![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I think Clara does not belong as a Character from Pip's Youth because she is first mentioned in Chapter 30. 98.207.156.49 ( talk) 03:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a fair amount of plagiarism on this page. The entire section entitled "Themes and Analysis," which I've just deleted, was simply pasted in from SparkNotes. Here's the link for anyone who cares to check it out:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/greatex/themes.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.237.148 ( talk) 05:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need a chapter-by-chapter description of what happens in this book? -- Zoe
My disagreement with a pure plot summary is that, if you put it too much together at the top, the reader will inadvertantly read it even if they might not want to. The Chapter 1 will make it quite clear what is going on. Also, a chapter by chapter description is technically a plot summary and should be useful to any reader wishing to review the book.
I have no disagreement, of course, to character descriptions or what not, and if you would like to do them, feel free to go ahead. Vera Cruz
Why is it that their isn't an article about Pip? He's the main protaganist, and if you have Estella and Miss Havisham you should have him.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is overwhelmed with plagiarism (and unfounded speculation) in many articles. Dick Scalper ( talk) 14:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I want to thank User:MeltBanana for the rewrite, also for removing the abortive snyopsis because Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes.
I modified some of the commentary on the two endings. I (and others) prefer the first because it carries the entire theme of the book to a logical conclusion. The "more hopeful" ending (I can't exactly call it "happy" since it's too ambiguous) seems to carry on and even validate the illusion Pip carried in his entire life. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That truck ending is bar far, the best ending I have ever heard...ever. I personally would much prefere that to,"It was all a dream", its short, hits hard and fast and is bloody funny. If only Dickens had used that ending.
I feel that the lack of a motherly figure is a false interpretation because Joe seems to fill the slot of a mother well regardless of his gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.215.242 ( talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have edited "outside of work" to "outside work" (the "of" is unnecessary, and bad English ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 ( talk) 09:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to add my own comment to the discussion so I am just doing it here. This is mugwort123456789 incase anyone needs to know:
The entire plot summary is copy-pasted with only one or two words changed from answers.com. Select and copy any significant hunk and google search it and the answers.com page will show up. Also, it's far to long for a plot summary. It must be redone. Additionally, this article needs a section on criticism badly. What do people think about the novel, how it was received, etc. And the small theme interpretations section was really poorly written. I agree - have something on characters and definetely Pip. Overall this does not deserve a B-rating, I would give it a C+. And while we are on the subject have any of you seen the "Little Dorrit" article? It's really dreadful...you have to see it to know what I mean.
-- Mugwort123456789 ( talk) 19:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)mugwort123456789
The study guide sites, while they are commercial sites containing banner adds, are valid and useful external links. They exist in most of the dickens articles and are very useful. I have no connection with them personally and am usually the first to delete spam, but fail to see why they should not be included given how usefull they are, indeed most of them are better in content than the Wikipedia articles at this point. -- Stbalbach 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I reworked the character descriptions to describe the characters' initial roles in the book, which is consistent with the way plays are presented. Although we have a "spoiler" warning, we shouldn't give away key plot resolutions. Believe it or not, some people may want to read books that are described here and in other sources and would really like to guess at the significance of characters. -- Cecropia 15:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
My God. this book was awful. i cant believe anyone has actually read the whole thing. i think some criticism would be called for. i can get entire cities to testify for that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.190.240 ( talk • contribs) .
Haven't read the book, but watched the film (With John Mills as Pip) Get used to Great Expectations, there is a lesson for our world here, only the ending isn't going to be as happy (as either one in the book) A great insight into man's folly and stupidity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 ( talk) 09:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Pansy. MafiaCapo 00:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
DarthSidious 10:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious
i'm reading it for school, its ok compared to some of the books we have to read *cough* the pearl *cough* —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.161.121.119 (
talk)
21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't that bad. It is a piece of classic literature. I am just hoping that people are not being critical about it because they were forced to read it through a class or something. This isn't my type of literature I usually read, and I don't like other Dickens books but I liked how much Pip changed and learning his psychology. -- Blckhawk1234 ( talk) 16:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Just further proof, it it's needed, that fact is stranger than fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.121.92 ( talk) 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It was my first Dickens read... and a wonderful experience! Dick Scalper ( talk) 14:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the neutrality box on the main page, because there is no active discussion about neutrality, nor any indication of what anyone believes is not neutral. Is the box there because of the forking debate? That's not a neutrality issue. -- Cecropia 00:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is a euphemism on Wikipedia for whatever the majority at any article decrees. Dick Scalper ( talk) 14:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
After noting that GE wasn't always considered a great novel, what do we get? A slavishly short summary worthy of a minor novel. Does anyone dare to mention even obliquely that the encounter with the convict was eventually highly adventitious? Or give a little more detail on the frozen-in-time quality of Miss Haversham's house? All I can see in the summary is: a) the book's had a revival b) Pip is like Dickens c)The story is about Pip growing up d)It had an unhappy ending which, however, Dickens revised and concerning this doesn't really mention that the new ending isn't that hopeful either. I suppose that would be a spoiler, whereas nearly all of what we see in the Main Themes section could be placed on the back cover of a paper back edition without compromising the reading experience much.
Following the decision to merge at AfD, I've merged the spoiler details back into the main article, replaced the spoiler notices, and deleted the separate article. -- Cecropia 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
"Plot introduction & overview" duplicate introduction and plot summary. Feel free to trim intro. Vapour
Sorry, that is not excess verbiage. This is a general encyclopedia. "Bildungsroman" is a phrase mostly known to literature geeks, and deserves a brief explanation without a reader having to clip thruogh. If it were up to be, I would simply say "novel." -- Cecropia 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's worth anything, our freshman English curriculum emphasizes the Bildungsroman aspect of this novel.-- CountCrazy007 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I excised this part of the text:
I know this is one scholarly opinion of the meaning of "by hand" but it makes no sense whatever in the context of the story. Everyone in sight would not be complimenting Mrs. Joe for bottle-raising Pip and even telling Pip how lucky he was to be raised "by hand" if this meant he was exposed to a method of upbringing that exposed him to "an extremely high mortality rate for infants that were not breastfed."
In fact, the OED, which most English language scholars accept as definitive on most issues, defines "by hand" as: "With the hand or hands; by manual action or labour, as opposed to machinery, or to natural processes"; that is, Mrs. Joe took the trouble to raise him by her own labouring efforts, and this is why so many think her so saintly. OED backs this up, too, in this citation:
Moral: Never forget occam's razor. -- Cecropia 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
In the Notes section of the Penguin Classics series edition: brought me up 'by hand': reared me by spoon or bottle- feeding, rather than breast- feeding. The phrase was in common use: in the first edition of Isabella Beeton's Book of Household Management (1861), the chapter on artificially feeding a baby is entitled 'Rearing by Hand'. (Notes by Charlotte Mitchell, 1996) -- Bitbitz.xx 06:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the exact Wiki guidelines for articles about novels, but this one is gargantuan. The "plot summary," in particular, is massive and needs to be severely edited down. I don't know enough about how to present novels on Wiki to do it myself, but I encourage someone who does to be bold and trim the flab. Roland Deschain 11:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It actually looks a lot like something that belongs at Wikibooks - as a start anyway. -- Stbalbach 13:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The people who are complaining about this "don't know enough about how to present novels on the Wiki to do it myself" and the other says "I'm busy with other things, so don't look to me to write a shorter plot summary for Great Expectations anytime soon."
So we have two editors following the dictum that writers are few and critics are many. I've been editing this for months without anyone making a peep and now two who have contributed nothing to the article but their complaints hope someone will be bold in excising my hard and accurate work — when I'm a few chapters before the conclusion.
Work this out people, I'm not doing any more work on this for someone else's theory of Wikieconomy. -- Cecropia 03:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't paper - there's no reason to excise good material because it's "too long". john k 09:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the above suggestions - plot summaries are supposed to be just that, short and to the point - this is an encyclopedia not Cliff Notes - we have Cliff Notes at Wikibooks - if the plot summary is so long that there is talk about making it its own article, it is outside the bounds of an Encyclopedia and entering the realm of a study guide. I mean what would happen if we had a separate plot summary article, would we have a summary of the summary on this page? The other option is to do nothing, the page is 97k which is within the realm of reason for Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 13:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that "Wikipedia isn't paper" doesn't mean you can't trim a needlessly long plot summary. You could summarize the plot of Great Expectations in a few paragraphs; this article has a breakdown and description of pretty much every chapter and plot point of the entire novel and reads like Cliff Notes. Someone who has never read the book should be able to go here and read a short summary of the story and its themes, then read about the novel's cultural impact and critical reception. As someone mentioned above, the current summary is more appropriate to Wikibooks or somesuch. Roland Deschain 07:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't for plot summaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Racei 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the changes that substituted other terms (such as "passion," "desire") for "love" in describing Pip's feelings for Estella as unsupported by text or scholarship. Pip declares his love for Estella to the reader, to Herbert, and to Estella herself, among others.
Especially inappropriate is substituting "paramour" for "lover" in describing Estella's rejection of a role for Pip more intimate than friend. "Lover" does not evaluate Pip's intent on how he wishes to become Estella's lover, though the text only points toward what used to be called "honourable intentions." In modern definition "paramour" means: "An illicit or clandestine lover or mistress, esp. taking the place of a husband or wife; the person with whom a married man or woman has an adulterous relationship." ( OED. Nowhere is this either Pip's or Estella's intent. -- Cecropia 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
if anyone cares, who cares about this stupid book. i had to read it for school, and i'm just looking for a little help on the written assignment. can anyone help me there?
It's too bad that people are forced to read a book rather than discovering it on their own timeline. Dick Scalper ( talk) 14:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
With sincere thanks and congratulations to Cecropia [1] [2], I venture to write a few words on it.
1. I want to edit the word "alteres" to "alters" in the first line of the fourth paragraph of Plot introduction & overview. 2. The fourth paragraph of the same section is very short and I would appreciate it if it can be at all expanded. Although "Comparison to Dickens' other works" section clarifies the situation, I would like to see more sooner. 3. I disagree with any attempt to reduce it to a cursory approach. 4. The link in the section "Significant characters in "Great Expectations" is currently a disambiguation page. the link Phillip Pirrip should be Phillip Pirrip.
With sincere appreciation for your most prolific work, A self-admitted Great Expectations fan, Kushal Hada -- who is kushal? 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, some people might say that a long article is a burden on dial-up users. I reply to them -- with the qualification of being on dial-up myself -- that it depends on the subject. The article 13th root is fine at 85 KB, but you could be banned from Wikipedia for "optimizing" the huge 1.70 MB The Simpsons DVD sets to 85 KB because the article needs all those pictures. So my point is clear -- the length of an article is dictated not by a rule such as Wikipedia_article < 100 kB; the size of an article depends on the matter it needs to cover. -- who is kushal? 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Every source I've been looking at claims that in the second of Dickens' endings, he has the two (Pip and Estella) meet at Satis House and walk away hand in hand (implying they're at least a temporary couple) - however the current info is different, saying that Pip said he didn't love Estella (but it wasn't as definite as the second ending - I find it hard to believe that so much controversy could erupt from saying something more absolutely). Check out the Spark Notes (haha, obviously I haven't been working on an essay due tommorow - what gave you that idea?) or any of the other sites. I would edit this myself, but I have an ess - uh ... important matter to deal with. --Daniel()Folsom T| C| U 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The Temple is not a fictional place in London, it is very real.---Revolver66, 20:39 02/03/07.
The following critique is incoherent, lacking a source, admittedly not of special relevance to Great Expectations (for which the article is long enough already!), and generally deserving of skepticism: "Like many of Dickens's works, Great Expectations has been criticized for its excessive use of words. [citation needed] This may be related to the fact he was paid by installment for his serialised work (although it is often mistakenly claimed that he was paid by the word). It is possible that the installment approach did lead to a more verbose style than would otherwise have been used." I would remove it, perhaps inserting a note in the main Dickens page (if there isn't one already) that he was usually paid by installements, which admittedly, tended to produce novels of great length, though he was not actually "paid by the word." If anyone thinks this is worthy of being kept, the phrase "has been criticized for its extensive use of words" really needs attention. Was he supposed to use less words and more pictures, for example? Saying he has been occasionally criticised for his supposedly excessive verbosity would be better, though I would rather remove the whole thing. ( Eeesh 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
Somewhere in the article we need to add Startop. He was friends with Pip and Herbert and helped Magwitch escape so he needs a mini paragraph somewhere! I mean, we got Camilla and Georgiana even, but no Startop! Someone PLEASE add him! ~CDLover
We need to add some more info. Like symbols and stuff. I am working on summer rea-err, I mean, a important report, and thought that symbols would help me get a bet-uh, I mean help others get a better grade. (No, I do not need help with symbols, I thought others would, what gave you any other idea?)~Pip_Squeek
I've tagged the plot summary as too long; this has been brought up here before but I'm not sure if it's really been addressed. I separated some mini-sections into a larger separate section for Themes and Analysis - I think this lends some credence to that commentary. Even so, it's really original research so some attempts should be made to source as much of it as possible. Really, there should be plenty more references for an article this long. Also, I'd suggest some consideration be made for the long list of external links - how many full text sources are needed? Anyway, that's just what I think. Discuss? -- Midnightdreary 00:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made some edits w/r/t grammar and punctuation. I also think the section on 'Fictional Places: London' should be deleted entirely. The first is not in the City of London at all, but in Westminster, and the second is just Mr Jaggers' office, which of course is fictional, as Mr Jaggers himself is fictional! And earlier in this same section, the location of Mr Jaggers fictional office has already been supplied.
There's a lot more work to do w/r/t grammar, which I'll get on when I have time. However, I think the controversy surrounding the interpretation of the ending can be easily resolved by replacing the two clumsy paraphrases that currently exist with the ACTUAL TEXT of the ending. Then there can be no controversy, because it will be left to the reader to analyse. (It's really not the job of Wikipedia to force a particular analysis on readers...!) Lexiconstipation ( talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The plot introduction at least has the advantage of being roughly the right size for a plot summary of a novel of this type. I suggest that we just ditch the current huge plot summary (6,000 words) and relabel the plot introduction as the plot summary. -- Tony Sidaway 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hum! Yeah right... A woman being rejected at the altar ("wilt thou, Compeyson,..." "I won't!") and subsequently locking herself up for decades without ever going outside and even letting in no daylight and never changing her wedding dress is really beyond believe. I dare say Great Espectations presents just Dickens's most grotesque character... Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The plot summary doesn't summarize the plot, there are no details at all given about the third expectation, and there's very little information on the first two, I had to consult a previous version of the article to learn anything about it at all. 90.230.54.138 ( talk) 14:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I added it to the Gothic Novels category. Alt6 ( talk) 05:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the entire plot overview section is plagarised. I intend to do a complete re-write of the section. I also plan to make it shorter. — Oli OR Pyfan! 02:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed this misplaced note at the bottom of the end of the plot summary:
"Edit Summary. Added full text of the original ending written by Dickens according to John Forster. "The Life of Charles Dickens" 1871, according to a note in the New American Classics edition cited below."
Invertzoo ( talk) 14:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I just spent over two and a half hours revising this article (it's still way too long) but there was so much vandalism in here I was livid. i tracked down the majority of the recent vandalism to be done by someone named Thebigolwikiman41 who I'm assuming has been banned. A few choice phrases and absolute lies are: " When Mrs. Joe gets up and goes to the kitchen for the pie, Pip knocks her over causing her to fall on and kill their dog, Rumbles" and "Not long after, Pip beins to notice he has become more attracted to males rather than females. He often expresses himself with a paint brush and plywood" and my 'favorite' "Pip frequently visits Miss Havisham and Estella, for whom he harbours a feeling of utter hatred." I'm adding this to my watch list as this article has fallen victim to vandalism several too many times as of late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedxjade ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Having the summary is great and all, but nothing one can't get at another site or by reading the book itself. The article would be better served providing sourced sections regarding the history of the novel, reception and impact of the novel, discussion of themes (more than the paltry short paragraph currently included), etc. For example I came here looking for why Dickens revised the ending. I already knew the two endings (which is the extent the article provides), I didn't know why there were two endings. 207.237.208.153 ( talk) 07:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In 1968/69, I worked in Harrogate Theatre as Acting Assistant Stage Manager, and I took part in what i understood to be the premier of a musical production of Great Expectations staged there, I think towards the end of 1968, called 'My Gentleman Pip.' I recall there being hopeful talk about it moving to the West End if it was successful, which it didn't so I assume it wasn't, although the Harrogate audiences seemed to enjoy it and I remember some very catchy tunes from it. Jess Conrad was Pip, if I remember rightly. (I played a minor role in addition to my ASM duties, and it was great fun.) Deborah Bateman (now MacIntyre) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.167.236 ( talk) 23:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The edits from User:96.237.1.158 are being reverted as vandalism. I agree we'd need to find a better source than the one which the bot removed (though I don't think a newcomer could be expected to know that), but I don't think it's vandalism and I'm not at all sure that it's incorrect information. I can't get at my copy at the moment, but I think any good edition should have footnotes with info about the original and revised versions, showing if those edits were accurate or not. Girlwithgreeneyes ( talk) 21:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the article is currently inappropriately vague and significantly misleading.
The not-so-happy version of the ending, which the article calls the "original ending", is an early UNPUBLISHED (at the time) discarded draft.
The happier version of the ending was published two ways, making these wording changes in the last sentence:
A good article would state when each version of the ending was written, published, and otherwise made known. - 96.237.1.158 ( talk) 03:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Would Pip - trained as a blacksmith and living in marshy lands (with malaria still being endemic in the UK until the early 20th century, as well as other illnesses) be able to pass for a gentleman?
Given that Magwitch became very successful in Australia, would he not be able to buy/arrange his return to England - and would there have been any way of him returning other than on a British ship? Given that the story is set before photography became generally available to the masses, there would be no images of him (and he could always state 'You are mistaking me for my cousin of the same name, the black sheep of the family.')
What was the legal situation regarding 'getting inconvenient relations certified insane and getting hold of their wealth' at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 13:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are George Bernard Shaw and George Orwell included in a statement about "contemporary critics"? Shaw was 5 years old in 1861, and Orwell was born over 40 years later. 68.98.129.253 ( talk) 18:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The translation from corresponding French article Wikipedia is incomplete, but a lot of the material here comes from the French article, so I inserted {{Translated page}} as attribution anyway. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk) 03:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Why does Dolge Orlick get quote-marks round his first name?
Dickens says this: Now, Joe kept a journeyman at weekly wages whose name was Orlick. He pretended that his Christian name was Dolge—a clear impossibility—but he was a fellow of that obstinate disposition that I believe him to have been the prey of no delusion in this particular, but wilfully to have imposed that name upon the village as an affront to its understanding.
Dickens never mentions another name and the words "clear impossibility" are a typical authorial aside. Thomas Peardew ( talk) 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I think Clara does not belong as a Character from Pip's Youth because she is first mentioned in Chapter 30. 98.207.156.49 ( talk) 03:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a fair amount of plagiarism on this page. The entire section entitled "Themes and Analysis," which I've just deleted, was simply pasted in from SparkNotes. Here's the link for anyone who cares to check it out:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/greatex/themes.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.237.148 ( talk) 05:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need a chapter-by-chapter description of what happens in this book? -- Zoe
My disagreement with a pure plot summary is that, if you put it too much together at the top, the reader will inadvertantly read it even if they might not want to. The Chapter 1 will make it quite clear what is going on. Also, a chapter by chapter description is technically a plot summary and should be useful to any reader wishing to review the book.
I have no disagreement, of course, to character descriptions or what not, and if you would like to do them, feel free to go ahead. Vera Cruz
Why is it that their isn't an article about Pip? He's the main protaganist, and if you have Estella and Miss Havisham you should have him.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is overwhelmed with plagiarism (and unfounded speculation) in many articles. Dick Scalper ( talk) 14:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I want to thank User:MeltBanana for the rewrite, also for removing the abortive snyopsis because Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes.
I modified some of the commentary on the two endings. I (and others) prefer the first because it carries the entire theme of the book to a logical conclusion. The "more hopeful" ending (I can't exactly call it "happy" since it's too ambiguous) seems to carry on and even validate the illusion Pip carried in his entire life. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That truck ending is bar far, the best ending I have ever heard...ever. I personally would much prefere that to,"It was all a dream", its short, hits hard and fast and is bloody funny. If only Dickens had used that ending.
I feel that the lack of a motherly figure is a false interpretation because Joe seems to fill the slot of a mother well regardless of his gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.215.242 ( talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have edited "outside of work" to "outside work" (the "of" is unnecessary, and bad English ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 ( talk) 09:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to add my own comment to the discussion so I am just doing it here. This is mugwort123456789 incase anyone needs to know:
The entire plot summary is copy-pasted with only one or two words changed from answers.com. Select and copy any significant hunk and google search it and the answers.com page will show up. Also, it's far to long for a plot summary. It must be redone. Additionally, this article needs a section on criticism badly. What do people think about the novel, how it was received, etc. And the small theme interpretations section was really poorly written. I agree - have something on characters and definetely Pip. Overall this does not deserve a B-rating, I would give it a C+. And while we are on the subject have any of you seen the "Little Dorrit" article? It's really dreadful...you have to see it to know what I mean.
-- Mugwort123456789 ( talk) 19:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)mugwort123456789
The study guide sites, while they are commercial sites containing banner adds, are valid and useful external links. They exist in most of the dickens articles and are very useful. I have no connection with them personally and am usually the first to delete spam, but fail to see why they should not be included given how usefull they are, indeed most of them are better in content than the Wikipedia articles at this point. -- Stbalbach 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I reworked the character descriptions to describe the characters' initial roles in the book, which is consistent with the way plays are presented. Although we have a "spoiler" warning, we shouldn't give away key plot resolutions. Believe it or not, some people may want to read books that are described here and in other sources and would really like to guess at the significance of characters. -- Cecropia 15:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
My God. this book was awful. i cant believe anyone has actually read the whole thing. i think some criticism would be called for. i can get entire cities to testify for that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.190.240 ( talk • contribs) .
Haven't read the book, but watched the film (With John Mills as Pip) Get used to Great Expectations, there is a lesson for our world here, only the ending isn't going to be as happy (as either one in the book) A great insight into man's folly and stupidity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 ( talk) 09:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Pansy. MafiaCapo 00:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
DarthSidious 10:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious
i'm reading it for school, its ok compared to some of the books we have to read *cough* the pearl *cough* —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.161.121.119 (
talk)
21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't that bad. It is a piece of classic literature. I am just hoping that people are not being critical about it because they were forced to read it through a class or something. This isn't my type of literature I usually read, and I don't like other Dickens books but I liked how much Pip changed and learning his psychology. -- Blckhawk1234 ( talk) 16:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Just further proof, it it's needed, that fact is stranger than fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.121.92 ( talk) 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It was my first Dickens read... and a wonderful experience! Dick Scalper ( talk) 14:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the neutrality box on the main page, because there is no active discussion about neutrality, nor any indication of what anyone believes is not neutral. Is the box there because of the forking debate? That's not a neutrality issue. -- Cecropia 00:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is a euphemism on Wikipedia for whatever the majority at any article decrees. Dick Scalper ( talk) 14:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
After noting that GE wasn't always considered a great novel, what do we get? A slavishly short summary worthy of a minor novel. Does anyone dare to mention even obliquely that the encounter with the convict was eventually highly adventitious? Or give a little more detail on the frozen-in-time quality of Miss Haversham's house? All I can see in the summary is: a) the book's had a revival b) Pip is like Dickens c)The story is about Pip growing up d)It had an unhappy ending which, however, Dickens revised and concerning this doesn't really mention that the new ending isn't that hopeful either. I suppose that would be a spoiler, whereas nearly all of what we see in the Main Themes section could be placed on the back cover of a paper back edition without compromising the reading experience much.
Following the decision to merge at AfD, I've merged the spoiler details back into the main article, replaced the spoiler notices, and deleted the separate article. -- Cecropia 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
"Plot introduction & overview" duplicate introduction and plot summary. Feel free to trim intro. Vapour
Sorry, that is not excess verbiage. This is a general encyclopedia. "Bildungsroman" is a phrase mostly known to literature geeks, and deserves a brief explanation without a reader having to clip thruogh. If it were up to be, I would simply say "novel." -- Cecropia 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's worth anything, our freshman English curriculum emphasizes the Bildungsroman aspect of this novel.-- CountCrazy007 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I excised this part of the text:
I know this is one scholarly opinion of the meaning of "by hand" but it makes no sense whatever in the context of the story. Everyone in sight would not be complimenting Mrs. Joe for bottle-raising Pip and even telling Pip how lucky he was to be raised "by hand" if this meant he was exposed to a method of upbringing that exposed him to "an extremely high mortality rate for infants that were not breastfed."
In fact, the OED, which most English language scholars accept as definitive on most issues, defines "by hand" as: "With the hand or hands; by manual action or labour, as opposed to machinery, or to natural processes"; that is, Mrs. Joe took the trouble to raise him by her own labouring efforts, and this is why so many think her so saintly. OED backs this up, too, in this citation:
Moral: Never forget occam's razor. -- Cecropia 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
In the Notes section of the Penguin Classics series edition: brought me up 'by hand': reared me by spoon or bottle- feeding, rather than breast- feeding. The phrase was in common use: in the first edition of Isabella Beeton's Book of Household Management (1861), the chapter on artificially feeding a baby is entitled 'Rearing by Hand'. (Notes by Charlotte Mitchell, 1996) -- Bitbitz.xx 06:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the exact Wiki guidelines for articles about novels, but this one is gargantuan. The "plot summary," in particular, is massive and needs to be severely edited down. I don't know enough about how to present novels on Wiki to do it myself, but I encourage someone who does to be bold and trim the flab. Roland Deschain 11:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It actually looks a lot like something that belongs at Wikibooks - as a start anyway. -- Stbalbach 13:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The people who are complaining about this "don't know enough about how to present novels on the Wiki to do it myself" and the other says "I'm busy with other things, so don't look to me to write a shorter plot summary for Great Expectations anytime soon."
So we have two editors following the dictum that writers are few and critics are many. I've been editing this for months without anyone making a peep and now two who have contributed nothing to the article but their complaints hope someone will be bold in excising my hard and accurate work — when I'm a few chapters before the conclusion.
Work this out people, I'm not doing any more work on this for someone else's theory of Wikieconomy. -- Cecropia 03:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't paper - there's no reason to excise good material because it's "too long". john k 09:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the above suggestions - plot summaries are supposed to be just that, short and to the point - this is an encyclopedia not Cliff Notes - we have Cliff Notes at Wikibooks - if the plot summary is so long that there is talk about making it its own article, it is outside the bounds of an Encyclopedia and entering the realm of a study guide. I mean what would happen if we had a separate plot summary article, would we have a summary of the summary on this page? The other option is to do nothing, the page is 97k which is within the realm of reason for Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 13:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that "Wikipedia isn't paper" doesn't mean you can't trim a needlessly long plot summary. You could summarize the plot of Great Expectations in a few paragraphs; this article has a breakdown and description of pretty much every chapter and plot point of the entire novel and reads like Cliff Notes. Someone who has never read the book should be able to go here and read a short summary of the story and its themes, then read about the novel's cultural impact and critical reception. As someone mentioned above, the current summary is more appropriate to Wikibooks or somesuch. Roland Deschain 07:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't for plot summaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Racei 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the changes that substituted other terms (such as "passion," "desire") for "love" in describing Pip's feelings for Estella as unsupported by text or scholarship. Pip declares his love for Estella to the reader, to Herbert, and to Estella herself, among others.
Especially inappropriate is substituting "paramour" for "lover" in describing Estella's rejection of a role for Pip more intimate than friend. "Lover" does not evaluate Pip's intent on how he wishes to become Estella's lover, though the text only points toward what used to be called "honourable intentions." In modern definition "paramour" means: "An illicit or clandestine lover or mistress, esp. taking the place of a husband or wife; the person with whom a married man or woman has an adulterous relationship." ( OED. Nowhere is this either Pip's or Estella's intent. -- Cecropia 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
if anyone cares, who cares about this stupid book. i had to read it for school, and i'm just looking for a little help on the written assignment. can anyone help me there?
It's too bad that people are forced to read a book rather than discovering it on their own timeline. Dick Scalper ( talk) 14:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
With sincere thanks and congratulations to Cecropia [1] [2], I venture to write a few words on it.
1. I want to edit the word "alteres" to "alters" in the first line of the fourth paragraph of Plot introduction & overview. 2. The fourth paragraph of the same section is very short and I would appreciate it if it can be at all expanded. Although "Comparison to Dickens' other works" section clarifies the situation, I would like to see more sooner. 3. I disagree with any attempt to reduce it to a cursory approach. 4. The link in the section "Significant characters in "Great Expectations" is currently a disambiguation page. the link Phillip Pirrip should be Phillip Pirrip.
With sincere appreciation for your most prolific work, A self-admitted Great Expectations fan, Kushal Hada -- who is kushal? 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, some people might say that a long article is a burden on dial-up users. I reply to them -- with the qualification of being on dial-up myself -- that it depends on the subject. The article 13th root is fine at 85 KB, but you could be banned from Wikipedia for "optimizing" the huge 1.70 MB The Simpsons DVD sets to 85 KB because the article needs all those pictures. So my point is clear -- the length of an article is dictated not by a rule such as Wikipedia_article < 100 kB; the size of an article depends on the matter it needs to cover. -- who is kushal? 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Every source I've been looking at claims that in the second of Dickens' endings, he has the two (Pip and Estella) meet at Satis House and walk away hand in hand (implying they're at least a temporary couple) - however the current info is different, saying that Pip said he didn't love Estella (but it wasn't as definite as the second ending - I find it hard to believe that so much controversy could erupt from saying something more absolutely). Check out the Spark Notes (haha, obviously I haven't been working on an essay due tommorow - what gave you that idea?) or any of the other sites. I would edit this myself, but I have an ess - uh ... important matter to deal with. --Daniel()Folsom T| C| U 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The Temple is not a fictional place in London, it is very real.---Revolver66, 20:39 02/03/07.
The following critique is incoherent, lacking a source, admittedly not of special relevance to Great Expectations (for which the article is long enough already!), and generally deserving of skepticism: "Like many of Dickens's works, Great Expectations has been criticized for its excessive use of words. [citation needed] This may be related to the fact he was paid by installment for his serialised work (although it is often mistakenly claimed that he was paid by the word). It is possible that the installment approach did lead to a more verbose style than would otherwise have been used." I would remove it, perhaps inserting a note in the main Dickens page (if there isn't one already) that he was usually paid by installements, which admittedly, tended to produce novels of great length, though he was not actually "paid by the word." If anyone thinks this is worthy of being kept, the phrase "has been criticized for its extensive use of words" really needs attention. Was he supposed to use less words and more pictures, for example? Saying he has been occasionally criticised for his supposedly excessive verbosity would be better, though I would rather remove the whole thing. ( Eeesh 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
Somewhere in the article we need to add Startop. He was friends with Pip and Herbert and helped Magwitch escape so he needs a mini paragraph somewhere! I mean, we got Camilla and Georgiana even, but no Startop! Someone PLEASE add him! ~CDLover
We need to add some more info. Like symbols and stuff. I am working on summer rea-err, I mean, a important report, and thought that symbols would help me get a bet-uh, I mean help others get a better grade. (No, I do not need help with symbols, I thought others would, what gave you any other idea?)~Pip_Squeek
I've tagged the plot summary as too long; this has been brought up here before but I'm not sure if it's really been addressed. I separated some mini-sections into a larger separate section for Themes and Analysis - I think this lends some credence to that commentary. Even so, it's really original research so some attempts should be made to source as much of it as possible. Really, there should be plenty more references for an article this long. Also, I'd suggest some consideration be made for the long list of external links - how many full text sources are needed? Anyway, that's just what I think. Discuss? -- Midnightdreary 00:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made some edits w/r/t grammar and punctuation. I also think the section on 'Fictional Places: London' should be deleted entirely. The first is not in the City of London at all, but in Westminster, and the second is just Mr Jaggers' office, which of course is fictional, as Mr Jaggers himself is fictional! And earlier in this same section, the location of Mr Jaggers fictional office has already been supplied.
There's a lot more work to do w/r/t grammar, which I'll get on when I have time. However, I think the controversy surrounding the interpretation of the ending can be easily resolved by replacing the two clumsy paraphrases that currently exist with the ACTUAL TEXT of the ending. Then there can be no controversy, because it will be left to the reader to analyse. (It's really not the job of Wikipedia to force a particular analysis on readers...!) Lexiconstipation ( talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The plot introduction at least has the advantage of being roughly the right size for a plot summary of a novel of this type. I suggest that we just ditch the current huge plot summary (6,000 words) and relabel the plot introduction as the plot summary. -- Tony Sidaway 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hum! Yeah right... A woman being rejected at the altar ("wilt thou, Compeyson,..." "I won't!") and subsequently locking herself up for decades without ever going outside and even letting in no daylight and never changing her wedding dress is really beyond believe. I dare say Great Espectations presents just Dickens's most grotesque character... Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The plot summary doesn't summarize the plot, there are no details at all given about the third expectation, and there's very little information on the first two, I had to consult a previous version of the article to learn anything about it at all. 90.230.54.138 ( talk) 14:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I added it to the Gothic Novels category. Alt6 ( talk) 05:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the entire plot overview section is plagarised. I intend to do a complete re-write of the section. I also plan to make it shorter. — Oli OR Pyfan! 02:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed this misplaced note at the bottom of the end of the plot summary:
"Edit Summary. Added full text of the original ending written by Dickens according to John Forster. "The Life of Charles Dickens" 1871, according to a note in the New American Classics edition cited below."
Invertzoo ( talk) 14:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I just spent over two and a half hours revising this article (it's still way too long) but there was so much vandalism in here I was livid. i tracked down the majority of the recent vandalism to be done by someone named Thebigolwikiman41 who I'm assuming has been banned. A few choice phrases and absolute lies are: " When Mrs. Joe gets up and goes to the kitchen for the pie, Pip knocks her over causing her to fall on and kill their dog, Rumbles" and "Not long after, Pip beins to notice he has become more attracted to males rather than females. He often expresses himself with a paint brush and plywood" and my 'favorite' "Pip frequently visits Miss Havisham and Estella, for whom he harbours a feeling of utter hatred." I'm adding this to my watch list as this article has fallen victim to vandalism several too many times as of late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedxjade ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Having the summary is great and all, but nothing one can't get at another site or by reading the book itself. The article would be better served providing sourced sections regarding the history of the novel, reception and impact of the novel, discussion of themes (more than the paltry short paragraph currently included), etc. For example I came here looking for why Dickens revised the ending. I already knew the two endings (which is the extent the article provides), I didn't know why there were two endings. 207.237.208.153 ( talk) 07:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In 1968/69, I worked in Harrogate Theatre as Acting Assistant Stage Manager, and I took part in what i understood to be the premier of a musical production of Great Expectations staged there, I think towards the end of 1968, called 'My Gentleman Pip.' I recall there being hopeful talk about it moving to the West End if it was successful, which it didn't so I assume it wasn't, although the Harrogate audiences seemed to enjoy it and I remember some very catchy tunes from it. Jess Conrad was Pip, if I remember rightly. (I played a minor role in addition to my ASM duties, and it was great fun.) Deborah Bateman (now MacIntyre) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.167.236 ( talk) 23:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The edits from User:96.237.1.158 are being reverted as vandalism. I agree we'd need to find a better source than the one which the bot removed (though I don't think a newcomer could be expected to know that), but I don't think it's vandalism and I'm not at all sure that it's incorrect information. I can't get at my copy at the moment, but I think any good edition should have footnotes with info about the original and revised versions, showing if those edits were accurate or not. Girlwithgreeneyes ( talk) 21:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the article is currently inappropriately vague and significantly misleading.
The not-so-happy version of the ending, which the article calls the "original ending", is an early UNPUBLISHED (at the time) discarded draft.
The happier version of the ending was published two ways, making these wording changes in the last sentence:
A good article would state when each version of the ending was written, published, and otherwise made known. - 96.237.1.158 ( talk) 03:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Would Pip - trained as a blacksmith and living in marshy lands (with malaria still being endemic in the UK until the early 20th century, as well as other illnesses) be able to pass for a gentleman?
Given that Magwitch became very successful in Australia, would he not be able to buy/arrange his return to England - and would there have been any way of him returning other than on a British ship? Given that the story is set before photography became generally available to the masses, there would be no images of him (and he could always state 'You are mistaking me for my cousin of the same name, the black sheep of the family.')
What was the legal situation regarding 'getting inconvenient relations certified insane and getting hold of their wealth' at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 13:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are George Bernard Shaw and George Orwell included in a statement about "contemporary critics"? Shaw was 5 years old in 1861, and Orwell was born over 40 years later. 68.98.129.253 ( talk) 18:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The translation from corresponding French article Wikipedia is incomplete, but a lot of the material here comes from the French article, so I inserted {{Translated page}} as attribution anyway. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk) 03:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Why does Dolge Orlick get quote-marks round his first name?
Dickens says this: Now, Joe kept a journeyman at weekly wages whose name was Orlick. He pretended that his Christian name was Dolge—a clear impossibility—but he was a fellow of that obstinate disposition that I believe him to have been the prey of no delusion in this particular, but wilfully to have imposed that name upon the village as an affront to its understanding.
Dickens never mentions another name and the words "clear impossibility" are a typical authorial aside. Thomas Peardew ( talk) 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |