This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Turn of the Screw article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The Turn of the Screw has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 8, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Turn of the Screw. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Turn of the Screw at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wonder whether New Criticism should be mentioned so prominently in the opening of this article, and I have already taken the step of removing the line to the effect that "new critics allege the story challenges the reader to determine whether the governess is mad; however, his letters suggest it really is just a ghost story" or whatever; it was better than that but there was nothing cited to support the claim about James's letters, and furthermore 1. the story really is clearly intentionally ambiguous on this issue - it's not like James set out to write a simple ghost story and the New Critics got it all mixed up for everyone forever by over-interpreting - which is what the line might have been taken to mean; and 2. in any case, these issues, which are manifestly contentious, require a more subtle and well-referenced discussion than can be done in the opening paragraph; and therefore I suggest that perhaps New Criticism be mentioned as one of the critical schools that have been concerned with James's story, without, however, making pre-emptive judgments about the validity of its claims; and, as a sidenote, that question, broached elsewhere, of whether queer or pederastic readings of the Turn of the Screw should be made note of, is not so peripheral as the replies to that discussion topic would suggest, but rather than stating something like "Miles may have been touching little boys...etc." it would be far preferable to say perhaps "certain critics have brought up the issue of such and such" with particular citations specified, in which case the additional remarking of these themes would be quite appropriate. ( 68.198.181.134 ( talk) 04:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
Was he American? ... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.196.252 ( talk) 16:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Yes but naturalised British at the end of his life. 31.50.84.139 ( talk) 20:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't "The Others" owe something to TotS, too? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I could find no evidence for a movie named "Turn" that "will be released in May 2008", so I removed it. The list of adaptations is probably incomplete anyway.
Added "The Others" though I couldn't find a source that said it was written based on TTotS though the article on The Others says this is true in part. Donimo ( talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there's the reference to Deadwood in this article. Unless a clear connection can be made between the two young characters in the TV series and the novella can be made, I find the allusion to be erroneous. It could just as easily be an allusion to a number of Charles Dickens stories... I'm removing it. Kirkesque ( talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I've read the story; I've taught the story; despite James' elaborate framing technique and the numerous controversies about the novella, I maintain THE GHOSTS ARE REAL. AND THEY'RE SCARY. PERIOD. MacLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 00:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC) The ghosts are real. And they're scary. Period. Maclennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 01:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC) James was born in America, but he eventually settled in England. In 1915, he became a British citizen because he thought America should have entered WW I sooner than it did. James died in 1916; America entered the war in 1917. Maclennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 01:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
This section, like every other "Major themes" section appended to an otherwise adequate article, appears to consist largely of subjective interpretation and original research disguised as a synthesis of unspecified sources. It also is riddled with weasels. It needs major cleanup, merging with the following section on literary significance, or complete deletion. If any of it is kept, it needs to be sourced. I placed the "synthesis" template, but I did not place the multiple "who?" templates. 12.233.147.42 ( talk) 00:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is a little "screwy" if you will forgive the pun:
It makes it sound as if there was an original story and then a revised story. Also, why is New Criticism so important as to put it in the lead section? The WP article on New Criticsm makes it sound as if that hoary old doctrine is dead in the water. Dynasteria ( talk) 08:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a lot of knowledge about this book, and I think it’s a fairly straightforward path to bring it up to GA. The coverage of books like this is pretty shocking, so I'd really like to help. Just reaching out to see if there's any active watchers of this page who would be interested in assisting. I should be making my first changes over the next few days — first tackling the section on criticism. It’s what needs the most work. This book has a fascinating history of reception because it is so well-documented and the boundaries are so clear. The plot section looks mostly okay to me, but there are some problems with it which I'll get to. ImaginesTigers ( talk) 21:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Removed the additional reading heading, but preserving the citations themselves here in case they are useful:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)ImaginesTigers ( talk) 17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for GA. There's a few things I still want to change, but they won't take very long, and this process can be quite protracted. They wouldn't result in a fail, in any case. I'd like to thank (I think) @ J Milburn: for being so rigorous in keeping Adaptations in a good place. I'm glad it didn't devolve into a list, and that everything is so well-sourced. If anyone has anything to say about the article — key omissions, for example — let me know! ImaginesTigers ( talk) 17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Conceptions of the text wherein the ghosts are real entities, aiming to corrupt the children, are generally referred to as the "apparitionist interpretation".Is this the part you thing was vague, or have I since changed it? Again, sorry for the delay, and thanks for the kind words! It really was a labour of love—I really like this story. — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 03:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eddie891 ( talk · contribs) 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Announcing my intent to review this article throughout the week. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
|ref={{harvid|Biedler|1995a}}
and 1995b to the {{
cite book}}Thanks for the review so far! Looking forward to the rest. — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
[...] only three persons had the temerity to guess that it was something more than a ghost story. The three attracted no attention, but Wilson stirred up an indignant and vociferous opposition [...]
Three people temerity blah blah [...] (critic) does not name the third, but other critics to have suggested include blah blah Henry Beers, or blah blahwith citations to places which mention the possibilities? — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
but other critics have noted that X was an early proponetn of the theorymight be a possibility (not this phrasing, necessarily but I think it could help avoid fears editorializing).
Hi, Victoria. I thought I'd make this so you know what I know needs done (or doesn't).
This is pretty much everything that comes to mind right now. Let me know what you think :) It’s come a long way, and I am genuinely proud of it. — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I read Turn of the Screw as a dark comedy. The little boy is our sly Mr. James. The governess is hypersexualized. I dont think we need to add pederasrty or any other dark elements about the kid. She's the bad apple. Because of her Victoria sensibilities gone wild but still kept under wraps. She would love the attention of the handsome master, for example. The death of the boy at the end is hilarious to me. And I think it was to Henry James as well. It was too extreme to be a serious story on that count. Moreover it lent ridiculousness. Thank you. 208.126.44.104 ( talk) 18:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Turn of the Screw article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The Turn of the Screw has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 8, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Turn of the Screw. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Turn of the Screw at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wonder whether New Criticism should be mentioned so prominently in the opening of this article, and I have already taken the step of removing the line to the effect that "new critics allege the story challenges the reader to determine whether the governess is mad; however, his letters suggest it really is just a ghost story" or whatever; it was better than that but there was nothing cited to support the claim about James's letters, and furthermore 1. the story really is clearly intentionally ambiguous on this issue - it's not like James set out to write a simple ghost story and the New Critics got it all mixed up for everyone forever by over-interpreting - which is what the line might have been taken to mean; and 2. in any case, these issues, which are manifestly contentious, require a more subtle and well-referenced discussion than can be done in the opening paragraph; and therefore I suggest that perhaps New Criticism be mentioned as one of the critical schools that have been concerned with James's story, without, however, making pre-emptive judgments about the validity of its claims; and, as a sidenote, that question, broached elsewhere, of whether queer or pederastic readings of the Turn of the Screw should be made note of, is not so peripheral as the replies to that discussion topic would suggest, but rather than stating something like "Miles may have been touching little boys...etc." it would be far preferable to say perhaps "certain critics have brought up the issue of such and such" with particular citations specified, in which case the additional remarking of these themes would be quite appropriate. ( 68.198.181.134 ( talk) 04:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
Was he American? ... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.196.252 ( talk) 16:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Yes but naturalised British at the end of his life. 31.50.84.139 ( talk) 20:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't "The Others" owe something to TotS, too? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I could find no evidence for a movie named "Turn" that "will be released in May 2008", so I removed it. The list of adaptations is probably incomplete anyway.
Added "The Others" though I couldn't find a source that said it was written based on TTotS though the article on The Others says this is true in part. Donimo ( talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there's the reference to Deadwood in this article. Unless a clear connection can be made between the two young characters in the TV series and the novella can be made, I find the allusion to be erroneous. It could just as easily be an allusion to a number of Charles Dickens stories... I'm removing it. Kirkesque ( talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I've read the story; I've taught the story; despite James' elaborate framing technique and the numerous controversies about the novella, I maintain THE GHOSTS ARE REAL. AND THEY'RE SCARY. PERIOD. MacLennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 00:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC) The ghosts are real. And they're scary. Period. Maclennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 01:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC) James was born in America, but he eventually settled in England. In 1915, he became a British citizen because he thought America should have entered WW I sooner than it did. James died in 1916; America entered the war in 1917. Maclennan123 Maclennan123 ( talk) 01:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
This section, like every other "Major themes" section appended to an otherwise adequate article, appears to consist largely of subjective interpretation and original research disguised as a synthesis of unspecified sources. It also is riddled with weasels. It needs major cleanup, merging with the following section on literary significance, or complete deletion. If any of it is kept, it needs to be sourced. I placed the "synthesis" template, but I did not place the multiple "who?" templates. 12.233.147.42 ( talk) 00:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is a little "screwy" if you will forgive the pun:
It makes it sound as if there was an original story and then a revised story. Also, why is New Criticism so important as to put it in the lead section? The WP article on New Criticsm makes it sound as if that hoary old doctrine is dead in the water. Dynasteria ( talk) 08:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a lot of knowledge about this book, and I think it’s a fairly straightforward path to bring it up to GA. The coverage of books like this is pretty shocking, so I'd really like to help. Just reaching out to see if there's any active watchers of this page who would be interested in assisting. I should be making my first changes over the next few days — first tackling the section on criticism. It’s what needs the most work. This book has a fascinating history of reception because it is so well-documented and the boundaries are so clear. The plot section looks mostly okay to me, but there are some problems with it which I'll get to. ImaginesTigers ( talk) 21:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Removed the additional reading heading, but preserving the citations themselves here in case they are useful:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)ImaginesTigers ( talk) 17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for GA. There's a few things I still want to change, but they won't take very long, and this process can be quite protracted. They wouldn't result in a fail, in any case. I'd like to thank (I think) @ J Milburn: for being so rigorous in keeping Adaptations in a good place. I'm glad it didn't devolve into a list, and that everything is so well-sourced. If anyone has anything to say about the article — key omissions, for example — let me know! ImaginesTigers ( talk) 17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Conceptions of the text wherein the ghosts are real entities, aiming to corrupt the children, are generally referred to as the "apparitionist interpretation".Is this the part you thing was vague, or have I since changed it? Again, sorry for the delay, and thanks for the kind words! It really was a labour of love—I really like this story. — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 03:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eddie891 ( talk · contribs) 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Announcing my intent to review this article throughout the week. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
|ref={{harvid|Biedler|1995a}}
and 1995b to the {{
cite book}}Thanks for the review so far! Looking forward to the rest. — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
[...] only three persons had the temerity to guess that it was something more than a ghost story. The three attracted no attention, but Wilson stirred up an indignant and vociferous opposition [...]
Three people temerity blah blah [...] (critic) does not name the third, but other critics to have suggested include blah blah Henry Beers, or blah blahwith citations to places which mention the possibilities? — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
but other critics have noted that X was an early proponetn of the theorymight be a possibility (not this phrasing, necessarily but I think it could help avoid fears editorializing).
Hi, Victoria. I thought I'd make this so you know what I know needs done (or doesn't).
This is pretty much everything that comes to mind right now. Let me know what you think :) It’s come a long way, and I am genuinely proud of it. — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I read Turn of the Screw as a dark comedy. The little boy is our sly Mr. James. The governess is hypersexualized. I dont think we need to add pederasrty or any other dark elements about the kid. She's the bad apple. Because of her Victoria sensibilities gone wild but still kept under wraps. She would love the attention of the handsome master, for example. The death of the boy at the end is hilarious to me. And I think it was to Henry James as well. It was too extreme to be a serious story on that count. Moreover it lent ridiculousness. Thank you. 208.126.44.104 ( talk) 18:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)