Original Stories from Real Life is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
The sketch for the frontispiece to Original Stories from Real Life, the only complete work of children's literature by 18th-century British feministMary Wollstonecraft. The book was first published by Joseph Johnson in 1788; a second, illustrated edition, with engravings by William Blake based on his own drawings, was released in 1791 and remained in print for around a quarter of a century. The book begins with a frame story, which sketches out the education of two young girls by their maternal teacher Mrs. Mason, followed by a series of didactic tales. Wollstonecraft employed the then burgeoning genre of children's literature to promote the education of women and an emerging middle-class ideology. She argued that women would be able to become rational adults if they were educated properly as children, which was not a widely-held belief in the 18th century.Artist: William Blake; Restoration: Lise Broer
The most common usage of [sic] is to show the direct quotation of a spelling or grammatical error in the original text. If this is the case the [sic] following 'to-day' should be considered for removal. While the hyphenated form of 'today' would be considered an error now, the OED has examples of it being used in publications until 1819, with the non-hyphenated version appearing as early as 897 (with a different spelling.) The two versions happily coexisted in the language for nearly a thousand years. As the hyphenated version was quite correct in Shelly's time it seems judgmental to highlight it as an error by today's standards, or to-day's [sic] standards. I just noticed that both to-morrow and to-day are italicized. It the to-morrow is also being sic-ed, the OED gives examples of the hyphenated tomorrow being used in publications until 1897. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.150.60 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed optional, but as many people would see the quotation and think it in error, we have decided to include it. Most people are not as familiar with the OED and the history of English as you! Wadewitz (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandy's assessment above, and I think this will need some fixing up in order to meet the FA criteria. Is anyone interested in working on this? If not, I will nominate this to FAR in a couple weeks. Z1720 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
