| Revision as of 04:06, 4 August 2008 editCollegebookworm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers2,011 edits dyk? appearance← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:20, 4 August 2008 edit undoGeogre (talk | contribs)25,257 edits →What the heck?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| The Dublin printers had bribed Richardson's press-workers to acquire copies of the novel before it had been published at all. According to a footnote in the selected letters, "Richardson published the first four volumes duodecimo and octavo simultaneously on 13 November 1753" (243). I've edited it accordingly -- but I don't have all the necessary sources right now, so it's going to be sketchy. ] (]) 11:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | The Dublin printers had bribed Richardson's press-workers to acquire copies of the novel before it had been published at all. According to a footnote in the selected letters, "Richardson published the first four volumes duodecimo and octavo simultaneously on 13 November 1753" (243). I've edited it accordingly -- but I don't have all the necessary sources right now, so it's going to be sketchy. ] (]) 11:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == What the heck? == | |||
| "_note-Sabor_p._149-13" | |||
| So, that's Sabor in the ''CCEL,'' pages 149 to 113? Isn't that something from backward-world? Further, I checked that reference because it seemed highly screwy that Peter Sabor would say that Richardson thought Fielding had had a vicious character rewarded in ''Amelia.'' There is no vicious character in that novel. In fact, like Grandison, it's boring because everyone is angelic. This seems to me to be either a vast mistake on Sabor's part or a very bad citation. Whoever put that note in needs to: | |||
| #Correct its format | |||
| #Either drop the reference to ''Amelia'' or explain it exactly as Sabor does. | |||
| Otherwise, it really looks suspicious, jarring, and unreliable. ] (]) 16:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:20, 4 August 2008
 | Novels B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from The History of Sir Charles Grandison appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 August 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/August. |  |
Publication history was incorrect
I don't know the exact details, but the Dublin piracy occurred before any legitimate printing of the book, and no legitimate printing of the book occurred before November 1753. See the _Selected Letters_ ed. John Carroll, p242 for a letter to Lady Bradshaigh, 5 Oct 1753, in which Richardson states "The Reason why I hasten not the Publication is two-fold; one is, it is not an advisable time; the Town empty... The other is, that should I publish it complete, I should give the Irish Rapparees an Opportunity to complete their Edition from mine; whereas now, I think, they cannot have more than three or four Shts. of Vol. VI and about half of Vol. VII (for I stopt, as soon as I was apprized of the Villainy)..."
The Dublin printers had bribed Richardson's press-workers to acquire copies of the novel before it had been published at all. According to a footnote in the selected letters, "Richardson published the first four volumes duodecimo and octavo simultaneously on 13 November 1753" (243). I've edited it accordingly -- but I don't have all the necessary sources right now, so it's going to be sketchy. Solemnavalanche (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
What the heck?
"_note-Sabor_p._149-13"
So, that's Sabor in the CCEL, pages 149 to 113? Isn't that something from backward-world? Further, I checked that reference because it seemed highly screwy that Peter Sabor would say that Richardson thought Fielding had had a vicious character rewarded in Amelia. There is no vicious character in that novel. In fact, like Grandison, it's boring because everyone is angelic. This seems to me to be either a vast mistake on Sabor's part or a very bad citation. Whoever put that note in needs to:
- Correct its format
- Either drop the reference to Amelia or explain it exactly as Sabor does.
Otherwise, it really looks suspicious, jarring, and unreliable. Geogre (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Categories: