Wikipedia:Peer review/Kenneth Widmerpool/archive1: Difference between revisions

Kenneth Widmerpool

One literary reviewer said that Kenneth Widmerpool was "the most fearsome solipsist in modern fiction". Yes, I had to look it up, too. In colloquial terms it means that Widmerpool was an self-centred egregious *@!* (this is a family page). Nevertheless, he has been a source of deep fascination to readers and critics alike; Evelyn Waugh couldn't get enough of him, and Powell's contemporaries vied with each other for the honour of being the real-life model. Many will remember Simon Russell Beale's portrayal in the 1997 TV series; Beale made Widmerpool almost worthy of sympathy. As other commentators have observed, we all encounter Widmerpools in our lives; this is a chance to measure these monsters against the original. All comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Very well done, a few minor things.

• Lede

"Regarded critically as one of the most memorable characters of 20th century fiction," I suppose, if you've read all twelve volumes, he'd better be memorable. Since this, as I understand it, is one person's view, perhaps tone it down slightly, since it seems to be an outlier.

Not just one person's view; I have added to the text those of another critic who says much the same thing. There is also Christopher Hitchens's " the most dogged and fearsome solipsist in modern fiction", which I don't want to quote because of the elitist language. So I feel pretty comfortable with my phrasing, though I have moderated the "most" to "more". Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I would avoid the double use of "sinister" in the first pp.

Suggest an "and" in the list in the first sentence of the second paragraph but won't push it if you feel otherwise.

"At the same time they observe his capacity to rise above the many insults and humiliations that beset him, to achieve his positions of dominance and through sheer industry and self-belief." While the sentence is powerful indeed, I'm not sure about the multiple "ands" towards the end.

"Some of Powell's distinguished contemporaries " I do consider Heath to be distinguished, so I'd change this to "Others ..."

• Context

"every one of the twelve volumes" I'm not sure the rhetorical emphasis is needed. "each of the twelve volumes" seems sufficient to me.

I think you are going to have a problem with this image per here with the key language being "In Hensher -v- Restawhile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates ... " (incidentally, when you change your username to Ulric Stonewall Jackson Dunbar, I'm changing mine to Restawhile)

• This was the least useful image in the article (depicting a sign for a village that was not the source of the subject's name). Rather than seeking to defend it I have removed it, and will repace with an appropriate quote box in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Mother and son live together, from Widmerpool père's death in the mid-1920s until Widmerpool's marriage in 1945." I'm not sure the comma's needed.

• There does seem to be a brief pause after "together", so I think the comma should stay. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Career

"He has also acquired a commission" This implies a lack of merit ("acquired") in gaining what was normally an honourable position. Is the phrasing justified? And congrats on avoiding "an articled clerk he soon became"; I am uncertain I would have had the same restraint.

• I think the phrasing is justified. The British Territorial Army was/is a volunteer force of amateur soldiers. Certainly in the early 1930s aomeone in Widmerpool's position (Etonian, making his way in his profession etc) would have had no difficulty in obtaining a Territorial junior officer's commission. It was not considered a particular honour.

Donners Brebner is given to us both with, and without, hyphen.

"Widmerpool is embarrassed by his presence, and engineers his transfer to a mobile laundry unit which is being sent to Singapore, where Stringham meets his death." If this is not David and Uriah, I'd distance the death from Widmerpool's action, especially in view of the "complicit" language a few sentences later. I'm not sure the "complicit" is justified, on the facts presented (I know nothing about these books and am working principally from your article).

• Actually I think the current wording is justified in relation to the novels. In his treatment of Stringham and Templer, Widmerpool displays not so much deliberate vindictiveness as a cold disregard for their fate. He doesn't deliberately send Stringham to his death in Singapore, but he is indifferent that his old schoolmate is being sent to a dangerous place. In the case of Templer he is more culpable. Again, he doesn't contrive Templer's death, but he instigates the order that leads to Templer being abandoned in another dangerous place. Unfortunately there are limits as to how much background information is appropriate for a summary encyclopedia article, or I would explain more. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"becomes a Labour Member of Parliament in the postwar Attlee government" Surely all Labour MPs were not members of the government, which is at least implied in this somewhat loose phrasing? Especially with such a thumping majority as in 1945? Perhaps "becomes a Labour Member of Parliament at the 1945 election, and eventually gains minor office in the Attlee Government" (combining this with the mention a couple of sentences later".

• Well, he doesn't become an MP at the 1945 election but at a by-election some time afterwards, during the Attlee administration. However, I have made the wording tighter. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"now she publicly accuses him of voyeurism" Even though this is written in present tense, I'm not that thrilled about "now".

"He is last seen late in 1971" The "last seen" seems rather unnecessary in view of the event described in the remainder of the sentence, unless Ken was going to follow in the great British character tradition of Banquo and Jacob Marley?

• Love life

"inability to perform during an attempted premarital sexual union." Perhaps phrase more succinctly? I shall not essay, though.

Could blackout be linked for us Yank types?

"Murtlock" was previously spelled "Mortlock"

"from her sexual activities with others" Perhaps insert "observing" after the "from".

• Critical reception

I think you should inline state who considers him the "most memorable character", especially since you mention it in the lede.

• The quotation comes from an anonymous article in the Oxford Companion to Literature; I am reluctant to attribute it to Margaret Drabble, the book's editor, as the words may not be hers. But I have now paired it with a similar quotation from John Bayley. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Real-life

• "Ackworth" Given that this is the character's sole mention, is it worth mentioning him by name?
• "Powell admitted" Perhaps I am unduly sensitive, as a lawyer, to the word "admitted" and its forms, but I would use a more neutral term. The quote, I think, speaks for itself.
• Dramatic

I think Billy Bunter worth a link.

I like it. The article seems mildly tongue in cheek, yet thorough. I don't see anything that can't be rather readily ironed out.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. All fair comments, which will have my full attention, but maybe not until tomorrow as I have taken on a couple of peer reviews which I am working on now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have worked through these. Except where I have commented I have adjusted more or less as you have suggested. Again, many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Second pass. I don't see anything worth following up on, so I'll leave it at this and await the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

TK's comments

I've only read about half of this and really like it a lot. It's a good model for a literary character. These comments are all of the nit-pick variety; in terms of structure or context, I haven't seen any problems.

• Lead

"Literary analysts have noted Widmerpool's main defining characteristics: his lack of culture, his small-mindedness, his capacity for intrigue, his embodiment of many of the worst aspects of the British character." > yeah, I know parallelism, but maybe more succinct without the repetition of "his"?

• I managed to get rid of the "his" repetitions. I think it still reads OK Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"In this respect he is thought to epitomise the meritocratic middle class's challenge against the hegemony of a declining "establishment", which is revealed to have few defences against so determined an assault." > I can follow this but it is a little difficult to parse for the uninitiated and if possible might benefit if written in plain English. The only problem is that I haven't any suggestions on how. Also, maybe link meritocracy.

• You are right; I've simplified the language, and made the link you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Context"

I wouldn't mind seeing the image of the nice painting boosted a bit.

Ive left aligned this, there are strong diagonals falling at the right hand corner, it doesnt really work right aligned. Size seems fine to me. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Better now. Something about it didn't seem quite right. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm happy with the image switch. Thanks, Ceoil Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"In a 1971 study of the novels, Professor Dan McLeod summarised the overall theme of the sequence as that of a decaying establishment confronted by "aggressive representatives from the middle classes elbowing their way up". > ref after the direct quote?

• I don't like having two identical citations in sequence. I think it is understood that everything before the reference is included in that citation (ther are probably other examples of this in the article). Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with this. Sometimes it's called for, so thought I'd mention it. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

watch the international situation anxiously" > "anxiously watch" to combine modifier w/ the verb?

• Hmmm...on balance, I prefer to leave it. I don't think it's wrong, merely my preferred style. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's okay. Very nit-picky. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Origins"

"Encountered a few years later" > prob okay to do w/ out the "encountered"

• Yup Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"smarter spectacles" > different meaning in Am Eng than Br Eng. - (Intelligent eye-glasses?) - have no clue how to suggest to reword or even if it's necessary. Just mentioning

• Reworded as "more fashionable spectacles" (do Americans recognise "spectacles" as meaning eye-glasses? There is a link I could use, but I thought it might be WP:OVERLINK) Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's "smart" that throws people here; lots don't know what it mean - though should be obvious in context. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Consider linking music hall for the Yanks?

Link The Acceptance World > another not-great article, but we have it.

• Both these links done Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Love life"

"In his mid-twenties, Widmerpool confesses to Jenkins his love for Barbara Goring, a girl whom he had known for years, since their families lived close together and his father sold liquid manure to her father." > a bit awkward after all the nice prose I've read through to get here. Can't suggest a fix though

• I've reworded and made two sentences of it, so it should read better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Stephen McGregor of the Spectator described him as "impotent", "another commentator used the words "sexual incompetent", "In his analysis of Powell's works, Michael Birns writes" > tense shift.

• Sorted Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reception

Tense shifts in the first para: "has been described", "is as ... ", "Mizener ... saw Widmerpoole".

• I've dropped the Mizener sentence. I decided I didn't really know what he meant, and if I don't, readers probably won't. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Ali positions Widmerpool as "in many ways a more inspired creation than Charlus"; the circumstances of Widmerpool's death, whereby he is transformed from a believable person into "a sub-Dickensian grotesque" is, says Ali, a cause for much regret. > I had a bit of trouble getting through this sentence

• I did not write "Ali positions Widmerpool as ..." I have reverted it to what I did write: "Ali asserts that Widmerpool is..." And I've split the sentence, too.

"Some readers and critics found Widmerpool particularly compelling; Evelyn Waugh, who reviewed the early novels as they appeared at two-year intervals, wrote to Powell after reading At Lady Molly's: "In the opening pages I felt the void of Widmerpool really aching – I could not have borne another page's delay for his entry. Did you intend him to dominate the series?" > I think this could be split with a simple sentence for the first part and perhaps change the "some" to something stronger. Certainly reading this article, he's very compelling.

• I've removed the first bit. The para is really about Waugh's reactions to Widmerpool. Brianboulton (talk)

I'll try to get the next batch up fairly soon. PS - this is hilarious and extremely well done! I'm having a hard time finding anything to comment about. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these very helpful comments. I'll look forward to receiving the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Real-life models

"an action reflected in the novels when Widmerpool instigates the sacking of Akworth in similar circumstances" > probably okay to drop "an action"

• I think probably "an action" helps the flow, but the last three words of the sentence ("in similar circumstances") are, or reflection, redundant and I've removed them. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Third para consists almost wholly of a long quote. It doesn't bother me that much, but might be mentioned. Can it be shortened at all? I've read it a few times and can't think of much to snip from it.

• I have part paraphrased, to reduce the amount of direct quotation. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• References

My eyes are bad, but check that all the retrieval dates have been added. Looks like current FN 75 and 78 is missing. Also, don't know it the "Art of Fiction" requires a retrieval date.

• Retrieval dates are given when the original source is online. If it is originlly a printed source hat has found its way on to the publication's website, as with 75 and 78, I don't add retrieval dates. This is, I think, established practice. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, oddly, I don't think I ever realized that. Thanks for the explanation. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done image review - no good at it. All the comments above are taken care of; I've only replied to a few. This is one of the better articles I've read in a while. Very interesting and I'm tempted to go the library to find these books. Also, it will serve well as a model for literary characters - we have a lot of articles about them and none done at all well. Thanks a lot for writing it, and for inviting me to review. I found myself laughing aloud a few times which rarely happens here. Good luck with it. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the trouble you have taken with the review. If you feel like tackling the novels, I'd definitely read A Question of Upbringing first (it can be got for $1 or less via Amazon). The whole of Casanova's Chinese Restaurant is available online, here, but there's not a lot of Widmerpool in that - more than Waugh's "three pages" though still not a lot. But it has this gem (Widmerpool has been invited to lunch with Jenkins): "Tuesday? Tuesday? Let me think. I have something on Tuesday. I must have. No, perhaps I haven't. Wait a minute. Let me look at my book. Yes...Yes. As it happens I can lunch with you on Tuesday. But not before half-past one. Certainly not before one-thirty. More likely one-thirty-five". Graciousness personified. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I've added to titles of books to read. Again, very nice page. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

An embarrassingly small batch of comments from me:

• Origins, appearance, personality
  • "a great admirer of Stalin, whose single passion is her son's career" – someone determined to find ambiguity (e.g. me) might affect to construe this as saying the passion was Stalin's rather than Mrs Widmerpool's. Perhaps "…of Stalin; her single…"

• • Yes, obvious when you read it. Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Career
  • "Among the other ranks…" – probably an Anglicism, I imagine. Perhaps blue link? There is a brief but adequate article to link to.

• • Slightly reworded, and found a link. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• • " …and he is appointed an OBE. In this post he… " – the post referring to the Cabinet Office job, but the intervening sentence about promotions and gongs slightly obscures this point.

• • Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Real-life models
  • "attorney general and Lord Chancellor" – rather hard on the learned Attorney to be denied his capital letters when the Lord Chancellor gets them.

• • It seems most common UK practice (excluding the Guardian) to use initial capitals for both of these offices, and I have now done so. Brianboulton (talk)

• • "Widmerpudlian" – no quibble here: just to record, as a Scouser, that I much relished this coinage.

• • As a fellow-Scouser, I wish 'd invented the term, but alas, no. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "Lord Chancellor" is blue-linked twice in this section. I'd be inclined to remove the link at Lord Irvine's mention.

• • Link removed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And that, I blush to say, is all I can find. This is a splendid article. Loud applause! – Tim riley (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. It was more fun to write than most, but it did involve a hell of a lot of reading – I had read the first seven or so novels in the 1970s and 1980s before giving up, saw the TV films in the 1990s, but hadn't given much thought to the books since. So I had to start from scratch; it was, however, time well spent. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You have without malice aforethought prompted me to look at the WP article on Powell himself. I may well beef it up a bit, though with no ambitions to GA or FA. I have emailed you my haul of references lest any of them should be of any use for your Widmerpudlian enterprise. Tim riley (talk)

Your example (and format) may get me to do Flashman one of these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I searxched for gripes too but came up empty. We seem to have a very talented writer in our mists. These articles are a joy to read, and very instructive. Ceoil (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In our "mists"? Ah, the Celtic romanticism brings serendipitious joy! But thank you for these most kind words, and for your behind-the-scenes tweaks and fixes. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)