Talk:Great Expectations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clara

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)

Plagiarism

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

It would be much better to have a plot summary and descriptions of some of the notable characters. Ortolan88

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

We certainly don't need a chapter-by-chapter plot summary. By the time we come to last chapter (> 50), Wikipedia would have lost space for entry. The contributor has lost interest and I don't think anyone would continue: best excise it with a detailed plot summary.

In places it reads like a high school book report. Wikipedia can't be like Cliff-Notes: too many direct and lengthy quotes makes one wonder why can't a reader simply just pick up the book itself. Mandel - May 10, 2004

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)

Rewrite

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)

I would like to thank User:Cecropia and my agent... oops sorry, for repairing my terrible mistakes quickly. I would point out that Cecropia is totaly and utterly wrong <humour alert> in the idea that the first ending is better even though GB Shaw and Orwell agree with you. Happier is a poor way of putting it as it certainly does not suggest happily-ever-after situation but it is I feel a far more fitting ending. Either ending is so out of character for Dickens but the latter appeared to me almost dreamlike and illusory rather like a hoped for ideal rather then an actual event. The unhappy ending just seems basic and could be done without. I have no problem with a miserable ending as long as it is good.

My ending:

As Pip sat beside Estella, she gave him her hand and rested her head upon his shoulder. The movement of the breeze and the light fragrence of Estella's perfume lulled him into a drowsy slumber.

"Get up Pip, or Mrs. Joe will have at both of us."

Pip blinked at the hazy sun filtering across the marshes. It had all been a dream.

Alternate ending:

Suddenly they were all run over by a lorry*

*Consider amending "lorry" to "truck" for U.S. distribution.

--Cecropia | Talk 01:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't like those endings? How about:

I took her hand in mine, and we went out of the ruined place; and, as the morning mists had risen long ago when I first left the forge, so the evening mists were rising now, and in all the broad expanse of tranquil light they showed to me, I saw no shadow of another parting from her. Sadly, I also didn't see the shadow of the great lumbering bustard who had feasted on mice inebriated by the fermented grain of the old brewery. The huge bird, mistaking Estella's plumed hat for a large budgerigar, came crashing down upon us, killing my Estella and forever putting a period on the story of our thwarted love.-- Cecropia | Talk 01:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cruel but fair. MeltBanana 10:03, 20 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

Study guides

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 personally don't have any problem with Study Guides being mentioend, if they are free. A problem is that, as with any academic examination, they channel the reader to conclusions that others would disagree with, and while they might help a person get a better mark in coursework, they deprive them of the understanding that might come from reading the novel without them. Example: the study guide you cited says that Joe and Biddy find love, and this pleases Pip. But any fair reading shows that this is another disappointment of Pip's foolish confusion of values, realizing that, in pursuit of status, the true love he could have had is now denied him. -- Cecropia 15:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

These study guides are free to access (I believe.. any non-free ones should be removed). --Stbalbach 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Character descriptions

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)

which was why the sections are included within spoiler top and tail. Some people are not wanting to read the book but would like to get more indication of content than a publicists introduction. I'll leave as is, but the Plot content sections (i.e. these three) are really for material that should be skipped by anyone not wanting to know such details. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's true that people should skip spoiler sections, but we still need caution. I propose a compromise that I think will satisfy both ways. I'ma going to make a separate page: "Great Expectations plot details," all of which can include spoilers. If anyone clicks to it and learns more than they want to, it's on them. OK? -- Cecropia 16:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No reason to fork the article, spoiler warnings are used for this reason. Always keep in mind your improving articles to conform to Featured Article standards, look at other featured articles on novels to see how it's done. -- Stbalbach 17:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We also have a responsibility to the reader. Compare to Britannica's article, which tells the reader about the novel, where it stands in Dickens' life and writing, and the overall theme and meaning of the "expectations," withour ever giving the reader bottom line details. -- Cecropia 17:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. This article is a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels (see header top of this page) - perhaps you should air your concerns there, and see about changing it for all the novels. If you do it for just this one, it will likely be changed back to the standard layout in the future. What your suggesting is non-standard, and has nothing support it in terms of consensus. -- Stbalbach 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, I will take it up there. Novels are made to be read, and synopsizing it in such a way as to ruin the pleasure of its reading and an independent understanding of its contents is not the role of an encyclopedia. Thanks for your feedback. -- Cecropia 17:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My God

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)

This isn't really the place to discuss personal reviews (although I agree with you). However you bring up a good point, there are no "reviews of reviews" of the novel, no critical summaries. In fact most contemporary critics panned the novel and it was a fairly obscure work until Orwell(?) revived it in academic circles the 1940s. --Stbalbach 00:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The guy is a vandal or at least likes to make omniscient comments on a hit and run basis. He did't really add anything to the discussion or the article, except to complain about the book. We disagree on the book, but that may well be a matter of personal taste and life experience. -- Cecropia 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well after Twist, Carol and Copperfield, this was my fourth and found it to be the lesser. Anyway we do need a section dealing with critical reactions - when it first came out most were negative, at least the ones included in the Norton edition, then later they turned positive. BTW are critical review summaries spoilers? --Stbalbach 01:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to bring up Twist, which is a sort of opposite in Dickens' life (early writing, very late writing, and Twist was more sarcastic and more loosely written (for want of a better phrase) than GE; but I recently reread Oliver Twist, and thought it suffered terribly from the fact that Dickens obviously had to come up with a certain number of installments to earn his pay. There are fascinating and enduring characters and situations and exciting action in the early and late chapters, but some reptition and filler in the middle.

Right now we don't have critical reviews either positive or negative of the work. Critical reviews are not inherently spoilers, but if we quote too much they may be copyvios. I think the shift in the early reviews of GE may also have to do with changing the ending. Also, ever since filmed versions have been made, most (at least popular) understanding of the novel emphasizes the pursuit of Estella to the exclusion of other themes. -- Cecropia 01:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As hard as it is to take someone who misspeels "web sites" seriously, that statement reminded me of a comment I heard in an Enlgish class once. A friend of mine was ranting in a discussion about how awful the book was, that it was a "waste of time" and that the plot was "bland". I asked him a question... "Did you read the whole book?" He hesitated, and said that he just read the Cliffs Notes. I went around the class afterward and asked if they liked the book. The 5 people who said yes were also the 5 people (out of 30! terrible!) that read the entire book. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That is what is called observer bias. Only the people who liked the book actually finished it. Those who did not like the book, obviously, did not read the whole thing. Googlemeister (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It ain't just Cliff's Notes. I have seen any number of reviews of Lean's 1946 movie that have emphasized how incredibly accurate that director's version is. Then I saw one review that remarked that it was unbelievable that Lean had never read the book before making the movie. I thought to myself: "why do I not find this 'unbelieveable'?" He made a great entertainment, and I can forgive him much but I still choke on his ending. The first time I watched it with my then-10-year-old daughter I remarked: "And then Pip and Estella lived happily ever after—after Estella had about 20 years of therapy." :D -- Cecropia 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading this book at the moment - I haven't finished it yet, but it seems a lot better than Hard Times, but not up to A Tale of Two Cities.

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)

Neutrality box

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)

As I understand it the tag was there to highlight the existence of the cite needed tags in the plot introduction. Wikipedia has a WP:NOR policy which means that opinion related ideas need to be from cited sources not just our own view. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

AH, I get it. So that is supposed to apply to the effusive comments about the book; but then whoever placed the tag needs to post something in talk to let us know what is POV, so it can be addressed. -- Cecropia 08:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

maybe so - I think there was a small level of assumption that those able to respond to the tags would be familiar enough with wikipedia to know what was meant. Too much assumption I know. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:24, 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)

A worthy introduction to great literature?

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.

I agree with you and it happened that I was writing a new introduction yesterday which addressed most of your points above. Then, when it was almost done, my FireFox crashed and I lost it all. So when I get over the mourning period, maybe I'll attack it again but write it in notepad or something first. -- Cecropia 18:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Much better than before. I think a very compressed summary of the latter parts of the novel would allow the reader of the whole article to still enjoy the complete book yet give others a sufficient idea of the book to know, for instance, if Ethan Hawke's recent portrayal of Pip is true to the spirit of Dickens. The key thing, which probably no summary can reveal, is if it is too much to expect love from a woman who has been greatly wronged by another man, but it would be morbid indeed to not at least explore the possibility even if ultimately unsuccessful. Modus Vivendi 22:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm one person who thinks even a bad version of a classic may reveal something new about it. I've seem maybe 8 or 10 Hamlets. I saw one staged by an experimental company on 14th Street in NYC. It was in a space so cheap that the actors made some oblique humorous references to the fact that they had to work around the leaking roof (it was a rainy day). Much of the acting was high school, and not good high school at that; but I watched the entire four hours and saw, for the first time, a Hamlet who actually seemed sad that his father was dead, rather than simply resentful and sarcastic. And it had an excellent Polonius.

I just bristle when people are always searching for a new "definitive" version--though I think some filmeed versions express the story better than others. I don't know how much I can separate Ethan Hawke's Pip from the concept of the overall production. Some parts were just too absurb, like Magwitch in the beginning apparently hiding underwater, like some weird zombie or maybe an amphibian. Yet on second viewing I was able to overcome some of the shock of the novel interpretations to see some interesting insights in the characterizations; I think what I'm trying to say is that I looked at it less as an interpretation than as a work in itself. I enjoyed some of the staging; the transition of Pip dancing with young Estella turning into adult Estella. I like Paltrow a lot in a variety of roles, but her portrayal of Estella turned her from a romantic cypher into a prick-teaser (you should pardon the expression). When you say that "is if it is too much to expect love from a woman who has been greatly wronged by another man" are you referring to Miss Havisham vis-a-vis Compeyson, or Estella vis-a-vis Drummle? -- Cecropia 23:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant Estella, acting on the transferred anger from Miss Havisham combined with her own experience, but mostly I meant that it's an aspect of the story that the interested reader has to learn for himself/herself from reading the book rather than any summary, and that the underlying purpose of the current endeavour is make the potential reader think that the quest is worthwhile, and that that, in the end is the ultimate answer to spoilers for this particular book: the gestalt of reading the book is irreplaceable in this respect and the reader need not be too concerned about the revelation of surprises which, to most readers of the novel, are not that mysterious. Modus Vivendi 03:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't follow you because I don't think of Estella as "greatly wronged by another man." She is greatly wronged by Miss Havisham, who makes Estella a surrogate of her own disappointment. When Estella has the ability to choose men, she does not seek men who are liable to truly love her and be loved in return. Dickens had an "Estella" is his life; many men have experienced something like an Estella in their lives, very rarely (one hopes) not so extreme; I have. I think whether or not one can feel for Pip's obsession enormously affects your view of Pip's relationship to Estella. All of the filmed versions of Great Expectations that I have seen cheat the viewer of the understanding of how Pip came to love Estella (notwithstanding Estella's allegorical standing as the embodiment of Pip's class strivings), a thwarted love which is much more understandable in the novel. -- Cecropia 06:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Merged

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)

Duplication

"Plot introduction & overview" duplicate introduction and plot summary. Feel free to trim intro. Vapour

Restored (though not be me). The purpose of the section is to give a brief summary without spoilers. -- Cecropia 14:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ALso redid opening as it did include some duplication. -- Cecropia 17:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bildungsroman

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)

Well since the wikilink is right there I don't think an explanation is necessary, but I won't press the issue since this article seems like your pet project. Carl.bunderson 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand your point, but think a brief explanation is better so as not to break the flow of the introduction. -- Cecropia 04:20, 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)

"By hand"

I excised this part of the text:

"By hand" is meant to mean that as Pip's mother died at birth, she raised him without breastfeeding, something that was worthy of respect at the time in which the novel was set as there was an extremely high mortality rate for infants that were not breastfed."

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:

1861 DICKENS Gt. Expect. ii, She had brought me up ‘by hand’.

Moral: Never forget occam's razor. -- Cecropia 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that (and giving a good example of Occam's Razor). I doubted it also but found it on google search so figured it must be real. Sounds like a minority view. -- Stbalbach 23:32, 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)

The article is WAY too long

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)

Interesting point. Perhaps the detailed summary could get a page of its own, and a more condensed version could remain on the main novel page? I think it would be shame if the detailed summary were just discarded. Some person or persons took a lot of time to write all that.

I don't know if it's any help, but I wrote the plot summary for Norwegian Wood (novel). I took very detailed notes for my personal reference, but I put a much shorter summary in the article. I'm not saying that a book the size of Great Expectations should have an equally short summary as the one I wrote, but maybe my summary could provide some sort of guide of what to include and what not to. Or maybe I think too highly of my work. I'm busy with other things, so don't look to me to write a shorter plot summary for Great Expectations anytime soon. --Kyoko 13:02, 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)

I originally wanted to put the "plot summary" on its own page, but was (figuratively) shouted down. Other than the fact that Roland Deschain feels that this is "WAY too long" On what basis, that we are giving too much information? or is it that reader's fingers are getting tired moving their mouses and we'll be sued for encouraging carpal tunnel syndrome?

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)

Hey, be nice and don't criticise us for our differing opinions. It's been over two years since I last read the book. I simply don't feel qualified to write a plot summary for Great Expectations at this time. The article happens to be on my ever-expanding watchlist (1500+ items), and I happened to notice this discussion on the talk page. I really am quite preoccupied with other matters right now, and recovering from things in real life. I congratulate you on your hard work, and I sincerely believe that it should not be summarily discarded. I don't personally care about the length of the article, except for the fact that such a detailed summary might not be as "user-friendly" as a shorter version.

I would suggest two possible solutions:

• • maintain the current detailed summary on the main page, and eventually someone will put a shorter version of it further up the page
  • in the future, move the detailed summary to its own page, and have a shorter version on the main article page (again, I'm not saying that you personally have to write it)

I believe that everyone involved only has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and I'm certain that we can find an acceptable solution. Thanks for your time, and thank you ever so much, Cecropia, for everything that you've done. --Kyoko 04:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me also add that I totally understand why you would feel hurt when outsiders seem to question the worth of a plot summary that you've obviously spent a very long time working on. I don't believe that any of us meant to hurt your feelings, Cecropia, and we think (or at least I think) that your work is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. --Kyoko 07:32, 5 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)

After taking a good look at the article (something I really should have done in the first place instead of just a quick peek), I'm convinced that Cecropia's plot summary is fine as it is. The preceding section, "Plot introduction & overview", works well enough as a short summary that it can give someone a general idea of what type of book Great Expectations is, without unduly spoiling any of the plot elements. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, Cecropia. --Kyoko 12:29, 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)

I'm torn, because I see merit in both points of view. I think I'll just shut up now. --Kyoko 13:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We have in depth plot descriptions of every single episode of, for instance, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I don't see why one of Dickens' most important novels deserves any less. john k 14:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

However, they are each set up in such a way that a user can easily access a short summary and then a longer (but still relatively short) overview of the entire article. The articles on BtVS are not broken down scene by scene and shot by shot, like this plot 'summary' is. Racei 00:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• I was simply trying to be civil and make a suggestion to improve the article, but since Cecropia decided to take it personally and be snippy and sarcastic, I'll make it short and sweet. I'm not going to rewrite the plot summary because a)I haven't read Great Expectations in three or four years and b) at least a couple of editors would probably revert any attempts by an individual to shorten the article.

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)

I generally agree with this sentiment. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be pithy, the most important and select facts filtered, not an "all the knowledge in the world" which many people take literally - "Jimbo's book of trivia". -- Stbalbach 13:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As gingerly as I can stepping into this debate, I agree that the long synopsis belongs in Wikibooks. We can easily put in a link for those readers who want to read it. I hope a bold editor will undertake the task. Xiner 17:33, 6 November 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)

A plot summary is "an indiscriminate collection of information"? Wow. Maybe what Wikipedia should not be is an intellectual venue with more wannabe lawyers than content contributors. -- Cecropia 01:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it is. An excessively long plot summary as the one in evidence here does not contribute to the article. A person coming to an encyclopedia to learn about Great Expectations is going to be overwhelmed and unaided by this article. Racei 00:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even for a long book, this summary is staggering. A more condensed one like in Oliver Twist or David Copperfield (which was longer) would be better, although it could be a bit longer since this is Great Expectations, after all. I guess the real problem is finding someone to take on this job. (Looks around guiltily for a bit) Actually, I have read this book, but I don't have the time this week to do it. No really! Finals and all that stuff (I'm not even supposed to be on here...). If you could wait until Friday of next week, though, I'll definitely do it then. Really. (scampers off) Breed Zona 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Why is this article labeled as Start-class? I think it should be at least B-class. Maybe it needs a second quality assessment. Breed Zona 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, being bold, I condensed the summary, without hopefully shortchanging the important events, and added in what happens after Pip talks to Wemmick about Molly's story. I'd like to know if my edit is good or appropriate because I know this is a major article about a major work; if you have any feedback or comments on my edit, please reply to this post. Also, if I made any factual mistakes in the section I added, feel free to fix them!

Oh, and yes, I am also aware that subheadings underneath each section for specific events would be better. Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to do so. Anybody who does this would be much appreciated. Breed Zona 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also have the original version of the summary saved in a file on my computer, so if it's agreed to submit it to Wikibooks, I can do so. Breed Zona 04:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pip, Estella, and Love

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)

a small message

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?

Yea, I can help you. Don't be a dick. Open your mind to the book. Look into each characters persona and what drives them.--Blckhawk1234 (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Great Expectations

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)

Mistake in Endings

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

The Temple is not a fictional place in London, it is very real.---Revolver66, 20:39 02/03/07.

"Excessive use of words"

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))

Add A Character

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

If you think he needs to be added so badly, then write up a character summary, put it on the talk page, and if the admins ok it, then by all means add it.--Shroopliss 15:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More Info

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

Suggestions for improvement

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)

Egad! The plot summary is gigantic. The plot introduction would make a good foundation for a summary. It just needs a few extras (such as Magwitch's role) plus the ending section from the current summary. I'd be willing to undertake this (I wrote the summary for Great Expectations (1946 film)), as long as your expectations aren't excessively great. Clarityfiend 23:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that suggestions on trimming the plot summary in the past have proven quite controversial, but I'd like to make some points on this subject. The size of the plot introduction alone is about 630 words, a size that is usually considered adequate for an entire plot summary. The plot summary itself is 32 kilobytes in size, which is well over the size of most articles on novels. That's nearly 6,000 words, which I have to concur, is gigantic.

What this means is that somebody coming to read about the novel is going to be absolutely overwhelmed by the amount of detail. For instance, taking a paragraph at random:

One cold February evening, after a day of rowing, Pip decides to stop at a chophouse for dinner. There he unexpectedly encounters Mr. Wopsle, who Pip heard had given up his pursuit in theatre, now performing comic pantomime. To Pip's surprise, he sees Mr. Wopsle glaring in his direction with a look as though he had unconfirmed suspicions of him. As Pip leaves the performance, he finds Mr. Wopsle waiting for him. He tells Pip he saw him, but also saw someone else. Becoming alarmed, Pip presses Mr. Wopsle to explain, and Mr. Wopsle replies he saw a figure sitting behind Pip "like a ghost", and he was certain it was someone he had seen on Christmas Day long ago, when Pip was a child. He asserts he feels the person was one of the two fighting prisoners on the marshes, "the one who had been mauled." Pip realizes with terror the person who had been behind him was Compeyson, Magwitch's enemy.

This is the only mention of Mr Wopsie, a minor character, in the entire summary, but the import of the sequence described by this paragraph has nothing to do with Wopsie at all, but is simply Dickens' way of insinuating the ominous presence of Magwitch's nemesis, Compeyson, into the narrative. Whilst Dickens himself had to contend with the reader's expectations and maintaining an air of menace and mystery, we do not (and indeed it would not be productive to write our articles in the form of novels). We could say simply "Pip learns that Compeyson is back in London", which is the salient plot point.

This plot summary really does need to be replaced by something much briefer and less cluttered. --Tony Sidaway 03:27, 26 January 2008

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)

Proposal: remove plot summary and adapt plot introduction as new plot summary

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)

Sounds good to me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(sorry to reopen a dead thread but...) I think this was a bad idea. As it stands today, the article has long sections describing the characters of the book (some of whom have articles of their own, though not Pip, strangely), and the setting, but only brief and unentirely uninformative description of the plot. The cart seems to be before the horse. While the plot summary in the January 30th version is quite long and probably could be pruned, I do think that reinstating it would make the article a lot better. And the plot intro section could probably be reworked and shortened. Also, note that the original proposal was to delete the plot summary and and adapt the plot into. This adaptation doesn't seem to have been done.[3] Unless there is serious objection, I will restore the deleted section in a day or two, and try to improve the plot intro. Yilloslime (t) 05:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well no one's objected, so I'm going to go ahead and restore the section. Yilloslime (t) 05:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

GE in comparisin to other Dickens novels

"The usual grotesque characters common to many of his books are more muted and believable in this book."

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)

Improve plot summary

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)

When the convict is first mentioned he is not named so I thought it better to do so as Magwich. Nadquilp7 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Gothic Novel

I added it to the Gothic Novels category.Alt6 (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot overview

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)

Could everyone please stop adding unnecessary content to the plot summary? It's bloated enough as it is. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Clean up

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)

Useless vandalism and other garbage

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)

Some discussion of the book might be better than the over generous plot summary

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)

Great expectaqtions-the musical

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)

Maybe use this. --Mollskman (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Anon edits about original ending

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)

Thanks for your post. For the record I have not reverted the edits by the IP in question about supposed alternate ending as vandalism. As can be seen here [4] I have reverted them as unsourced and asked the IP to present their case for inclusion here on the talk page. The revert I called vandalism is this one [5] which clearly is disruptive to the article. I wish you well in your research efforts, though with the length of time that this article has been here it would be a surprise that it hasn't been mentioned before. A pleasant surprise yes but still a surprise. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Followup. I see that you posted on their talkpage and now I understand the mixup. I used the warning template {{subst:uw-error3}} which mentions vandalism. I could also have used the template {{subst:uw-unsourced3}}. Either is usable in this situation and I was trying to get them to stop edit warring over their continued addition of unsourced info but I will use the later should they persist. MarnetteD | Talk 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternate endings

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:

• “I could see the shadow of no parting from her.”
• “I saw no shadow of another parting from her.”

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)

As stated above a reliable source is needed for any inclusion of speculation of this sort. BTW IP hopping to try and add this unsourced stuff is not the way to go. MarnetteD | Talk 05:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no sign of IP hopping. The claims made by the IP are correct. I have looked in various printed sources. I'll try to add information about the different endings over the weekend, with proper referencing. The IP is obviously trying to help, and should be thanked. Lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's sourcing policies is not a crime. (However, I don't agree that there's necessarily a problem with calling the Piccadilly ending the "original" one, as it was the one that Dickens wrote first, even though it wasn't published till later. That could be made clearer in the article.) Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Plausibility

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)

"Contemporary" Critcs ?

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)

I omitted the word "contemporary" UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Translated page}}

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)

is that why a section titled 'Style' seems to deal with 'themes' if anything - and there are rather bizarre and hyperbolic sentences - 'Pip, orphaned, grows up in a world full of sinister tombs, dangerous swamps' - blimey,- entire sections could do with a bit of work really. -maybe because these have been too loosely translated from the French. Sayerslle (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Characters

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)