Talk:Illegitimacy in fiction

Doubts

I see that proposed deletion has been taken off the article by the original author. I remain very concerned that this article has no future as a list type article. The problem is that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information". The list looks incomplete and arbitrary. That would be OK if there was hope of gradually completing it but the scope is so wide that I have grave doubts that this is possible. It might be possible to rescue the article by making it less of a list article. The problem here would be to avoid original research and reflect existing published analysis of the subject.

Anyway, I see that some more information has been added so I am not going to send it to AfD right now. I will let it develop and see what happens. I will keep an eye on it and may send it to AfD if it still seems moribund in a few weeks. If that happens everybody will get to have their say so it won't just be me making the decision to delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current article seems a highly selective list from an extremely wide subject area; however, it does seem a legitimate (no pun intended) topic for an article. An analysis of illegitimacy in fiction and how its depiction has changed over time could be interesting, if appropriate secondary sources were used. Meanwhile, I think the "See also" links to this article from authors' pages, such as were introduced to Elizabeth Gaskell, are inappropriate and should be removed. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are they inappropriate? Nihil novi (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Because authors usually address very many different topics and themes in their works. The links should be from the relevant works, not the authors, although only then if illegitimacy is a major theme of the work. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some authors' works (e.g., Daudet's, Pagnol's) do not have articles of their own. Nihil novi (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to create them. I don't think it's appropriate to link an author biography to a literary topic unless it's the major theme in most of the author's works, or perhaps the theme for which s/he is best known, which is certainly not the case for Gaskell. I admit I don't know the works of Daudet or Pagnol. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this article needs to be rewritten with more substantial information on the particular usage of illegitimacy in fiction, in which mention could be made to authors who have used it as a plot device most frequently/most famously. I'm planning to work on the proposed section (I've found a number of books that deal with the topic) and see how well it takes the place of the arbitrary list. Until then, I think keeping the list is a great idea (and I'll continue to contribute to it) as it will allow for users to add new content that we are unaware of. Yarjka (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

An expanded text sounds like a great idea. I would hate to see the list disappear, though; a list has a clarity that a text, for all the complexity that it can convey, cannot rival. A list can also be very provocative to thought; I could see someone (not me—I have too many things on my plate) doing a best-selling book (if there hasn't already been one that I'm unaware of) on the history of illegitimacy as a theme in literature, perhaps reflective of historic societal trends.Nihil novi (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The list is great, don't get me wrong. I just think that this topic has been focused on by enough literature (not to mention other forms of fiction) that the list will get out of hand and never be an exhaustive list of all the works ever to cover this theme. However, for now I think the best route is to keep growing the list and see where it goes, as that is certainly more beneficial to the readers of Wikipedia than nothing at all. Yarjka (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And then, too, this list, like others, doesn't necessarily have to be exhaustive. Nihil novi (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Thomas Hardy's classic novel "Tess of the d'Urbervilles" (1891)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.91.173 (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Plethora of images

Why so many? Why, in fact, any? The subject of the article is illegitimacy in fiction, not authors who have written novels treating illegitimacy. A well-chosen image enhances an article, but this gallery serves only to push the "edit" buttons askew. A good image would be one of an illegitimate character in a novel. If no one objects within a few days, with good reasons, I'll remove these. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear BrainyBabe,

You have made many contributions to this article. This suggests that you see usefulness in the article and legitimacy in its topic. Not everyone has. In March 2008, within a week after it was started, a user tagged it for deletion, subsequently explaining that he did not see prospects of its development into anything justifiable or useful. I think that the article has since developed nicely and has justified its legitimate existence.

A major purpose behind including portraits of recognized authors who have written works involving illegitimacy has been to help readers comprehend intuitively that illegitimacy has in fact been a legitimate subject of fiction. The article's overriding intent has been to foster not prejudice against, but empathy for, individuals who in the past might have suffered for an accidental circumstance of their birth. (This was a point that was lost on readers who a couple of years ago succeeded in deleting a List of [Notable] Illegitimate Persons.)

I would like to see the portraits of authors retained. Illustrations of their illegitimate characters would, to me, also be welcome. Nihil novi (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Passing references

what exactly is meant by passing references when you say they have being omitted from the article. would a mention of Veralidaine Sarrasri of the The Immortals series fit in this article as she is illegitimate and the fact that she was 'named for her mother' is occasionally a plot point(pretty much every book has at least one mention of it and how it is a issue)however it is not a pervasive theme of the series as the other examples seem to be. so would this just be a passing reference. Tydoni (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide view?

Isn't there pretty much just British English examples here? What about the rest of the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.231.229 (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Crusader Kings II

In Crusader Kings II and I, bastardy is a fairly important aspect in the game. Though not specifically made as a story, bastards are - practically - very crucial to the game, making them more important than bastardy in a lot of fiction on this list, which arguably fit better into the "passing mention"-category. In the game, to survive, one needs to have an heir. Bastards cannot, by default, be heirs. KarstenO (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable film examples

I don't know see how clones count as illegitimate really. They don't have an ordinary conception, so does it even apply? In any case, I don't remember that characters such as Talia Al-Ghul or Rey Skywalker (née Palpatine) had unmarried parents. Where it's ambiguous or unstated, shouldn't we just not list them? Mcc1789 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)