Talk:Little Dorrit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Little Dorrit article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Novels: 19th century High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force.

Untitled[edit]

The Wikipedia text reads: "Rather than hurt Arthur, Amy chooses not to reveal what she has learned, though this means that she misses her legacy."

This is ridiculous.

Since the house has collapsed and Flintwich has absconded with all the rest of Mrs Clennam's assets he's been able to convert there presumably IS nothing left out of which the legacy could be paid. Besides, had there been any assets left and had Amy not have claimed them, they would have passed to Arthur on Mrs. Clennam's death anyway.

Honorific titles[edit]

Probably not the correct place to discuss this but MOS says The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that......honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus. It doesn't say in which articles it can and cannot be used (the subject themselves or articles in which their name is included) unless I'm missing something. Which is wholly probable. Quentin X (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The specific case in the MOS that you are citing is referring to the main article about the person. Note: "... but are optional after that. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name." It is bolded because it is part of the first reference to the subject. Thus, "Sir Elton Hercules John CBE (born Reginald Kenneth Dwight on 25 March 1947) is an English singer-songwriter..." ("Hercules"? Really?) at Elton John. However, "The Diving Board is the 31st studio album by British singer-songwriter Elton John." at The Diving Board. I find consistent usage this way with the few cases I can think of off the top of my head: My Week with Marilyn (Judi Dench), New (Paul McCartney), etc.

I do not see this clearly addressed anywhere, though. For full clarity, I'm asking about this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#.22Sir.22.2C_etc._outside_of_the_main_article. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the MOS it does appear to refer to the main article but leaves room for ambiguity (although there's nothing ambiguous about Elton's middle name). I'll be happy to go along with whatever clarification there is. Quentin X (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly go with the call there as well (if there ever is one). That said, I want a bulletproof source for John's middle name. Yikes. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, that's a stage name. He chose to have it. (And I thought the '70s outfits were weird.) - SummerPhD (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need clarification[edit]

'but Mr. Clennam's wealthy uncle, stung by remorse, had left a bequest to Arthur's biological mother and to "the youngest daughter of her patron", a kindly musician who had taught and befriended her – and who happened to be Amy Dorrit's paternal uncle, Frederick.' This makes no sense. How can the "young daughter" be Frederick. This need clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.59.107 (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Little Dorrit/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Please make the plot summary more thorough. Also, please include a better description of the circumstances concerning the secret documents that contain information crucial to Amy's and Arthur's connections. This is very unclear and difficult to understand. This book is ridiculously long and in-depth and deserves a more thoughtful and thorough entry. Thanks and I love Wikipedia!!!

== Real inspiration for Little Dorrit ==

Who is the real inspiration for Little Dorrit? Your source claims it is Mary Ann Cooper (nee Mitton), but the Daily Mail claims it was Caroline Thompson (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1080276/The-real-Little-Dorrit-inspiration-Dickens-classic-novel-single-mother-turned-prostitute.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.48.225.89 (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 06:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 22:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)