Talk:The Sorrows of Young Werther

The Original Title

The reason for the "wierd Genitiv" (as described when removed in the history) is that the omission of the 's' from the end of Genetiv nouns is NORMALLY reserved for Jesus Christ, but was used PURPOSEFULLY by Goethe to symbolize Werther's view of himself (not to symbolize that Werther was, himself, actually a Christ-figure). It is NOT a typo, not a mistake, it is an important part of the novel.

The original title is "Die Leiden des jungen Werther": http://www.amazon.de/Leiden-jungen-Werther-Johann-Wolfgang/dp/3938484152

An edition on Amazon (or any bookseller) is not a valid reference. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

what? (re: first paragraph) The point is that no personal name in German has a marked genetive when accompanied by an article: Josefs Arbeit, with article (e. g. colloquially) die Arbeit des Josef. That has nothing to do with Our Lord who has the Latin genetive Jesu (is this the origin of an "s ommission theory")? It simply seems that language was at variance, and des Werthers could have been said then while it cannot now.

Concerning the general topic, which has nothing to do with any messianical allusions: I think Goethe said "des jungen Werther" when publishing, "des jungen Werthers" in later editions. Therefore, the latter form is the one finally acknowledged by the author, and also the form in which the title normally is cited. --131.159.0.7 (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems to have been the other way round. The same--91.34.250.120 (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct title

German Wikipedia settles it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Leiden_des_jungen_Werthers Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And if that doesn't settle it, see the title on the original edition of the book in this pic here: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bild:-1-_Die_Leiden_des_jungen_Werthers._Erstdruck_.jpg&filetimestamp=20070522140159 68.73.114.58 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon

this page doesnt seem detailed enough! and what about Napoleon, shouldnt it be mentioned that he read it 7 times and took it with him in exile?

Bildingsroman?

Shouldn't someone also mention that this is the classic definition of a Bildungsroman? It is possibly the originating example of such a genre.

Werther isn't the classic definition of a Bildungsroman. That's another novel by Goethe: Wilhelm Meister. --Folantin 10:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not the classic definition, but belongs in the category--Declan Clam (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Awful book cover

What is that AWFUL book-cover? Is that the only English-language edition available? That cover looks about as much like Werther as Don Johnson looks like Dakota Fanning. Could you please use another book cover, or another image altogether, or no image at all? ~ Softlavender

I very much second that. That cover is ugly and should be replaced.--Svetovid 12:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that as well. But I think, from looking around that it's the only large picture available. All the other ones are very small that I've seen. The copy I have also contains Novella, so I don't think that would be acceptable. That would be [1] Millancad 11:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I also do just love this cover, [2] (treally wish I'd bought that translation). But I don't know of it's a bit too modern or risque. Millancad 11:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankenstein

A copy of Frankenstein I currently own refers to Werther as Werter (without the h). Is this true for the original text (Frankenstein) in general? If so, should the misspelling be pointed out in this article? I.M.Fearless 19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No; irrelevant. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

One of the recent edits to the plot summary sounds confused and is full of errors. It's kind of funny, but it should probably be checked for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.44.126.218 (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add to it, and I'd like to remove the parallels to the author's life, but I'm not sure if I know how. If I really mess that part up, I'll revert. And also, is something going to be done about an infobox? I'm pretty sure that I don't know how to do those. ɱўɭĩє^{What did I do}_wrong 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have nominated the article for peer review. ɱўɭĩє^{What did I do}_wrong 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

References

i think there are some statements which need a clear citing of their sources in the form of <reference> </reference> IleanaCosanziana 22:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I was looking to do that, but I don't really know how to refrence, so I just put the refrences at the bottom. Millancad 23:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Werther cover.jpg

Image:Werther cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The "s" belongs in the title

German Wikipedia settles it:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Leiden_des_jungen_Werthers Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Someone should grab the picture used on the German version of this article and use it here.

See here: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bild:-1-_Die_Leiden_des_jungen_Werthers._Erstdruck_.jpg&filetimestamp=20070522140159

68.73.114.58 (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't we need someone to translate all of the info so that we can use it over here? I don't know any German.

ṃўɭĩє^{What did I do}_wrong 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How many suicides?

The article doesn't mention how many copycat suicides The Sorrows of Young Werther triggered. Neither does the Copycat Suicides article that's referenced. This seems like a pretty important omission to me, but I don't know the answer. Was it 10, 50, 100? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbkmwj (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

57 is the generally agreed-upon number of copycat suicides, though some suggest 83.--Wetman (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Moorcock's take

Is it worth adding a reference to "Werther de Goethe", a character in Michael Moorcock's "Dancers at the End of Time" series? The character is a blatant and very funny send-up. --90.208.123.231 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

the clothing style described for Werther

If "the clothing style described for Werther " were actually described, readers might identify it in contemporary portraits etc, when they see it. That would be informative.--Wetman (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Werther in your inbox

The External Links section currently lists two services (well, the same service, in both English and German) that claim to email Werther's letters to your inbox. I signed up for the English language version in March and still haven't received anything (even on the letter-a-day plan). Those pages look pretty old. Any objections to taking down those links?

I think we could replace them with What Werther Went Through, which actually does provide that service (and more). It's an adaptation into 21st century 20-something English, publishing Werther's letters in 'real-time' from May 2014 to Dec 2015, posting on the blog linked above and via email. It does the personalized name trick too that the old links claimed to do. Any objections to adding that in? It could plausibly be added to the list of Alternative Versions, too. Thoughts? Ajrpb (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte lived on after Werther?

The Wiki article implies strongly that Charlotte simply lived on after Werther's suicide.

But the book seems to imply strongly that Charlotte died, of a broken heart: 'I shall say nothing of ... Charlotte's grief. ... Charlotte's life was despaired of.' (That's the Boylan translation.)

Thoughts?

Bo99 (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the issue is resolved. The editor Bmcln1 made the change i suggested above. Bo99 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"remains the best known of his works"

"remains the best known of his works" - Who wrote that? I find this assertion absurd, given the ubiquity of Goethe's "Faust". Of "Werther" people know that it exists, and some may have read it in school. "Faust" they can quote whole passages of. Of Faust, many quotes and expressions made it into common language. "Faust" is Goethe's defining legacy. "Werther" is a book he wrote. Wefa (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wefa: The statement is cited, twice, in the article; so the authors of the cited works are, hopefully, who wrote it. --Xover (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, thanks. Consider my remark a figure of speech. That claim may have been printed in a book - but it is still an brazen and impertinent lie about an obscure fact. It shouldn't be here. While I do understand how Wikipedia sourcing work, we should not use the process as excuse to write something we know to be false. Wefa (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't my field so I can't tell whether the statement is obviously true, obviously false, or a nuanced one. Which is, of course, why we rely on the secondary sources for such judgement. My point is that if you think it is inaccurate, the first step is to go check the cited sources to see if our text accurately reflect what they say. Then evaluate those sources for general reliability (are the authors experts in a relevant field? Is the book/article published on some reputable imprint, preferably with peer review?). And if that still does not resolve it then survey the field to see whether the cited sources are in fact representative of the general opinion among the relevant experts.

There's an old adage on Wikipedia (depending on how active you've been since 2004, you may or may not be familiar with it), now out of favour for various reasons, that "Verifiability, not truth, is the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia". It needs to be applied with sound judgement, of course, but as a framing for how to approach such matters it is quite useful. In my experience, approaching such issues from a source review usually makes the solution obvious.

In this case, the text and sources in question was added by Kubanczyk in 2013, at which point it read "… this book was the most known …" (my emphasis). The change to "… remains …" was made by Bmcln1 in this edit in 2015 during general cleanup of the article. Perhaps they could chime in here? --Xover (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, misclick. However, please ANSWER your questions, with references. If unable, please remove the statements concerned from the article. Bmcln1 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it then that there would be no objection to at least change the phrasing back to "… was …". Having now checked the two cited sources they are actually only speaking of its reception in Goethe's lifetime, not modern popularity or critical appraisal. I was going to check the Cambridge Companion to Goethe, but I don't have access to that particular volume online for some reason. I did however notice in the table of contents that the only actual work mentioned in a chapter title is Faust. While not in itself in any way conclusive, it does give a hint that the secondary sources tend to agree with Wefa's position on this point. --Xover (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Absent objections, I have changed the sentence to use "… was …" to avoid giving the impression that it addresses modern critical assessment and to better reflect the cited sources. --Xover (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)