Talk:The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold

Publishing date

This section says than the book was published during the summer of 1957. Can we know the exact date? — N.ANCEAU

Ah ok July, Thanks you much Brian. I created the French version of the article. — N.A.

Work in progess

Work has begun, to make a decent article about this important book. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Work interrupted about two weeks ago, now resuming. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Informal review

Thoughts from Cliftonian

Following a nice talk page ping I will have a look over this and note any thoughts I have.

• I've copyedited a bit in the lead
• Added some wikilinks and copyedited very little in the plot
• Perhaps add to footnote 1 that Officers and Gentlemen was indeed actually finished a couple of years later. The impression one might get from the present wording is that it wasn't
• Quote box in "Themes"; when did Betjeman say this? I would add the year
• I'd prefer to see the "Adaptations" section as a third-level header between "Publication history" and "Critical reception". The latter section ends so nicely and the "Adaptions" section on the end seems kind of misplaced in my opinion.

Very nice and interesting piece of work that I enjoyed, though I had no knowledge of the subject beforehand. Thank you, Brian, for bringing it to my attention. I hope my copy-edits and these thoughts are helpful. Thanks, —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

BB has been kind enough to ask for informal peer comment from me. It will be very short measure. To maintain a Gilbertian theme, I found nothing whatever to grumble at. This is the best I can manage:

• Writing history
  • "but if he did, it has not survived." – can you really make this unqualified statement? It may be in someone's attic somewhere.
  • "the historian Rebecca West" – I know she wrote some historical stuff, but "historian" is an unexpected word to apply to her, I feel.
  • "that affected the novel's completion" – delayed?
• Critical reception
  • "The TLS's anonymous reviewer" – I can easily find the name from the online archive next time I'm at the BL if you'd like it.
• Adaptations
  • Cast list here if wanted.

Sorry not to have more to offer, but it's a compliment, in truth. Tim riley talk 12:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

To Cliftonian and Tim: many thanks for the above comments and suggestions, which I will act on presently. It would indeed be nice to know who the TLS reviewer was, Tim, if you can supply this information. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The TLS reviewer was R. G. G. Price, a name I remember from Punch in the 1960s, but not a regular TLS contributor. He wrote only one other review for the TLS. His review was not as unfavourable as the quote might lead one to think. For example: "It is time people stopped treating Mr Waugh as a failed Mauriac. He is a lightweight who has suffered by being bracketed with completely different writers like Mr Graham Greene". Price compares Waugh with Wodehouse: "…he shares his complete originality, and he shares his freshets of wonderful new jokes, of humour that is as pure as the horror of a Border Ballad or the devotion of a carol." ("Self Portrait?", TLS, 19 July 1957, p. 437) – Tim riley talk 12:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

To you both: I have made the various minor fixes you suggest. As to shifting the "Adaptations" action, I don't think this is advisable. All the "novel" articles that I've read on Wikipedia have the section placed at the end, almost as an appendix, which seems entirely correct – the section is an adjunct, rather than integral part of the discussion of the book itself. For similiar reasons I don't think it's necessary to include the cast list. I have adjusted the comment on TLS review to reflect it more accurately, and have managed to include a reference to P.G. Thanks exceedingly for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will not press the point. You are right that it seems like an appendix to the article, and that is why I thought it a little odd on looking for the first time, but treated as an appendix I think it is all right. Thanks and I'm glad if I have been helpful. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Seems the quality work we've learned to take for granted from Brian. A few comments.

Lede

• "For his health's sake" I think "for the sake of his health" fits the rhythm of the sentence better. YMMV.
• "hears voices that continually insult, taunt, and threaten him". As I understand it, one of them is sympathetic, so is it "continually"?

• I think Margaret's "sympathetic" comments might be classified as taunts (or, as we used to put it crudely at school, cock-teasing). But I've removed "continually" as unnecessary.

• The lede says that the voices were a product of his drug-taking, but Pinfold himself doubts that, thinking it Angelic intervention, in your recitation of the plot, and apparently he is credible enough on that score not to be contradicted by your authorial voice.

• That's a very good point. I have rectified, and at the same time expanded the lead to signal the parity between Waugh's real-life experiences and those he creared for his alter ego Pinfold.

• "his medical advisers" His doctor(s)? Or is this the way of distinguishing Pinfold's experiences from Waugh's near identical?
• "sounds and conversations from elsewhere in the ship". If this is Margaret et al., then do the conversations and so forth really come from elsewhere in the ship under any theory? Or is this simply his initial conclusion? My suspicion would be the cruise director advertising the art [sic] auction, but that's just me.

• Waugh/Pinfold makes no mention of a public address system, so the voices apparently entering his cabin are inexplicable to him. They appear to come from various parts of the ship – the deck, the dining salon, the captain's cabin, other cabins. I've changed "elsewhere in" to "other parts of".

• "he realises he is being talked about". I assure you, people on cruise ships never discuss their fellow passengers ... Never! Well, hardly ever.
• "leaves the ship" disembarks?

Background

• "writing had stagnated" as in unable to write (writer's block?) or it had deteriorated?

Writing history

• "summer coming-out ball" also one in the winter? A pipe to the type of event contemplated might be in order.
• creating the return to the words that introduce the novel". This is to this point unmentioned, so the "the" after "creating" might be assuming too much knowledge by the reader. Similarly the subtitle is to this point, I think, unmentioned even in lede.

• Good pony, addressed.

• "Sykes maintains" It may be wise to remind the reader that Sykes is maintaining in his guise as biographer, rather than in reaction (at least not principally, I hope) to being included in the novel.

Paranormal

• "This device, supposedly, could cure all ills" perhaps "This device was reputed to cure all ills" save the reader some commas but the one following "ills" seems unneeded.
• "as apparently had one of Laura Waugh's cows" perhaps, "and said that so had one of Laura Waugh's cows"

• That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments, presumably made from on board ship? I hope you are not hearing voices...? I have amended as described above, and also done the minor fixes, except for the reference to Laura's cow which I feel is best left. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Publication date of the U.S. edition

Page 28 of the May 9, 1957 New York Times has this paragraph, along with other similar notes, under the heading "Books--Authors": "Evelyn Waugh's new novel, 'The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold,' will be published Aug. 12 by Little, Brown. The subject is 'a brief bout of hallucination' the author suffered three years ago."

The NY Times reviews were rather negative. The reviews are by Gerald Sykes and Orville Prescott; they appeared on August 11 and 12, 1957. Brian, if you're interested, email me and I'll reply with copies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Narcissus washstand

I have not read the novel, something I must rectify, but I have always understood that Waugh makes reference in it to the Narcissus washstand, a piece of furniture by William Burges, which Waugh owned. Perhaps worth a mention, if accurate? KJP1 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A very fine article

A monument to Brian Boulton's work on Wikipedia. Thank you. Spicemix (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

A very good article, some changes made

This was a very good article, but I have made some tweaks to the plot/background summaries:

1) As written, it sounded as if Pinfold rejected the diagnosis of his hallucinations given by Dr Drake, which is not quite accurate. I have rephrased.

2) Added reference and tweaked wording to clarify that EW/GP were suffering from Bromism (in article lead, was already clear in body).

3) Margaret and Goneril's voices fade and disappear when Mrs Pinfold convinces him the voices are imaginary. Tweaked wording again. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I did discuss on the talk page, as you would have seen if you checked. Furthermore:

1) There's nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "however". See https://books.google.com/books?id=S-Q8Lr1p70UC&pg=PT94 See the sentence starting with "In my arsenal of experts..."

2) Why remove the narcissus washstand information? sourced, and someone on talk page had already suggested it be in there.

3) Lots of the plot was simply wrong. For instance, Pinfold does not leave the ship "fearing for his life", he says, "I've seen through them. All they have done is to stop my working. So I am leaving them." p. 137 my edition. Read the book before reverting my edits. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

NPalgan2, you have made a string of changes to the article, some of which may be worth including (after discussion), but many are not terribly good. Simply to try and edit war your preferred version is not helpful, as I've indicated (with links to the supporting guidelines) on your talk page. I am a little tied up this morning, so would like to deal with some of your points a little later today, but a few quick points to start with before I return:

1. Yes, starting a sentence with "however" is poor, and it certainly should not be present in well-written formal prose.

2. You have added additional references to information already adequately supported. Not only is it not needed (the information is supported enough with just one reference), you have introduced it with inconsistent formatting. As the reference is just not needed, it's easier to remove it all rather than tweak it.

3. You added extraneous material regarding the washstand – the history of it being a present from Betjeman is not encyclopedic enough to appear in the main body. There may be an argument to include it in a footnote, but I think that may still be too far (although third party readers may disagree)

4. Your changes to the lead have added a great deal of detail which isn't needed. The lead is a summary, not a repetition.

I will pick up on some of your other points a little later. – The Bounder (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I see I am dealing with an editor who feels it must be 'his way or the highway' and is prepared to edit war to force in his version, regardless of the opinions of others. I have no wish to continue discussing the matter when the behaviour levels are so poor as to ignore all protocol and etiquette and simple continue to edit war. Well done for driving away another editor simply so you can "win" your little game. - The Bounder (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• 1) I have moved 'however', if you want it that way.
• 2) I used wikipedia's automatic citation generator for the Eade reference. The Hastings book is not on google books. I tweaked the wording to follow the Eade reference, and added the cite for WP:V. As for 'inconsistent formatting', there is nothing in wikipedia policy to make WP:CITESHORT compulsory.
• 3) Two editors - KJP1 and I - supported the washstand mention, which you removed without explanation. There're plenty of RSs that support a mention. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=washstand+gilbert+pinfold&tbm=bks
• 4) My edits to lead actually shortened it by 26 characters, and corrected some errors.
• 5) You are the one whose behaviour has been impolite. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20141104043834/http://bridesheadcastle.tumblr.com/post/4524122474/fan-fare-an-nswer-to-the-ladies-all-over-the-u-s-a to http://bridesheadcastle.tumblr.com/post/4524122474/fan-fare-an-nswer-to-the-ladies-all-over-the-u-s-a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)