstrates nothing but an inability to understand that "combats ageing" (and various permutations) needs to be explained multiple times before it is understood just why it shouldn't be used. WP:DROPTHESTICK is increasingly becoming the order of the day. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

.. That's just your opinion. For the record, I'm not a native English speaker and an increasing wordcount on the talk page that demonstrates nothing but an inability to understand [..] needs to be explained multiple times before it is understood just why it shouldn't be used reads like suggesting that I don't really understand the English language. So alright, maybe you folks understand English better than me and you know, all of this is a waste of time. I thought that as contributors to an encyclopaedia, we're all here to provide information to the reader, not to stand upon phrases showcasing brilliant and precise diction and criticize anyone that dared to change it as "wasting time" and "attackers".

And no one here objected to my removal of a comma, which was literally in the first sentence? I'm pretty sure 0xDeadbeef, whoever that is, needs to get everyone that reviewed at FAC to be on board with that change, otherwise it shall be reverted! Or if editors actually liked it, nothing will happen. Quite a disappointing exchange on a talk page to say the least.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Well done for spotting you made an edit in the first line. It wasn't an improvement though. Comma use is so flexible in BrEng the sentence is correct both the the comma and without it, so I'm not sure why you needed to highlight it. You can misunderstand my language if you wish, but you are wrong to draw that conclusion from it. As to providing information to readers, that's exactly what the article does. The suggested replacements provide incorrect information and there have been no suggestions that are both better and not misleading: that's not an opinion, that's basic English grammar. I'm surprised this has to be repeated so many times - it's quote disappointing it is taking so long for this simple message to be taken on board. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Word choice is not basic English grammar IMO. Do you care to explain to me, someone who has no understanding of the basic English grammar that you speak of, what nuance "fend off the encroachments of age" conveys over "fend off aging" and "combat aging" and "prevent (the effects of) aging"? Please don't just assert that the wording is just better, that it conveys a meaning that is more precise. Can you, like, ELI5? What is the information that is missing in those replacements? If you don't want to or cannot explain, that's okay. Maybe that says I'm not the primary intended audience for this article. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Jesus..., like, again? OK. Let's try this for the n^th time: you cannot "fend off ageing", or "prevent ageing" or "combat ageing". These things are not possible. It's like King Canute and the tide. Ageing happens, regardless of whether you want it to or not. Maugham never tried to do any of these: he was sensible enough to understand that you can't stop ageing any more than you can stop the sun coming up or the tide coming in. The current wording is better in that it is not inaccurate or misleading - although that is only one of it's advantages over the suggestions that have been made. It is, compared to the suggested alternatives, just better and conveys a meaning that is more precise. - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so you mean the effects of aging? So why not "combat the effects of ageing"? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Tedious prose that uses the exact same words as an advert for a skincare product? It's not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

alright, how about "fend off the effects of ageing" then? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Closer. How about "fend off the encroachments of age"? - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a fan of that. Anything you have against "fend off the effects of ageing"? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

So WP:IDONTLIKEIT is the justification? It's not an improvement. The c.4,000 words above probably explain it best. - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really IDONTLIKEIT, more so that it's representing the information in a more indirect way for readers, especially for someone like me. To get to the effects of ageing, you'd have to reason out that ageing encroaching people means the negative connotations that come with ageing, and to fend off those would mean to try to combat or prevent those. Again, please explain your reasoning. Making an assertion that "It's not an improvement" really doesn't help this discussion. Call me blind, but I'm not seeing anything that objects my suggested wording in your reasoning above. Feel free to urge me to "drop the stick" however many times you want, but I'm genuinely just trying to have a civil and constructive discussion here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep "fend off the encroachments of age". One problem with the "consensus" or committee-writing approach of Wikipedia, is that people tend to gradually wear down strong or characterful prose into simplified, dumbed-down prose. The phrase "fend off the encroachments of age" is perfectly clear in the sentence and has some character. Do you think it's too "flowery"? Too bad. It is perfectly good and clear writing, and, especially when reading about a literary figure, I appreciate some nice turns of phrase. Why do you want the encyclopedia to be reduced to boring prose like "He wanted to prevent ageing". She was born in 1956. Her parents were named Bill and Anne. Thank goodness for the editors who can turn a phrase with some color. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I know I am coming to this late, and I admit I haven't read all of this discussion, but it seems to me your are attempting to dull down FA quality prose. We even have a page (Temporal encroachment) on this subject. Perhaps you really should "drop the stick"? Graham Beards (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

See: psychological projection. Good lord, writing in plain-spoken English instead of horrendous fustian isn't "dulling down FA quality prose", it's improving readability for people who want to know what in god's name this article is trying to say. It's very clear that anyone attempting to cut back the prolix here will just be stonewalled, which is a shame since the subject is actually very interesting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both for commenting above. I certainly wished that I actually was in bad faith, as evidenced by want[ing] the encyclopedia to be reduced to boring prose and attempting to dull down FA quality prose, to save me from being disheartened of being characterized as something that wasn't among my intentions at all. What can I say other than I'm sorry for stepping in this walled garden in the first place? Unwatched, thanks all for spending time to assert others as commenting on users and not content while doing it themselves. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a walled garden; that and the pointy bits in your various comments are not needed. 6.7 million articles would welcome so much attention and focus. I’m sure everyone started this with good intentions, but it seems to have slipped off those rails fractionally during the rather long discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)