Talk:The Green Child

Possible sources

Google books seems to have a fair number of sources discussing the work here, and Google scholar here. JSTOR seems to reference at least a few articles, as well as some books, here. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

Apologies for the delay - this has been a busy weekend for me. In general, I thought this was a solid article - the reader comes away from it with a clear notion of the book. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• written on a different paper from the rest - "written on a different paper" or "written on different paper"?

• Tried to clarify this. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The first and second paragraphs of "Biographical background and publication" could be combined. Explaining when and where he wrote it as well as his process seem like part of the same topic to me.>

• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hepworth's first abstract work, Three Forms, completed in 1935, is considered by some critics to have a similar structure to The Green Child. - At this point, the reader of the article is not really sure what the structure of The Green Child is, so this sentence isn't that helpful. I would suggest either explaining the structure here or explaining the connection to Three Forms later in the article.

• I'm not certain this is particularly relevant, so I've removed it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article seems underlinked to me. I would have linked "University of Leeds", "anarchism", "shillings", and "sixpence" in the "Biographical background and publication" section, for example, but perhaps this is personal taste.

• I've added a few links, but sometimes less is more. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• he became confirmed in his beliefs - awkward phrase

• The Green Child was therefore written at a time when Read's political and philosophical ideas were "in flux". - Is there any way to explain a bit more clearly what they were in flux between or around?

• Between communism and anarchism, added a bit to explain. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• At the beginning of the plot summary, I would suggest indicating if the book is told in first-, second-, or third-person narration.

• The first and third parts are third-person, the second is first-person. I've added a sentence to the start of the plot summary as you suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• As a boy, Kneeshaw had been instrumental in Olivero's decision to leave the village 30 years earlier, by deliberately breaking a toy engine from a model railway that Olivero had taken into school to show the pupils. - It seems a bit strange that Olivero would decide to leave over this. Perhaps this can be reworded to make his motivation clearer?

• Expanded that a bit. The breaking of the toy engine was just a final straw. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The first part of the novel adopts the style of a 19th-century gothic fairy tale. The "fluid, seemingly unbroken hand" in which it is written has encouraged the notion that it was produced in a single sitting, followed by a break before the second part was begun. - The second sentence does not explain why it is a gothic fairy tale.

• It just is a gothic fairy tale; the second sentence isn't mean to explain why it is, but to suggest that it's almost a separate story from the rest of the novel, the "true novel". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Part two is written as a "conventional political adventure", in which Olivero tells in flashback the story of his rise to power as the dictator of Roncador. - "in which Olivero tells in flashback" is awkward.

• to become part of the crystalline solidity of the universe - Is this an image from the book? If so, it should be quoted.

• It's not a quote from the book, no, but I've tried to expand on the basic idea of Order as "space-filling Mass" in the plot summary. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• The novel's overarching theme is a "a dialectical search for the meaning of life, a search which involves a return to life's source, both personal and supra-personal - What does "supra-personal" mean here? I would explain this in your own words for the reader.

• There is also a Jungian symbolism evident in Olivero's confrontation with Kneeshaw, and in the character of Siloēn - Do your sources connect the Jungian symbolism with psychoanalysis? Many readers may be unaware that there is a connection between the two and explaining that would be helpful.

• Tried to clarify that. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The paragraphs in the "Themes" section do not flow into each other very well - can you make the section more coherent and less of a list of themes?

• I noticed that the cover says "A romance by Herbert Read" - do any of the critics discuss the book in terms of the romance genre?

• Sort of, but it's also kind of strange. The green child basically represents Olivero's anima, his soul, which perhaps doesn't really become obvious until the end of the story, when they both die at the same time and are laid together. There is a superficial romantic element though, which probably needs to be explored a little more, given Read's initial title for the novel; later editions dropped the "romance by ...". I'm beginning to suspect that I've bitten off more than I can chew here. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I meant the "romance genre", as in the one with its roots in the medieval tales, not necessarily "romantic" plot lines, if you see the difference. Awadewit (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah yes, I see what you mean; I'll investigate. I'm equally interested to know why the "A romance by ..." was dropped, as I think it only appeared on the first edition. Thanks for the papers you sent btw, I haven't got around to reading them yet, but soon. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Greene material in "Critical reception" doesn't seem particularly enlightening. It might help to describe his preface in the "Biographical background and publication" section, but I'm not sure about including it here.

• I've moved it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is more scholarship on this book that would help you expand the article, particularly the discussion of the style and genre. I found four articles in the MLA database in a quick search for "green child", for example. Would you like me to send them to you?

I hope these comments are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks, given me a lot to think about. If it's not too much trouble I'd be very grateful for the four articles you've found. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have one of the four - the other three are not available electronically at my library. I have now requested them from my library. I should have them in a few days. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments...

• Lead:
  • I'd link "legend" rather than "green children" or maybe "legend of two green children" to make it clear you're not trying to define "green children"
    • Good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "...apparently speaking..."? Seems odd to me, either they were speaking or they weren't.
    • They were certainly speaking, but there's some doubt as to whether or not the language they were speaking in was unknown. One of the strongest suggestions is that they may have been speaking Flemish, as there were a lot of Flemish weavers living in that part of England at the time. What about "speaking in an apparently unknown language"? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That works. I got the meaning, but it was jarring the way it was phrased before. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Biographical background:
  • "...have been said to have the appearance of recollecting.." awkward... can we rephrase?
    • OK, I've had a go at rewriting that. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The link in the "a product of automatic writing" is frowned upon by the MOS, not supposed to put links in quotations
    • Yeah I was a bit troubled about that when I put it in. I'll think about paraphrasing that bit so as to avoid the link. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of this section seems jumpy. You don't tell WHEN the novel was written until the next to last sentence, suggest moving that (and the following sentence) up to after the first sentence.
    • That seems to work, done. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Plot:
  • The link to Jacobin (politics) doesn't make much sense in the context of Spanish politics here...
    • You're right, so I've left it as "suspected revolutionary". I'm not sure there were any Jacobins around in 1834 anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Themes:

• • Need a citation on the "the evil destructive instinct which lurks beneath the civilised conventions of society" quote.
    • The citation at the end of the sentence covers that. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Need a citation on "the archetype of the anima, or Jungian 'soul', particularly in its function as intermediary between conscious and unconscious."
    • The citation at the end of the paragraph covers everything, including the quotes. Is it your view that quotations need to be cited immediately? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Need a citation on "the shadow, the dark side of man's nature, the primitive, animal part of the personality found in the personal unconscious"
    • As above. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Critical:
  • Which Times? Link?
    • Added link. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Link The Independent also, as it's unclear which might be meant. (There are a few in the US, by the way).
    • Added link. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all that jumped at me. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Some notes

I've found two reviews in the NY Times of the 1948 edition. One is by Robert Gorham Davies; the citation information given is December 5, 1948, Sunday, Section: Review, Page BR48, 888 words. The other is by Orville Prescott: December 8, 1948, Wednesday Page 29. Are you interested? If so, let me know how I can get it to you; I can't get it as text, only as a PDF or jpg. My email is enabled, so if you can email me and let me know an email address that would work.

I also found a listing of paperback releases (February 15, 1970, Sunday, Section: The New York Times Book Review, Page 292, 992 words) which included a listing for a paperback of the New Directions edition, priced at $1.65. I trawled addall to see what other editions might exist and found indications of a 1970 Chatto & Windus edition; a 1947 Century Library edition; a recent Capuchin edition; and a 1966 W.W. Norton edition. There's a listing for the Norton that indicates it's a 6th printing. The Capuchin may not be out yet; per this page it is due out in March.

Second hand book listings aren't reliable sources, of course, but I think it might be better if you didn't state so definitely that the book had only six editions. Perhaps that information could be moved to table or list form, at the end of the article, and rephrased as "editions include"? Mike Christie (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the thorny editions question. I assumed that the note at the end of the "edition paragraph" provided the source for that bit of information. If so, that scholar might be using a specific definition of "edition". Awadewit (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(To Awadewit) Yes, it does, and it definitely states six editions. Luckily that page is still available at Google books (have to scroll to page 119 I'm afraid). --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(To Mike) Yes please; I've sent you you my email address. I'm pleased to see that Capuchin are producing a reprint (presumably of the sixth edition?) due next month. Read was quite well known for making changes to his text for each edition, and I imagine that's the criterion Barker uses to distinguish between editions and reprints. Anyway, all I can say definitively is that he says there were six editions at least up to the date he was writing, 1998. Perhaps if the forthcoming Capuchin version has a new foreword instead of the Greene one it would be counted as a seventh edition? I don't know, it'll be interesting to see when it comes out. Need to keep an eye on that. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've sent them. That's odd re the Google Books reference; it wouldn't allow me to see pages 118-119, so I couldn't check what he said there. But you're right that the most likely interpretation of "edition" is a fresh set of changes to the text. Would be nice to know for sure. Mike Christie (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Another comment: "The next morning Olivero and the green child, Sally" -- isn't she a woman by this time? I think this should be "green woman". Mike Christie (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but I'd prefer not to say "green woman", so to avoid that I've made a few small changes. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That works well. Mike Christie (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Completely missed this at FAC, somewhat ass-deep in another article. Well done. Sounds like a wtf? kind of book. --Moni3 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's actually three short wtf kind of books rolled into one. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous opening paragraph

The opening paragraph states that this novel was written in 1934 and published in 1935. It says that the story [of the novel] is based on the 12th-century legend. Then the following sentence appears: "Read described the story in his English Prose Style, published in 1931, as "the norm to which all types of fantasy should conform".

Was Read saying that this norm was the 12th century legend? If so, then this sentence should be begin with "Read described the legend ..." rather than "Read described the story...", because every other instance of the term "the story" in this introduction refers to Read's book, not the original legend.

Or was Read saying that this norm was his own novel? This was asserted by Malleus in a recent edit [1]. If this is true, then this sentence should begin with "Read described his forthcoming novel ...", because someone reading this article will probably not expect a 1931 book to be praising a novel that hasn't even been written yet! In addition, it would be worth explaining somewhere in this article why Read made such a bold assertion, and how it was received. (A book entitled English Prose Style sounds like it is intended as a general textbook, and normally the authors of textbooks do not claim that their own future novels are the greatest example of some genre.) — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point; Read must have been describing the legend rather than the structure of his own novel. As to how his claim in English Prose Style was received, and what his motivation was for making such a bold assertion, that's a matter for the English Prose Style article. Malleus Fatuorum 05:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this article

• The first paragraph talks more about the "legend" of the green children that about Read's novel. The legend of the green children is background. It ought not be the main substance of the second and third sentences of the introductory paragraph.
• There is no further mention of the legend of the green children, which should be discussed either under Themes or as a Biographical influence (being a story which apparently fascinated him).
• The plot summary is inadequate. It starts by stating that the three sections are written in different persons. It ought to start with the statement that the novel is written in three parts. That is basic, horse-before-the-cart stuff.
• In the plot summary, right at the very end, it mentions something like "that is what happens when Green people die". Er? At no point in the previous paragraphs of the plot summary has it been mentioned that anyone is green..... or have I missed something?

This article needs work to bring it up to Main Page standard. Amandajm (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree with everything you have written. Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

On your first point: I disagree: mentioning the legend in the first paragraph is completely consistent with Wikipedia practice -- for example, the first paragraph of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film) mentions the novel it is based on, and the first paragraph of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) mentions the Brothers Grimm story it is based on. On your fourth point, I mostly disagree: the children are mentioned as being green in the second paragraph of the plot summary, although perhaps the fifth paragraph should also mention that "her [Sally's] people" are the green people -- especially if the name of this people is really Green people with a capital letter, as indicated by the final paragraph. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Without checking, I think that the capitalisation "Green people" is Read's own, but nowhere in the novel is the "proper" name for these people given. I think the capitalisation is helpful, because it conveys the idea that we're talking about these subterranean people, not green people in general. Bear in mind that there are several medical conditions that can result in the skin having a green pallor. Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

More sources

I just acquired volume 2 of Frank Magill's Survey of Modern Fantasy Literature, which includes an essay on The Green Child by John Clute. I can scan it if anyone is interested. It includes a short bibliography that includes a couple of sources not used here. The full bibliography given is:

• Berry, Francis. Herbert Read, 1961.
• Greene, Graham. "Introduction", in The Green Child, 1970.
• Rexroth, Kenneth. "Introduction", in The Green Child, 1948.
• Skelton, Robin, ed. Herbert Read: A Memorial Symposium, 1970.
• Treece, Henry, ed. Herbert Read: An Introduction to His Work by Various Hands, 1944.

I don't have any of these, unfortunately. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Rexroth's introduction to the 1948 American edition is already mentioned in the article, as is Graham Greene's, but Clute's essay would be interesting to read. Eric Corbett 22:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)