This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Wasn't Sebastian the third son? After Bridey and Julia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schilippe ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Julia was a daughter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.216.157 ( talk) 20:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a section on the Catholic themes of the novel. The previous version of the page was a bit unbalanced. The main theme seems to be Catholicism, yet the page only had 2 sentences to about this. On the other hand, it had 900 words under Gay Themes, which is a minor theme of the book. I got the content from this audio of a Catholic TV network: http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6602&T1= -- Nino Gonzales 09:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Catholicism isn't the most important theme just because you think it is: you need to cite a credible reference for this statement. Gay themes are most certainly not a "minor theme" in the book, but rather an issue of frequent reference and much importance, albeit the treatment in the book is implicit and often oblique. I would say that both Catholicism/morality and LGBT issues are major themes worth serious treatment. CowboyBear ( talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is this listed as an LGBT project, yet not put as related to Catholicism? Homosexual themes play a comparatively small part in the book; the major theme throughout is the action of Grace, and the reactions of the various characters to their faith (or lack). 82.108.42.66 ( talk) 00:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Nefertum
Can you explain how Gay themes are in sonme way major in this book? The only stated homosexual character is Anthony Blanche - everything about Sebastian is just speculation. Imo Catholicism is the main theme, all the characters of substance find God in the last fifty or so pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.99.19 ( talk) 18:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The most important section I think is missing: a discussion of Brideshead Revisited as a novel. I think this should be the longest section (it's supposed to be a literary masterpiece). Maybe followed by one or two sentences on the Catholic angle and a line or two on the gay controversy. -- Nino Gonzales 08:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote the gay section. Here are some data that I deleted. They sound interesting but don’t seem to be pertinent to the article. Many of them seem to try to explain the general view of homosexuality at the time of the writing of the novel. I think these details make the article unbalanced. The relationship between Charles and Sebastian is after all a minor theme. (But even with these deletions, it is still one of the longest sections of the article). Maybe these would be useful for an article on how homosexuality was viewed in the early 20th century in England.
I retained most of the original data. However, all of them do not have sources. To whoever wrote them: it would be great if you could cite your sources :) -- Nino Gonzales 08:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I really think the fact that "Lord Marchmain's character was based upon the Earl Beauchamp, & was outed as a homosexual to George VI by his cousin, the Duke of Westminster" should have stayed, and information on the novel being mentioned in cartoons and situation comedies on American television should go. Like Lord Marchmain, Earl Beauchamp (Who was the man about whom the King, horrified, said ("I thought men like that shot themselves) went into exile on the Continent. After Beauchamp's daughter Sibell Rowley died in October 2005, many things previously unsaid were at last uttered: this was the family that inspired Brideshead Revisited; the 3rd daugther was an alcoholic; the younger Dorothy had an unfortunate late marriage to Robert Heber "Mad Boy" Percy, former boyfriend of Lord Berners. The daughters were aware of their father's nocturnal prowlings, and would warn their boyfriends to lock their bedroom doors. Problems became more serious, involving incidents with footmen; the campaign mounted by the Duke of Westminster drove Beauchamp into exile.(Though it is not clear the Duke ever made his wife, the Earls sister, understand the actual problem: "Bendor says that Beauchamp is a bugler" [sic] , she once said.) - Nunh-huh 06:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
-- The gay section still is longer than any other. Sebastian's character is absent for much of the book, after all, noone has really written about Julia, Rex or Lord Brideshead yet.
-- What on earth is the problem with you people? It was a romantic friendship between men (rather intensely romantic, but still). It's very simple. It doesn't have any connection with sexual behaviour between men. — Ashley Y 10:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
-- Have just reduced the length of this section, which was rather poorly composed, without effecting the content. Agree with above that this is better contextualised in terms of early 20th Century British attitudes towards homosexuality, rather hope someone will do this. If not, I'll give it a go. VenusianCat 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"What hypocrites you Englishmen are..." ;) Robert Prummel 12:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the horrendous remark "I thought men like that shot themselves" is usually attributed to George V. Wasn't he King in 1931 when Beauchamp was driven into exile?
Mad World [Hardcover] Paula Byrne (Author) Harpercollins 2009 (publisher) This biography on Waugh is a factual, thoughtful consideration of Waugh homosexual views. Unfortunately it will not satisfy those who demand photographic substantiation .~~user Andy Hickes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyhickes ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the section on Charles's relationship with Sebastian is too long. Nearly the whole second paragraph could go. The bit about "low door in the wall" being some "Freudian metaphor for homosexual sex" is just silly, and that it's an allusion to Alice is completely irrelevant. Looking at "our naughtiness [was] high on the catalogue of grave sins" is necessary, however, but the implication that it does not refer to "sodomy" because "drunkenness and gluttony" are also grave sins that "Charles and Sebastian certainly indulge in" isn't very persuasive. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that a grave sin "is specified by the Ten Commandments." Drunkenness and gluttony do not violate the Ten Commandments; "sodomy" does (because "adultery" is considered to cover all sexual sins). Also, the mention just before of indulgence in "silk shirts and liqueurs and cigars" kind of hints at these other alleged grave sins and would make "naughtiness" rather redundant. Christopher Hitchens wrote that "the catalogue of grave sins" referred unambiguously to homosexual sex and that it "puts the quietus on the ridiculous word 'platonic' that for some peculiar reason still crops up in discussion of the story" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/sep/27/evelynwaugh.fiction). Dadsnagem ( talk) 22:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
References
This is a pretty good little article. Well balanced, covers everything, not too long nor tooshort. Personally I think BR is rather like a pavlova - pretty and sweet and ultimately not very nutritious - but nevertheless let's recognise the merit of this addition to Wikidom.
I added a picture of the dust jacket, and a sentence or two to the opening about what Waugh felt the book was about. Going straight to information about the TV adaptation seems to overlook that it is primarily a novel. thewikiman
I added a short section referencing the (truly terrible) unauthorised 2003 sequel. Do you agree that this is relevant to the article? Brideshead 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The section header itself seems to be POV. Could anyone think of a header that captures what seems to be the nostalgia for England's age of nobility? It seems the Marchmain family represents the last of a dying breed.-- Nino Gonzales 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone agree that Charle's Sturrage's TV adaptation of Brideshead Revisited deserves a seperate article of its own? I know it's widely considered one of the high watermarks of independent British TV and I personally think it would be good to have a more through article on it. I'd create one myself but unfortunately my capabilities on Wikipedia are somewhat limited, but if anyone agrees and could create the article I'd be happy to flesh it out.
What is the difference between the revised edition and the original? Njál 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I wikified the categories in the article. As of March 15 2007, they were broken. I'm not sure whether all of these categories should be retained, but I'll leave it to y'all to make a decision on that. Cheers! -- 82.207.201.138 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Brideshead Revisited Brideshead Revisited Brideshead Revisited (boek) Gjensyn med Brideshead En förlorad värld -- 82.207.201.138 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi:
I've never read the book, it's one of those titles I keep meaning to get around to. So, in a spare moment, I looked it up here and make the following suggestion about the plot summary: Can it please be re-written so that it makes a modicum of sense to someone who hasn't already read the book?
Thanks.
AG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.181.30 ( talk) 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
The section "Motifs and other points of interest" contains a great many uncited assertions. Without cites, these are merely the opinions of the editor(s), and don't belong in a Wikipedia article. -- 201.37.229.117 ( talk) 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:BRIDESHEAD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Standard English uses one possessive when referring to one common thing shared by two possessors. "Robert and Mary's wedding." "Bill and Brian's friendship." "Joanna and Mary's apartment." It is at least confusing and unnecessary (and possibly incorrect) to say, on the other hand, "Robert's and Mary's wedding." (That is, unless you wanted to say something along the lines of -- "I have seen the throwing of rice at two weddings, Robert's [wedding] and Mary's wedding." That's why I am undoing the addition of an apostrophe in "Charles and Sebastian's relationship." theloavesandthevicious ( talk) 23:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding these sentences from the article:
"During the Second World War, Charles, now an army officer after establishing a career as an architectural artist, is housed at Brideshead, once home to many of his affections. It occurs to him that builders' efforts were not in vain, even when their purposes may appear, for a time, to be frustrated."
My questions are:
1) Why was billeted changed to housed? (I'm just curious, not disagreeing.)
2) What on earth is the second sentence meant to convey? And how is it relevant? Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Quoting the article:
"Julia decides that she can no longer live in sin, and for that reason can no longer contemplate marriage to Charles."
This suggests that marriage to Charles would involve "living in sin". How so? Is something missing here? Wanderer57 ( talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It would involve divorcing her husband...
21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moerwijk ( talk • contribs)
A very minor suggestion: the American TV series "The Twilight Zone" from the 1960's had an episode entitled "Deaths-Head Revisited" (#74, 3rd season, Nov. 10, 1961). This must allude to the novel under discussion, though I can see no real connection beyond the title. 82.181.39.239 ( talk) 10:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it odd that two characters have separate articles ( Lord Sebastian Flyte, Anthony Blanche) besides the articles themselves probably failing notability, they don't really serve a purpose that isn't covered in this article's plot and character sections. I propose we merge them back into this article. 24.190.34.219 ( talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this article needs a section about the book's publication history. I have not been able to find who published the first edition in England. It would be interesting to know just how many editions it's gone through, how many languages it's been translated into, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.214.35 ( talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If I am correct, the Marchmain stately home in Wiltshire was never referred to as a 'castle' (as in 'Brideshead Castle') but it is rather a mansion. The term 'Brideshead Castle' which I deleted in favour of simply 'Brideshead' may stem from the 1981 Granada Television series in which Castle Howard was used as the setting for Brideshead. Castle Howard itself is not a castle, but rather a Baroque mansion. If anyone has evidence that Waugh called the home a castle, please revert my edit. Jm3106jr ( talk) 22:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, why is Charles identified with artist Felix Kelly? Seriously people, it's clear that if anyone Charles is Waugh himself -- his Oxford homosexuality, his closeness with the Lygons, his conversion to Catholicism. This wiki article is frustratingly lacking and innaccurate, but that at the very least should be fixed and mentioned. Softlavender ( talk) 06:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Brideshead Revisited. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Damiantgordon, please get consensus on this talk page before making such massive unexplained changes to the article. Softlavender ( talk) 23:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, your total reversion of my new lede seems a quite excessive reaction to a single factual error. It would have been perfectly easy to edit-in a reference to English stately homes in addition to Oxford. The current lede does not summarise the article, as it is meant to. It contains much material that is not represented in the article. It is clearly suitable for transferring, whole and complete, to a new opening section titled ‘Background’, as I suggested.
I will not re-revert at this stage, because I dislike edit-wars. But you may care to reconsider the function of the lede on Wiki pages. Valetude ( talk) 11:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This section is very weak. Rwood128 ( talk) 14:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
Already a time ago I did add an new section but I see it is not there. Procrustes???
Regards, 145.129.136.48 ( talk) 19:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed the bit about "the nearly overt homosexuality of Sebastian Flyte's eccentric friends at Oxford University" for the reasons I gave in my edit summary ('the only part of sebastian's circle described at all is antony blanche, and he is an overt homosexual ("inverted", "pansy", etc)'). I guess you could also say that one other person is described: Boy Mulcaster. However, it's not clear whether he's really supposed to be part of that circle or not (I don't think he's mentioned as being at the initial lunch party Sebastian invites Charles to, even though he is shown to be there in the series). And he doesn't seem to me to be portrayed as even slightly homosexual. I think you could make the case that romantic friendships are a major theme, but I don't want to write that stuff myself. The homosexuality (overt/implied/whatever) of Sebastian's circle at Oxford is definitely not a major theme. It can't be because the circle itself is not even a subject.
My own opinion is that Waugh is very deliberately saying "Maybe they are homos, maybe they aren't, that's not the point." And as if to belabor that point he contrasts them with Anthony Blanche, who's explicitly identified as homosexual. I also suspect that at least one partial reason for this was because of Waugh's own homosexual affairs at Oxford: he wants to downplay the importance of actual homosexuality in these sorts of relationships. Instead they're mostly about aesthetics & deep romantic friendship, and maybe there's a bit of gay sex thrown in, or maybe not, who knows? But while the first part you can arguably get from just reading & summarizing the book, the latter part would definitely be original research. Dingsuntil ( talk) 20:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Wasn't Sebastian the third son? After Bridey and Julia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schilippe ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Julia was a daughter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.216.157 ( talk) 20:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a section on the Catholic themes of the novel. The previous version of the page was a bit unbalanced. The main theme seems to be Catholicism, yet the page only had 2 sentences to about this. On the other hand, it had 900 words under Gay Themes, which is a minor theme of the book. I got the content from this audio of a Catholic TV network: http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6602&T1= -- Nino Gonzales 09:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Catholicism isn't the most important theme just because you think it is: you need to cite a credible reference for this statement. Gay themes are most certainly not a "minor theme" in the book, but rather an issue of frequent reference and much importance, albeit the treatment in the book is implicit and often oblique. I would say that both Catholicism/morality and LGBT issues are major themes worth serious treatment. CowboyBear ( talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is this listed as an LGBT project, yet not put as related to Catholicism? Homosexual themes play a comparatively small part in the book; the major theme throughout is the action of Grace, and the reactions of the various characters to their faith (or lack). 82.108.42.66 ( talk) 00:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Nefertum
Can you explain how Gay themes are in sonme way major in this book? The only stated homosexual character is Anthony Blanche - everything about Sebastian is just speculation. Imo Catholicism is the main theme, all the characters of substance find God in the last fifty or so pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.99.19 ( talk) 18:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The most important section I think is missing: a discussion of Brideshead Revisited as a novel. I think this should be the longest section (it's supposed to be a literary masterpiece). Maybe followed by one or two sentences on the Catholic angle and a line or two on the gay controversy. -- Nino Gonzales 08:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote the gay section. Here are some data that I deleted. They sound interesting but don’t seem to be pertinent to the article. Many of them seem to try to explain the general view of homosexuality at the time of the writing of the novel. I think these details make the article unbalanced. The relationship between Charles and Sebastian is after all a minor theme. (But even with these deletions, it is still one of the longest sections of the article). Maybe these would be useful for an article on how homosexuality was viewed in the early 20th century in England.
I retained most of the original data. However, all of them do not have sources. To whoever wrote them: it would be great if you could cite your sources :) -- Nino Gonzales 08:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I really think the fact that "Lord Marchmain's character was based upon the Earl Beauchamp, & was outed as a homosexual to George VI by his cousin, the Duke of Westminster" should have stayed, and information on the novel being mentioned in cartoons and situation comedies on American television should go. Like Lord Marchmain, Earl Beauchamp (Who was the man about whom the King, horrified, said ("I thought men like that shot themselves) went into exile on the Continent. After Beauchamp's daughter Sibell Rowley died in October 2005, many things previously unsaid were at last uttered: this was the family that inspired Brideshead Revisited; the 3rd daugther was an alcoholic; the younger Dorothy had an unfortunate late marriage to Robert Heber "Mad Boy" Percy, former boyfriend of Lord Berners. The daughters were aware of their father's nocturnal prowlings, and would warn their boyfriends to lock their bedroom doors. Problems became more serious, involving incidents with footmen; the campaign mounted by the Duke of Westminster drove Beauchamp into exile.(Though it is not clear the Duke ever made his wife, the Earls sister, understand the actual problem: "Bendor says that Beauchamp is a bugler" [sic] , she once said.) - Nunh-huh 06:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
-- The gay section still is longer than any other. Sebastian's character is absent for much of the book, after all, noone has really written about Julia, Rex or Lord Brideshead yet.
-- What on earth is the problem with you people? It was a romantic friendship between men (rather intensely romantic, but still). It's very simple. It doesn't have any connection with sexual behaviour between men. — Ashley Y 10:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
-- Have just reduced the length of this section, which was rather poorly composed, without effecting the content. Agree with above that this is better contextualised in terms of early 20th Century British attitudes towards homosexuality, rather hope someone will do this. If not, I'll give it a go. VenusianCat 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"What hypocrites you Englishmen are..." ;) Robert Prummel 12:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the horrendous remark "I thought men like that shot themselves" is usually attributed to George V. Wasn't he King in 1931 when Beauchamp was driven into exile?
Mad World [Hardcover] Paula Byrne (Author) Harpercollins 2009 (publisher) This biography on Waugh is a factual, thoughtful consideration of Waugh homosexual views. Unfortunately it will not satisfy those who demand photographic substantiation .~~user Andy Hickes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyhickes ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the section on Charles's relationship with Sebastian is too long. Nearly the whole second paragraph could go. The bit about "low door in the wall" being some "Freudian metaphor for homosexual sex" is just silly, and that it's an allusion to Alice is completely irrelevant. Looking at "our naughtiness [was] high on the catalogue of grave sins" is necessary, however, but the implication that it does not refer to "sodomy" because "drunkenness and gluttony" are also grave sins that "Charles and Sebastian certainly indulge in" isn't very persuasive. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that a grave sin "is specified by the Ten Commandments." Drunkenness and gluttony do not violate the Ten Commandments; "sodomy" does (because "adultery" is considered to cover all sexual sins). Also, the mention just before of indulgence in "silk shirts and liqueurs and cigars" kind of hints at these other alleged grave sins and would make "naughtiness" rather redundant. Christopher Hitchens wrote that "the catalogue of grave sins" referred unambiguously to homosexual sex and that it "puts the quietus on the ridiculous word 'platonic' that for some peculiar reason still crops up in discussion of the story" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/sep/27/evelynwaugh.fiction). Dadsnagem ( talk) 22:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
References
This is a pretty good little article. Well balanced, covers everything, not too long nor tooshort. Personally I think BR is rather like a pavlova - pretty and sweet and ultimately not very nutritious - but nevertheless let's recognise the merit of this addition to Wikidom.
I added a picture of the dust jacket, and a sentence or two to the opening about what Waugh felt the book was about. Going straight to information about the TV adaptation seems to overlook that it is primarily a novel. thewikiman
I added a short section referencing the (truly terrible) unauthorised 2003 sequel. Do you agree that this is relevant to the article? Brideshead 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The section header itself seems to be POV. Could anyone think of a header that captures what seems to be the nostalgia for England's age of nobility? It seems the Marchmain family represents the last of a dying breed.-- Nino Gonzales 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone agree that Charle's Sturrage's TV adaptation of Brideshead Revisited deserves a seperate article of its own? I know it's widely considered one of the high watermarks of independent British TV and I personally think it would be good to have a more through article on it. I'd create one myself but unfortunately my capabilities on Wikipedia are somewhat limited, but if anyone agrees and could create the article I'd be happy to flesh it out.
What is the difference between the revised edition and the original? Njál 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I wikified the categories in the article. As of March 15 2007, they were broken. I'm not sure whether all of these categories should be retained, but I'll leave it to y'all to make a decision on that. Cheers! -- 82.207.201.138 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Brideshead Revisited Brideshead Revisited Brideshead Revisited (boek) Gjensyn med Brideshead En förlorad värld -- 82.207.201.138 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi:
I've never read the book, it's one of those titles I keep meaning to get around to. So, in a spare moment, I looked it up here and make the following suggestion about the plot summary: Can it please be re-written so that it makes a modicum of sense to someone who hasn't already read the book?
Thanks.
AG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.181.30 ( talk) 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
The section "Motifs and other points of interest" contains a great many uncited assertions. Without cites, these are merely the opinions of the editor(s), and don't belong in a Wikipedia article. -- 201.37.229.117 ( talk) 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:BRIDESHEAD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Standard English uses one possessive when referring to one common thing shared by two possessors. "Robert and Mary's wedding." "Bill and Brian's friendship." "Joanna and Mary's apartment." It is at least confusing and unnecessary (and possibly incorrect) to say, on the other hand, "Robert's and Mary's wedding." (That is, unless you wanted to say something along the lines of -- "I have seen the throwing of rice at two weddings, Robert's [wedding] and Mary's wedding." That's why I am undoing the addition of an apostrophe in "Charles and Sebastian's relationship." theloavesandthevicious ( talk) 23:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding these sentences from the article:
"During the Second World War, Charles, now an army officer after establishing a career as an architectural artist, is housed at Brideshead, once home to many of his affections. It occurs to him that builders' efforts were not in vain, even when their purposes may appear, for a time, to be frustrated."
My questions are:
1) Why was billeted changed to housed? (I'm just curious, not disagreeing.)
2) What on earth is the second sentence meant to convey? And how is it relevant? Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Quoting the article:
"Julia decides that she can no longer live in sin, and for that reason can no longer contemplate marriage to Charles."
This suggests that marriage to Charles would involve "living in sin". How so? Is something missing here? Wanderer57 ( talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It would involve divorcing her husband...
21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moerwijk ( talk • contribs)
A very minor suggestion: the American TV series "The Twilight Zone" from the 1960's had an episode entitled "Deaths-Head Revisited" (#74, 3rd season, Nov. 10, 1961). This must allude to the novel under discussion, though I can see no real connection beyond the title. 82.181.39.239 ( talk) 10:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it odd that two characters have separate articles ( Lord Sebastian Flyte, Anthony Blanche) besides the articles themselves probably failing notability, they don't really serve a purpose that isn't covered in this article's plot and character sections. I propose we merge them back into this article. 24.190.34.219 ( talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this article needs a section about the book's publication history. I have not been able to find who published the first edition in England. It would be interesting to know just how many editions it's gone through, how many languages it's been translated into, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.214.35 ( talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If I am correct, the Marchmain stately home in Wiltshire was never referred to as a 'castle' (as in 'Brideshead Castle') but it is rather a mansion. The term 'Brideshead Castle' which I deleted in favour of simply 'Brideshead' may stem from the 1981 Granada Television series in which Castle Howard was used as the setting for Brideshead. Castle Howard itself is not a castle, but rather a Baroque mansion. If anyone has evidence that Waugh called the home a castle, please revert my edit. Jm3106jr ( talk) 22:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, why is Charles identified with artist Felix Kelly? Seriously people, it's clear that if anyone Charles is Waugh himself -- his Oxford homosexuality, his closeness with the Lygons, his conversion to Catholicism. This wiki article is frustratingly lacking and innaccurate, but that at the very least should be fixed and mentioned. Softlavender ( talk) 06:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Brideshead Revisited. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Damiantgordon, please get consensus on this talk page before making such massive unexplained changes to the article. Softlavender ( talk) 23:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, your total reversion of my new lede seems a quite excessive reaction to a single factual error. It would have been perfectly easy to edit-in a reference to English stately homes in addition to Oxford. The current lede does not summarise the article, as it is meant to. It contains much material that is not represented in the article. It is clearly suitable for transferring, whole and complete, to a new opening section titled ‘Background’, as I suggested.
I will not re-revert at this stage, because I dislike edit-wars. But you may care to reconsider the function of the lede on Wiki pages. Valetude ( talk) 11:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This section is very weak. Rwood128 ( talk) 14:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
Already a time ago I did add an new section but I see it is not there. Procrustes???
Regards, 145.129.136.48 ( talk) 19:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed the bit about "the nearly overt homosexuality of Sebastian Flyte's eccentric friends at Oxford University" for the reasons I gave in my edit summary ('the only part of sebastian's circle described at all is antony blanche, and he is an overt homosexual ("inverted", "pansy", etc)'). I guess you could also say that one other person is described: Boy Mulcaster. However, it's not clear whether he's really supposed to be part of that circle or not (I don't think he's mentioned as being at the initial lunch party Sebastian invites Charles to, even though he is shown to be there in the series). And he doesn't seem to me to be portrayed as even slightly homosexual. I think you could make the case that romantic friendships are a major theme, but I don't want to write that stuff myself. The homosexuality (overt/implied/whatever) of Sebastian's circle at Oxford is definitely not a major theme. It can't be because the circle itself is not even a subject.
My own opinion is that Waugh is very deliberately saying "Maybe they are homos, maybe they aren't, that's not the point." And as if to belabor that point he contrasts them with Anthony Blanche, who's explicitly identified as homosexual. I also suspect that at least one partial reason for this was because of Waugh's own homosexual affairs at Oxford: he wants to downplay the importance of actual homosexuality in these sorts of relationships. Instead they're mostly about aesthetics & deep romantic friendship, and maybe there's a bit of gay sex thrown in, or maybe not, who knows? But while the first part you can arguably get from just reading & summarizing the book, the latter part would definitely be original research. Dingsuntil ( talk) 20:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)