Talk:Cakes and Ale
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Herbmuell in topic A Satire of Thomas Hardy?
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
A Satire of Thomas Hardy? edit
In the introduction to the edition I have read, W. Somerset Maugham states convincingly that this book is NOT a satire of Thomas Hardy. What the general opinion of this is, I don't know. 84.64.168.110 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Too bad about the plot summary. After third grade we would have had a plot summary returned to us. --Wetman 03:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- What plot summary? What are you talking about? W. Somerset Maugham, the author in his introduction (do you know the difference between an introduction and a plot summary?) to this book explicitly states that it has nothing to do with Thomas Hardy - so either it does not have anything to do with Thomas Hardy, or he is lying. Since the introduction came out many years after the controversy regarding the link to Hardy had become irrelevant, I'm not sure of his motivation for lying. Anyway, it is certainly worth mentioning the author's own opinion on the matter in this article, rather than some anonymous unreferenced and probably incorrect opinion. 91.105.199.66 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, I would not consider this a satire of Thomas Hardy--however, it could rightfully be called a satire of Hugh Walpole, who comes across as the busy-body literary figure in search of a reputation in this novel. I find plot summaries helpful, notwithstanding my long progression past third grade. Jmhuculak 16:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Maugham eventually admitted that Kear was based partly on Walpole - after years of denying it. 86.183.121.248 (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- In the novel, Driffield married his secretary, and so did Thomas Hardy (and both were the second marriages). But that's about all the similarity between the fictitious person (Driffield) and the real person (Hardy) that I can see. The general consent here seems to be that the sentence "The novel contains thinly veiled and unflattering characterizations of the authors Thomas Hardy (...) and Hugh Walpole (...)" is unfounded regarding Hardy. Also, the statement is not referenced. I will now edit the article accordingly. --Herbmuell (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)