Talk:The Castle of Otranto

Discusssion

I have turned this into a microstub. The book itself is important because it is one of the earliest examples of the Gothic novel. Danny 22:30, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the book spelled "Ontronto", including in this article in the New York Review of Books. While it seems that "Ontranto" is what is used most commonly, does anyone know if the other spelling is legitimate? kerim 22:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Otranto (with an "a," no "n") is standard. There is a real place called Otranto (Walpole got the name by looking at a map), even a castle there (though he didn't know that). Zafiroblue05 00:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The book was apparently turned into a play in 1793. It is listed as one of the plays available as topics for my Theater History class. I cannot find any other information available on the play version, despite repeated searches with all variants of search terms I can think of. The date, however, is different from the publishing date for the book, so I think it's legitimate. My professor is trying to find the information she had on it for me. (unregistered user) 71.80.32.10 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

contents

how do i move the contents to the top of the page?

is this looking better?

Should we not include that Walpole first claimed this story an italian work and himself only as the translator,in fear of mis-succes (in the firt and second introduction) New Babylon

The absurdity of the box

This novel is in public domain and is published by half a dozen companies. Therefore, there is not "a publisher." The novel box was an absurdity: It was not published in 1764 by Penguin. Not only did Penguin not exist, I'm not sure English scientists had even discovered penguins themselves, and it did not have a cover illustration by a man who had not yet come to England, and it did not have an ISBN before the system existed, nor an UPC before that had been invented, etc. In other words, this application of a box is, like the novel itself, either very funny or very scary. Geogre 10:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Thank you. Yet more indiscriminate mayhem caused by these miserable boxes. Moreschi ^Talk 11:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This raises a point that I had previously mentioned on one of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels pages: the infobox works well for recently published works, where there is a clear date of first publication, and the novel is only available from a single publisher per country or language. For older works, the infobox doesn't work well, because of the (possibly) unknown date of first publication, the availability of the novel from multiple sources, and the existence of multiple reprints per company. --Kyoko 20:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The general point of application, I would suppose, is something that the "opponents" of boxes like I have been saying for a while (sorry about that syntax): where a subject has reliable, common points of importance, a template or box can be useful. In the case of a plant, for example, one might well say that scientific name, taxonomy, and toxicity would be points of importance for all plants, and therefore a taxonomy or template with those fields would be (and is) useful. However, even when a subject is generally predictable (a plant), one has to select only the features that would be predictably important to all members. "Number of lobes of leaf" might seem really important to the people doing oak trees and ferns, but I doubt the pine tree people would agree.

So, in the case of novels, we have to ask if novels have any irreducible and entirely predictable points of interest. I would say that they simply do not. Even a field like "author" is not reliably important. (Look at the number of volumes written by "Anonymous.") If even something that elementary isn't an universal, what hope of "publisher" and "edition" and "best seller list weeks?" However, even if we were to say that there were universal features of importance for novels (heaven forbid something as vague as "books"), ISBN, publisher, and paper/plastic/hard cover distinctions are hopelessly naive attributes to pick. Putting an image of the current cover is even worse, as, in the cases of public domain and old texts, it amounts to preferential treatment for a single publisher (and therefore a baby step toward advertising). Geogre 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would like, you can mention your concerns at the Novels WikiProject. I'm not sure which of their talk pages would be most appropriate. --Kyoko 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For myself alone, I will say that I have never had a dispute with the people at the Novels project, as they have said from the beginning that boxes are optional and that an article with active editors who reject the box have right of way. The biography people are a bit more insistent. I write a lot of hagiographies. They seem easy and automatic, so I will write a saint's life a day, sometimes. The Saints project likes infoboxes. I don't think the boxes are terribly wonderful, but I never get in the way, there, as most saints almost are reduced to the level of a series of attributes already by religious practice, and there is usually so little known about the saints that being reductive isn't possible. In other words, there are times when even I won't object, but I do rankle at the idea of "all articles on X must," because "all" is a very bad word to use when dealing with human beings. Geogre 20:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there possibly an original publisher from all those years ago that could be named in an infobox? I always thought infoboxes go with the first print, so it's possible the publisher of the first imprint may be tracked down. LuciferMorgan 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I thiknk LuciferMorgan is correct, that the first publisher is favoured for the infobox. I don't personally care either way with the boxes for novels, meaning that their presence doesn't offend me, but I might not be motivated to put one myself. It's been interesting to see the dispute between members of the biography project and the classical music/opera projects about whether boxes should be used. Many articles on Wikipedia fall under the scope of multiple projects, each with their own ideas of what is proper. --Kyoko 00:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable ignorance, there, suggesting an "original publisher." Please, please, please, people, take some time to find out before you insist. Is it worth breaking the truth, the form, and meaning in order to satisfy one idiotbox's demands? Oh, people could ask when copyright was codified. They could ask when publishers developed from booksellers. They could, if very energetic, read our articles on these subjects. None of that, apparently, occurs. Instead, "Box want publisher. Box A#1 OK. Authors enemy. Authors die. Box must be happy." The only thing more amazing than the question is Lucifer Morgan's sudden interest in an article he's never seen before. I believe the term for that is "trolling." Geogre 02:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, you have a good point that in many cases, there would be no original publisher. Take for example The Tale of Genji, or the Iliad. Works that were first published in serial form also complicate the issue. I would however be more willing to assume good faith on LuciferMorgan's part. It is quite conceivable that he or she may have stumbled upon this article by looking at recent changes. For my part, I have it on my watchlist because of a general interest in Gothic fiction, and in particular, Ann Radcliffe. Like I said before, I don't personally care either way regarding novel infoboxes. --Kyoko 02:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)