Talk:Zelda Fitzgerald
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] early comments
Plagiarism, Scott, Etc.
Why is there no mention of the passages which Scott lifted verbatim from her letters to him and her private diary to use in "his own" short stories as well as Tender Is The Night? The Collected Writings of Zelda Fitzgerald provides numerous examples of his plagiarism of her writings as well as an article she wrote which playfully chastises him for stealing from her. There is, also, no mention of how he forced her to re-edit her novel under the threat of endless confinement to institutions because he feared that since Tender & Save Me The Watlz covered the same territory and he was stealing her writing that he would be found out and lose sales. Also, there ought to be more mention devoted to her painting.
Hi,
Where the hell does someone get the factoid of "Legend of Zelda" is named after Zelda Fitzgerald?
Thanks!!!11111111oneone
I don't have a source at hand, but I do remember that it was actually a direct answer from Miyamoto in an interview. The Japanese have a habit of using English words and names from more or less esoteric sources in their games, manga, and anime.--Lord Shitzu 17:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
-
- It's now explained in a footnote.Sfahey 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zelda
read more...try Scott Fitzgerald's stories...she was more than just a wife of a famous novelist. She loved Berneice Bobs Her Hair and A Diamond As Big as the Ritz....
[edit] "DON'T LISTEN TO THIS"
There is a very large "DON'T LISTEN TO THIS:" right before the body of the biography section. I realize there may be some sort of tone discretion, but is there some larger reason for this? It is rather imposing.
[edit] adverbially excessively excessive?
I raised the neutrality question on the basis of what appears to be decisions by the bio writer to put down assumptions about the subject's state of mind, which is not necessarily supported by record and reflects on the biographer rather than the subject. It is not "obvious" that Zelda was jealous, or for that matter, it IS curious what she says about Hemingway, but I'm not sure that critical curiosity needs to be explored in an encyclopedia entry. Excerpted phrases that read like bias are below:
"For the most part, Zelda's dislike for Hemingway was obviously due to jealousy
"But it is fascinating in retrospect to reflect on Zelda's estimation of Hemingway's character"
"It is also curious"
"But Scott was totally dismissive of his wife's desire to become a professional dancer, considering it a waste of time."
"Ironically, much of the conflict between them stemmed from the boredom and isolation Zelda experienced when Scott was writing"
"Zelda evidently had a deep desire to develop a talent that was entirely her own, no doubt a reaction to Scott's fame and success as a writer."
The article itself is interesting, but not necessarily useful as an encyclopedia entry.
-
- Interestingly, I just stumbled upon this article (after reading "Beautiful and Damned" and wanting to read about the real "Gloria") and unknowingly I have altered most all the valid stylistic errors you point out. I am going to remove the label from the article now. Sfahey 22:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] using first names?
in the context of the novel, is it proper to use "zelda" and "scott" alone? isn't it normally the last name? -brian
- in the context of the novel? Sfahey 01:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since they have the same last name (being married and everything), I think it makes sense to differentiate within the article between Scott and Zelda using their given names. But what do you mean by the context of the novel?
[edit] Cleanup
It's good that this article has some sources, but the two books need to have page numbers for specific passages. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia
I've been bold and removed the trivia section. I will eventually work to re-add some of these items. I'll leave them here for now. --JayHenry (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nintendo's popular video game series The Legend of Zelda, first released in 1986, and the recurring major character Princess Zelda of Hyrule, was named after Zelda Fitzgerald by creator Shigeru Miyamoto.[1].
- The Japanese all-girl rock band Zelda also named themselves in admiration of Zelda Fitzgerald.
- In Montgomery, Alabama, there is a small museum devoted to Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald. It is inside a home they rented in the 1930s. Holds a few one of a kind items, including paintings by Zelda.
- In the episode Lady Bouvier's Lover of the television cartoon series The Simpsons Mrs Bouvier claims that Zelda Fitzgerald was a friend of hers when she was young. Also, in the episode A Star is Born-Again, Ned Flanders gets a date with a mysterious woman who tells him to go to her hotel and "ask for Zelda Fitzgerald". Flanders recognizes this as a "pseu-diddly-eudonym".
- In Manhattan, a Woody Allen film, Woody Allen's character confronts his life long friend for cheating on his wife Emily only to steal Woody Allen's indecisive and somewhat unstable girlfriend (played by Diane Keaton), "What are you telling me, that you're...you're...you're gonna leave Emily, is this true? And, and run away with the, the, the winner of the Zelda Fitzgerald emotional maturity award?
[edit] Note to GA reviewer
I know there are still some rough spots here, but I have these biographies handy, and prose issues can be worked out quickly. I intend to be very actively working to address whatever is raised here and look forward to close review. --JayHenry (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
This is a decent article that needs a little more work. My chief problem is that some sections, especially "Marriage", and to a slightly lesser extent "Remaining years", are over-detailed and too long. The nature of the Fitzgerald marriage could be absolutely clear if that section were half its present length.
- Having read your rationale below, I think the "core of her notability" argument is possibly debatable (especially among some feminists), but that isn't the issue here. I can accept that if the article is written from that perspective, then the length and detail in the Marriage section are justified. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Other points:
- Some of your language is unencyclopedic, e.g. "kicked out" (of the Biltmore) – which becomes "ejected" in the image caption; "boozing"; and, in a different way, "inseparably, incautiously in love", unless it is a cited quote. Some of the more magaziney bits will perhaps disappear when you edit down the overlong sections.
-
- I took a whack at these: "kicked out" to "ordered to leave"; "boozing" to "high-life". I left "inseparably, incautiously in love" alone, since I think it's okay. A little poetic, but not obtusely so. – Scartol • Tok 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- There is still some colorful language, which is suggestive of a magazine feature rather than an encyclopedia article. The "young, rich, beautiful and wild" description in the lead is inappropriate, and the "inseparably, incautiously in love" may or may not be "poetic", but is definitely non-encyclopedic. Both really ought to go. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I rephrased the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead; hopefully it alleviates the concern. I also changed "inseparably, incautiously in love" to "passionately inseparable". Insofar as I agreed to copyedit the article, I feel an obligation to help correct the wording. I hope these versions will be more agreeable. – Scartol • Tok 15:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Some parts of the article are rather light on citations. Two examples: the first sentences of the last paragraph of the "F Scott Fitzgerald" section contain several assertions. And in "Obsession and illness" you have the sentence "...she obsessively insisted on gruelling daily practice (up to eight hours per day) that contributed to her subsequent physical and mental exhaustion." This requires citation, or it reads like opinion. (These are examples of under-referencing - there may be other instances).
-
- I feel like I'm butting in, but I would say that I was under the assumption in each of the cases above that the citation which eventually appears later in these paragraphs covers all of the information before it. – Scartol • Tok 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- We're dealing with sources that are chronological biographies and an article that's a chronological biography. If you have the sources you can easily find my claims from the footnotes as provided. If there are more statements you feel are 'likely to be challenged' within the cited paragraphs, I'm willing to do this to any that you identify. I'm not willing to smack a citation at the end of every sentence willy-nilly as doing so is unrelated to article improvement. --JayHenry (talk)
-
- I note that you have added some citations. Could you look at the first para of the Save Me the Waltz section, which has no citations at all, despite its vivid descriptions of Scott's reactions. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The second paragraph of the modern culture section reads like trivia, and I strongly advise its removal.
-
- I tried to remove this section although another editor re-added. This was an attempt at compromise. I will say this is a major Woody Allen film and one of the best selling video game series of all time. --JayHenry (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't want to provoke an edit war, so leave it, but you may have further trouble at FAC re wikipedia policy on trivia. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Someone born in 1900 cannot really be described as "growing up at the turn of the century".
-
- It actually reads "growing up around the turn of the century", which I feel is a fair characterization. – Scartol • Tok 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- No, it's just inaccurate. "Growing up" doesn't normally refer to infancy and early childhood, but to the onset of adolescence. But I see it's been changed.Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- There’s some awkward phrasing at the beginning of the Marriage section, probably to do with having "quickly accepted for publication" and "urging for quick publication" on successive lines. Suggest some rewording.
- I noticed a few typos and punctuation errors, which I’ve not fixed since I think some will disappear if you reduce the text. I'll check 'em again later.
-
- I expect I repaired many of these in the course of my copyedit. If not, please let me know where they're found and I'll strike 'em down like Garion in Gar og Nadrak. – Scartol • Tok 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've had another run-through, and picked up a few strays:-
-
- The word "absorbed" occurs twice in quick succession, in the first two lines of the Expatriates section
- That's deliberate parallel structure. --JayHenry (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I went ahead and changed it. If it seemed clumsy that's reason enough to rewrite, even if deliberate.
- In the same section, "In April, back in Paris..." really needs a year, to remind us where we are.
- Same section, same para: Typo "tat" (that).
- Same section, Lost Generation already linked.
- This is a good link. Following the guidance of the final bullet of the relevant section of the manual of style. --JayHenry (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remaining years section: could do with with a few more dates, or at least years, e.g. for Scottie's acceptance to Vassar, Scott's break-up with Graham, the Cuba visit.
- I've added. Let me know if there's other points where the timeline needs to be clearer. --JayHenry (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same section, superfluous comma after "merely as" (line 3)
- Same section, "unbeknownst" is quaint and mannered, even in British English. Is it used commonly in American English?
- You have listed your citations under "Footnotes". Just "Notes" (per wikipedia guidelines) might be better as footnotes generally suggests text as well as page numbers.
- Oof, I didn't realize that. I've probably done this on a lot of articles. --JayHenry (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Double citation 88 & 89 - is this really necessary? 89 refers to the hospital's website, which I don't imagine adds much, relative to Zelda's death, that isn't in your main source. The hospital link could go in External links.
- Moved the National Register of Historic Places to the external links. --JayHenry (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty certain that is all.
Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As it stands the article meets most GA criteria, and a bit of polishing on the above lines should secure its GA status. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Further comment from GA reviewer
The above responses are not from the article's main editor. Do they represent the settled editorial policy for the article? I'd like to know before I comment further. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's no "settled editorial policy" for this article. Scartol is extremely experienced with literature FA and GAs, however, so I do think his perspective matters. I encourage you to discuss his points, as I certainly don't own the article.
- Nobody owns a wikipedia article, but your comment posted 19 April made me want to hear from you. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I will say I'm reluctant to cut either of the sections. Zelda Fitzgerald is primarily known for her marriage and so cutting this section, which is the core of her notability, doesn't seem to me to be related to the GA criteria. As an empirical matter, her book sold 2000 copies. This article is here because of her marriage. The remaining years section condenses 18 years of her life into 9 paragraphs and I've already worked pretty hard to keep this concise. The whole article is a brisk 35K for arguably the most important and interesting literary spouse of the 20th century. I can't tell, do you object to specific content in these sections, or do you just want the sections to all be the same length? If so, I could subdivide marriage with mother hood and remaining years into the decade before and decade after Scott's death? --JayHenry (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, don't do that. See my additional comments in main GA review, above. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Brian, thanks again for your review. I hope my earlier comments didn't seem combative--I always worry I come across that way at first in these reviews. As an aside, I remember that I enjoyed reading the Ross Sea party article earlier this year, and I'm delighted to have met the person behind such fine work. I find it reassuring that there are always good editors to meet around every corner on Wiki. I'm hoping to get to the rest of yours and Scartol's points tomorrow (Saturday on the US coast) -- I didn't expect to be away from my computer all day today. Thanks for your patience. --JayHenry (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Final GA review comments
This review is complete and I'm entirely satisfied with the responses to my suggestions (I don't expect to win 'em all, and a few robust exchanges are harmless and stimulating). The article is certainly worthy of GA status, and I will do the honours on WP:GAN now. I will also post a summary review here, but that will be done tomorrow as it's past midnight UK time and I want to go to bed.
I was drawn to review this article because I had recently read Tender is the Night for the first time (OK, what have I been doing with my life?) and was keen to learn more about the Fitzgeralds. Incidentally, the wikipedia article Tender is the Night is substandard and ought to be improved.
Congratulations, and good luck to the editors if they take this article further. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comments from Scartol
Wow, I couldn't disagree more about trim-ability in the GA review above. I found the article engaging, detailed, and highly readable. I made many copyedits as I went (hopefully those alleviated some of the concerns in said review), and my additional questions and thoughts are below. I was actually thinking I'd like to have some more details in "Marriage" and "Remaining years", especially since those sections subsume the topics of motherhood and her second novel, respectively.
Of course it's not my GA review, so I'll just say that I enjoyed the article very much and while I generally feel that every paragraph is best ended with a citation, I think 84 for an article of this length is quite sufficient. Also, I like the second paragraph of the "modern culture" section; they're pretty significant references. (Especially the video game.)
Here are my comments made as I was copyediting:
Lead
- young, rich, beautiful and wild – this feels like POV or OR to me. I know it's describing the age, but it seems like we ought to say it more neutrally somehow.
- ...Scott embarked for Hollywood... I always think of people embarking on or upon things. How about "set out for Hollywood" or just "went to Hollywood"?
Family and early life
- I'm used to seeing the date of birth in the first part of the biography. I know it's in the lead, but shouldn't we have it at the start of the body too? The same goes for the city of her birth.
- Southern women were expected to be delicate, docile and accommodating; Zelda was anything but. I like this, but I expect someone at FAC may give you grief about the "non-encyclopedic" tone.
F. Scott Fitzgerald
- Should we attribute the sketch of Scott to its artist in the caption? (Seems to be standard practice.)
- At the conclusion of This Side of Paradise, when the protagonist Amory Blaine I assume something got cut off here?
Marriage
- I love the quote about favorite recipes.
- I assume it's believed that she aborted the second child, but that's not explicitly stated in the article. I think it should be. (Or did she miscarry?)
-
- Actually, all that's known is what I printed. It's known she became pregnant. It's known Scott wrote Zelda and the abortionist in his ledger. It's known she did not have a baby. Neither of them ever spoke of it otherwise. Perhaps I should make this clearer somehow? --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- In some spots, "Fitzgerald" becomes short for "F. Scott Fitzgerald", as in the sentence: Hemingway and Fitzgerald became firm friends, but Zelda and Hemingway disliked each other from their very first meeting... This confuses me, since I usually associate last-name-only references with the subject of the article. Am I crazy, or should we use "Scott" whenever he's the referent?
-
- A mistake, yeah. I tried to avoid this. All the F. Scott Fitzgerald biographies call them Fitzgerald and Zelda. All the Zelda Fitzgerald biographies call them Scott and Zelda. I tried to always follow the latter convention, but got mixed up in a few spots. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Save Me the Waltz
- Can we get a citation for his charges of "plagiarist" and "third-rate writer"?
-
- Oops, I wrote Save Me the Waltz first and got sloppy transitioning a condensed version over here. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Remaining years
- (it was not reciprocal as it often is in Smarriages) Am I correct in assuming "Smarriages" is a typo? Or should we have a [sic] after it?
- After a drunken and violent fight with Graham, Scott returned to Asheville. A group from Zelda's hospital had planned to go down, but Zelda had missed the trip. The Fitzgeralds decided to go on their own. I'm confused. Where did they go? Is something missing here?
- So that's where Zelda got her name from! Man, I loved that game.
Good luck with this, JH! – Scartol • Tok 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Summary review
The main issues raised and resolved during the review were:-
- Possible over-detail in Marriage section (editors' defence accepted)
- Use of non-encyclopedic language (resolved by various wordings changes)
- Under-referencing in some parts (resolved)
The remaining points were of a relatively minor nature and were all dealt with.
In relation to the six GA criteria the article can be summarised as follows:-
-
- Well written: Clear prose, grammar etc. first class, good lead and article structure. Pass
- Accurate and verifiable: Good sources, comprehensive citations. Pass
- Breadth: Full coverage of subject, cradle to grave. Pass
- Neutral: No POV violations spotted. Pass
- Stable: Pass
- Images: The article is imaginatively illustrated, and all images are PD. Pass
Brianboulton (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

