Revision as of 19:36, 27 September 2007 editPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →RFC (British vs. English): correct link← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:39, 27 September 2007 edit undoPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →RFC (British vs. English)Next edit → | ||
Line 211: | Line 211: | ||
— ] <sup>]</sup> @ 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | — ] <sup>]</sup> @ 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
:This issue is actually discussed in ] above. The examples which Kumusou would drag into this are not parallel; they are athletes on the UK team for various events, and for some of them there is likely to be a debate whether they are English or Scots. Neither of these applies here. ] <small>]</small> 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | :This issue is actually discussed in ] above. The examples which Kumusou would drag into this are not parallel; they are athletes on the UK team for various events, and for some of them there is likely to be a debate whether they are English or Scots. Neither of these applies here. ] <small>]</small> 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
*For that matter, I see no effort on Komusou's part to compromise; he has now reverted three times to the same text, which I object to largely because it isn't English. ] <small>]</small> 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:39, 27 September 2007
Biography B‑class | |||||||
|
Comedy Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Style
P.G Wodehouse's writing style involves strange plot devices such as engagements to get out of, cow-creamers to recover and so on and so on.
Humble
I wouldn't exactly call Jeeves humble, but I hesitate to change that. zadcat 09:56 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)
- Jeeves is definitely not humble. He's smugly superior, but in an underhand way that Wooster never notices. -- Tarquin 10:03 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)
- Point taken. I deleted "humble". Perhaps one adjective is enough. -- Heron
Sir Thomas Browne
Actually whilst not denigrating the linguistic prowess of 'Plum' I think you will find that the name of Sir Thomas Browne's name occurs far more frequently in the OED than Wodehouse. Incidentally Browne knew the Wodehouse's of Kimberley Norfolk whose ancestors fought at Agincourt, but whether related to the master of the social yarns of P.G. I dunno.Norwikian 14:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Pronunciation of Name
Pronunciation of his name: WOOd-house vs. WOAd-house? Actually, I seem to remember hearing a TV or radio interview with him many years ago (probably when I was in college, in the early 1960s, and had a Jeeves-monkey on my back) in which the man himself said his name was properly pronounced "Wood-uss" -- sort of eliding the H and O sounds. Anybody know for sure? ---Michael K. Smith 21:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I would imagine the peculiarty of the pronunciation of his own name gives rise to the apparently absurd names he uses (certainly surprising to non-English cultures - many people don't believe those names actually exist). Maybe I've missed it, but is there a guide anywhere here - which, it must be said in passing (and many thanx to everyone!), is probably the best thing on Misplaced Pages - as to the pronunciation of some of the more outrageous ones - Fotheringay-Phipps, comes to mind with Fingee Fipps. Would appreciate help! Regards, --Technopat 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Book reference 2
I've changed the format of Template:Book reference 2 so that instead of 'ISBN=nnnnnnnnn' it takes 'id=ISBN nnnnnnnnnn'. This is so that we can use it for books that don't have ISBNs. I'd update this article, but User:Rdsmith4 has an inuse message set, so this is a reminder for me or someone else to make that change once the article's no longer marked as inuse. —Morven 22:22, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Drones Club Article
It seems to me that there is a Drones Club article. -- Two Halves, unlogged and unstoppable
- So there is. Pardon my confusion, but what's the purpose of your comment? — Dan | Talk 03:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- There was no active link in the article, and I didn't want to mess up all the work you were doing and/or be instantly reverted. So, now you know. -- Two Halves
Golf
Surely "A Damsel in Distress" is also golf-oriented?
possible mistake?
"Wodehouse was a prolific author, writing ninety-six books in a career spanning from 1902 to 1977."
but he expired on 1975.
ephraim
- Well spotted. I think the person who wrote "1977" was confused by PGW's posthumous publications. Now fixed. --Heron 11:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Knighthood
Is it correct to call him "Sir". If his knighthood was bestowed after he became an American, would it not be only honorary, like Bob Geldof's? Avalon 06:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe he had dual nationality, which would mean that "Sir" was indeed correct. However, the matter is almost moot, since he was only a knight for a few weeks.
- In some contexts "Sir" would be out of place (and in Wodehouse's case, occurrences of "Sir Pelham" would very much be the exception rather than the rule). But in this context, where the full details of his name and titles are presented, it is not only appropriate, but required, because leaving it out would be misleading. JackofOz 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Performing flea
"English literature's performing flea" isn't an insult - it's a delightful compliment! Penguin put it on the outside of most of its books, and Plum himself quoted it with pleasure. Maybe it shouldn't be in the intro, but it's not a criticism. I may move it yet again. - DavidWBrooks 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think it belongs in the article - it's a nice turn of phrase, if nothing else, and only arguably an insult - but I'm not sure it's a topline piece of info. I like it where it is now. Having said that, I won't be very upset if it's moved. --Rayray 16:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- It was not intended as a compliment; its author, Sean O'Casey, was sneering at the award to Wodehouse of an honorary doctorate by Oxford University. Wodehouse chose to treat the comment humorously and deflected the insult by using the phrase as the title of one of his quasi-autobiographical books. Jimmy Pitt 15:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- A little research finds that you are quite correct! I retract my above statement ... almost two years later ... - 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWBrooks (talk • contribs)
The Inimitable Jeeves
This book seems to be missing from the bibliography, although it is indeed a very real and very Wodehouse-written book in the Jeeves series.
- I think most of the books should be removed from the bibliography, since it has List of books by P. G. Wodehouse, where "Inimitable Jeeves" appears. I will remove most of them from this article, leaving summaries of the categories. - DavidWBrooks 13:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
buzzer novels
User:FlashSheridan recommends the "buzzer novels" – which are they? —Tamfang 18:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I asked that question at his/her User page - and this was his/her answer:
- "Buzzer" was a term used by at least one Wodehouse critic (I'm afraid I've forgotten his name) for a class of protagonist: young, male, and overly-confident but good-hearted. My particular favorite is Uneasy Money, but there are many others. FlashSheridan 05:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, the term "buzzer" was used by Wodehouse himself. He first used it in a short story, "Love Me, Love My Dog", in 1910. He doesn't seem to have used it again until the book "Money in the Bank", written while he was interned and published in 1942. The term refers to a certain type of young man who, as Wodehouse himself put it (in "Love Me, Love My Dog"), has the "gift of conversation". Some critics, such as Richard Usborne, have described the character Psmith as the quintessential 'buzzer', which may explain the erroneous notion that the term was invented by a critic. Jimmy Pitt 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Doctorate
Is it worth mentioning his honorary doctorate? It was clearly important to PGW, and many (including Waugh) write letters to him as Dr Wodehouse. -- wikiman 9th April, 2006
Boarding school
Wodehouse only saw his parents every six or seven years whilst at boarding school? Can that be right, or should it be months instead of years? kylet 12:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would think that it should be months. If it was truly years, he would only have visited his parents once during his scholastic career. It is far more likely that he went home once for the Christmas holidays and once for the summer holidays each year. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- It would be far more likely nowadays, when the journey to Hong Kong takes less than a day, but in the late 19th century, travelling by steamship, by the time he got there it would be time to come home again! Although his mother took him out to Hong Kong when he was a few months old, he was sent back to England for his schooling and never visited Hong Kong again. He only saw his parents when his father had 'home leave', which would have been only every two-three years. Jimmy Pitt 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Baxter
"Wodehouse's servants are frequently far smarter than their masters. This is quintessentially true with Jeeves, who always pulls Bertie Wooster out of the direst scrapes. It recurs elsewhere, such as the efficient Baxter, secretary to the befogged Lord Emsworth"
When has Baxter ever pulled Emsworth out of a scrape, maybe the inverse is true. Surely Baxter is known only to help Connie.
- The quoted text doesn't say that Baxter pulls Emsworth out of scrapes. If you read it carefully you will see that it merely says that Baxter is smarter than Emsworth. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I didn't read the text carefully. -- Wikipaiyan 10:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Wooster's aunts
"Bertie Wooster's terrorising aunts Agatha and Dahlia" Aunt Dahlia was Wooster's favorite relative!
Even so, Bertie still regarded Aunt Dahlia as a terror, as she often forced him into doing things he did not want to do (albeit more nicely than Aunt Agatha!)
Is it worth mentioning that Wodehouse's female characters (Aunts included) are generally much more forceful (if that's the word I want) than his male characters. As Bertie Wooster would say "the F of the S is more D than the M."
- Kipling actually (and PGW does attribute it to "Old Pop Kipling" in at least one book. The full text of the poem is at http://www.potw.org/archive/potw96.html - well worth a read srs 04:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Woops, I thought it was obvious, but I should have attributed it. Sorry Jen Powell-Psmith 04:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Childhood
"Feeling abandoned, Wodehouse grew very close to his brother, who shared his love for art. Wodehouse filled the voids in his life by writing relentlessly."
I'm fairly sure that he never said anything of the kind. He very rarely broke from the cheery tone of his books in any of his writings or interviews that I've read (for an exception, see his see the statements he gave upon his arrest in Paris after the War). Of course, he may have been wearing the mask, but I think we have to at least consider the possibility that he was a fairly happy person, as unfashionable as that undoubtedly is. Perhaps "Some biographers (Robert McCrum, others as well?) have speculated that Wodehouse suffered from feelings of abandonment."
Galahad Threepwood
Surely Gally Threepwood deserves at least a mention among Wodehouse's memorable characters. A true philanthrop, he might one of the most interesting characters created by Plum.--Khodadad 05:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be interesting to point out his best-known novels, the ones that should not be missed because they are in the collective memory?Zigzig20s 06:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Life - Early Employment
Surely Wodehouse never really worked at the HSBC Bank; unless it was in China. HSBC only acquired The Midland Bank in 1992 before that its European presence began as a minor share holder of The Midland in 1987. When Wodehouse worked for the bank it would have been known as the The London City and Midland Bank. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he worked for this bank adding if necessary that it was taken over by the HSBC in 1992? If any records of this employment came to light would they mention HSBC? Shropman 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- All my Penguin editions, most of which were printed long before 1987, say he worked at the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank (not "HSBC Bank"). Why shouldn't it have an office in the financial centre of the world even before becoming entangled with the Midland? —Tamfang 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- True. And there's Psmith in the City - Mike Jackson is more or less a semi autobiographical version of PGW, and he is forced to join "The New Asiatic Bank" after school instead of "going up to the coll" - that is, going to oxford or cambridge, mostly for the cricket there. The bank he joins (I'm paraphrasing here) is one of those banks with vast branches in far flung areas, with the london office a kind of holding area where people receive a year or so of training in the various departments, starting from the mail room, and are then packed off overseas to manage a tiny branch in some remote asian city.
srs 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)'You look on the gloomy side, Comrade Jackson. I seem to see you sitting in an armchair, fanned by devoted coolies, telling some Eastern potentate that you can give him five minutes. I understand that being in a bank in the Far East is one of the world's softest jobs. Millions of natives hang on your lightest word. Enthusiastic rajahs draw you aside and press jewels into your hand as a token of respect and esteem. When on an elephant's back you pass, somebody beats on a booming brass gong! The Banker of Bhong! Isn't your generous young heart stirred to any extent by the prospect? I am given to understand--'
Birth?
Wasn't Wodehouse born in India? I thought so? Can anyone corroborate this? Gautam 08:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- No - he was born in Surrey, England. - DavidWBrooks 13:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Infertility
"He had no natural children, owing to his having contracted mumps as a young man."
Do we know for sure that he had no biological children due to this? Infertility isn't the sort of thing a man (especially at the time in which Wodehouse lived, I should imagine) would find easy to say even in an autobiography, less still to tell another person so that they could put it in a diary somewhere for P.G.oholics to unearth as evidence, so I think we need some citation. Quite apart from the fact that some married couples consciously decide not to have children between them, although it is true that mumps can cause sterility in men, my grandfather had it as a youngster and I think it is fair to say that I am living proof of the fact that it doesn't necessarily apply to all!
CO.
- Define "youngster"? I've heard that mumps cause infertility only if contracted after adolescence, but that may be mere folklore. —Tamfang 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Seventy Years
The intro sentence says that Wodehouse "has enjoyed enormous popular success for more than seventy years" - is this right? Seventy years ago was 1937, whereas Wodehouse's first book was published in 1902. The intro sentence implies that Wodehouse didn't become popular until 35 years into his career, something that I find hard to believe. --BehemothCat 07:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- The last edit was to add that word has, to remove the implication that PGW is no longer popular. Before that edit, the sentence made sense: PGW "enjoyed popular success" from about 1902 to 1975. —Tamfang 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The Paint and the Shoe
I am just about to add a trivia pointing out that he used the "paint and shoe scene" in two different books - "Mike" and the Blandings book "Something New". How often did he lift scenes from other books? It seems to me that he got to that point in the plot and said "oh drat, I've got a paint splashed shoe again!", and decided to play to the reader's groans by lifting the scene almost word-for-word.
British vs. English
Most UK-related articles seem to be battlegrounds for recurrent petty wars between "British" and "English". The two most recent examples on the PGW article being on 2 August 2007 (deleting "British") and on 9 September 2007 (deleting "England"), going both sides, alike only in their being both concealed with fake WP:MINOR edit tags and deceptive edit summaries.
On the one hand, putting "English" is as true and incomplete as only saying that Flaubert was a Normand writer or that Brautigan was an Oregon writer, and leave it at that. On the other hand, having only "British" (the sovereign nation, U.N. member, and passport) seems to triggers endless lame wars from both sides. Plus, English/England is an additional piece of information.
So I document here for the record (it was already documented in my edit summaries) that I had set the lead section and the infobox to what I see as an encyclopedic compromise:
- (infobox) Nationality: Template:Country data British (English)
- (lead section) ...was a British comic writer from England...
And of course, I'm reverting the recent vandalism edit.
P.S. For similar reasons, the infobox documents his dual citizenship completely, with date and age of acquisition, as:
- U.S. (1955, aged 74)
— Komusou @ 15:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- When I took out what appeared to me to be a minor redundancy, I did not know this was such a touchy issue for some people. I have no interest in trying to force a point of view on what looks like a minority issue, so I'll stay away from editing this wording further. You might be a little more careful accusing people of "vandalism" or "deceptive" edit summaries. Perhaps that happens in some cases, but assuming it automatically is not good wikipedia practice. Mlouns 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Has it occurred to Komosou that there is a difference between England and Normandy? Large numbers of Anglophones would have to look up Normandy, or Oregon, to be sure what they meant. But England?? (He may also wish to consult a dictionary; the English adjective is Norman, even for Flaubert.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a better solution than the awkward "British comic writer from England" in the opening sentence? I really don't care if you want to call him "British" or "English" or what, but this phrasing just limps -- and is especially clunky to describe a writer who was himself a master of sparkling phrasing. Mlouns 15:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I fully concur. The issue should arise for those writers who are not, or arguably not, English; for those of non-English birth, descent, or self-identification, it's necessary.
- Wodehouse, however, was a Norfolk man, who was born in Guildford, schooled at Dulwich, and spent his life, before he left for America, in and around London. He was, and called himself, an Englishman; he ceased to be a British subject. This is bad writing, to make a non-existent point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- For comparison, to call John Buchan English would be a clear error; to call Sir Arthur Conan Doyle English would be disputable, although we call Doyle Scottish, which is only slightly better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Mlouns:
First a belated note about your 9 September 2007 post: the original text above was NOT about you at all. If you look at the diff links given, you'll see they were about two other users. (The second one deleted "England" while concealing the deed with a fake WP:MINOR tag and a deceptive "fixed cut-paste error" summary.) If you look at the article history, it just so happened that you came in a few hours later and deleted "British", also concealed as a WP:MINOR edit, but at least with a frank edit summary, so I reverted you with "rv as per talk page bis, third time this is concealed as a fake minor edit" but the talk page was already there and not about you.
As for your question today, I don't see another solution, but you're free to try and suggest. And I don't think that an encyclopedia's goal is to mimic his subject's writing, else not much people would want to read our articles about William S. Burroughs, Marcel Proust, or James Joyce. I'm not saying articles have to be flat, dry, and boring – for instance I have rewritten the Aunt Dahlia article trying to interpolate as much juicy Wodehouse quotes and inconspicuous running gags as possible while maintaining a Jeevesianly straight encyclopedic face, so I'm not adverse to what you're saying – but encyclopedic tone and editing peace have to trump "sparkling phrasing".
Also, I think it seems awkward to you in this case only because there is such as massive, international conflation of "British" and "English" (thus a popular error makes it look somewhat redundant), but the format isn't so awkward if you consider "a British writer from Scotland", "a Canadian writer from Quebec", "a Belgian writer from Flanders", "a Spanish writer from the Basque Country", "a French writer from Corsica", "a Dutch writer from Holland" (not even going into former countries such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia) and other entities with a history of independance, nationalism, separatism, or terrorism (and ethnic-warring on Misplaced Pages). It's a compromise, and most compromise are a bit awkward, but better awkward than hawk war. (I'll get me coat.) — Komusou @ 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Pmanderson:
British/UK is the sovereign nation, the passport, the U.N. member, the embassies – all dictionaries and encyclopedias use only "British" and other sovereign nations, so even adding "English" as outlined above is already a compromise and more than what you'd get in standard encyclopedias. Only on Misplaced Pages's open model are articles so often sabotaged by nationalist or ethnic claims and counter-claims, usually from people who scarcely contribute to articles besides trying to claim as much famous people as possible for their "team". Furthermore, your putting only "English" is not simply unencyclopedic and thus immediately reversible, it is also an invitation to constant warring between "English" and "British" as was already the case on this article, and as is the case on most articles with similar problems. Your uncompromising, undiscussed change is thus unencyclopedic, POV, divisive, and reverted. (Also, if you have to fallback on petty personal attacks based on (mis)spelling, you implicitely admit having no point.) — Komusou @ 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what Kosumou's peculiar idea of nationality is intended to suggest; but the text on which he suggests is neither neutral, accurate, nor English. The claim that this is unencyclopedic is nonsense; the Britannica says English-born, which will cover Wodehouse's actual citizenship nicely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was updating the Adaptations section, but It's really hard to work with unproductive ethnic terrorists at it. Misplaced Pages is not Britannica, and none of the important points (constant edit wars without a compromise wording, sovereign nation, inaccuracy of not mentioning British/UK, POV of chosing a non-sovereign nation against the official UK, etc.) are addressed, and you didn't sustained or justified any of your claims. Please stop vandalizing while I initiate the next step of the Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes process. — Komusou @ 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- For reference, I am not British, in any sense of that much abused word. I do, however, agree with Mlouns that this is bad and unidiomatic writing. I will be restoring the Britannica's ingenious compromise, which neatly fields the only real ambiguity here, whether Wodehouse is English or American.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was updating the Adaptations section, but It's really hard to work with unproductive ethnic terrorists at it. Misplaced Pages is not Britannica, and none of the important points (constant edit wars without a compromise wording, sovereign nation, inaccuracy of not mentioning British/UK, POV of chosing a non-sovereign nation against the official UK, etc.) are addressed, and you didn't sustained or justified any of your claims. Please stop vandalizing while I initiate the next step of the Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes process. — Komusou @ 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
RFC (British vs. English)
- Copy of RFC statement: Nationality description (general recurrent issue): in the lead, "British writer" pertains to the official citizenship/passport (UK), but nationalists prefer "English writer" or "Scottish writer", etc. Encyclopedic compromise was "British writer from England". One editor edit-wars to replace the compromise with "English writer" only.
- Notes from nominator:
- Please see a lot of initial ground already covered in the eponymous #British vs. English section above.
- Far beyond this one article, this issue is massively recurrent on Misplaced Pages. I had it recently on British/Scottish Graeme Garden (stopped after a WP:ANI debate, archive), and right now I just saw it listed in 2 bio RFCs for Talk:Andy Murray (tennis)#Nationality and Talk:Colin McRae#Protected with the same problem/solution/war. Maybe some grouping of those 3 RFC's is possible? (I'm going to ping them both.) And apparently, we'll need an official policy to stop this, since even compromises don't work.
— Komusou @ 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- This issue is actually discussed in #British vs. English above. The examples which Kumusou would drag into this are not parallel; they are athletes on the UK team for various events, and for some of them there is likely to be a debate whether they are English or Scots. Neither of these applies here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- For that matter, I see no effort on Komusou's part to compromise; he has now reverted three times to the same text, which I object to largely because it isn't English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)