Talk:Right Ho, Jeeves

Year of first publication

The article says the book was published in 1934, but the Project Gutenberg edition says 1922. Which is right? 8.18.145.229 (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like someone might have been gaming Gutenberg - all the sources have this down as 1934, but as I understand it anything published before '23 is 'open source' and free of copyright - could someone have tweaked the date to make it look like it was old enough to give away free? JohnnyZen (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like Project Gutenberg is right. I've found some evidences about 1922 first edition of this book by Herbert Jenkins Limited Publisher. For example, Digital Library of India has published a 1958 Herbert Jenkins edition where it is clearly specified that the first edition was in the year 1922 ( Check it here: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.187930 ). Other further editions also specify it as well ( Check another example here: https://archive.org/details/RightHoJeeves ). On the other hand, if we look at the cover of the book, we see that it corresponds aesthetically with books published by the same publisher in years coming to 1922 ( Example 1, example 2, example 3 ). The origin of the problem seems to lie in the fact that the first edition of the book was published WITH NO DATE ( Here you can see a detailed example: First edition for sale with detailed images), then the owners of the books are taking the information of Wikipedia as true and attribute to their books a date that is not certain. It seems that these evidences should be sufficient to consider that the first edition of the book was really in the year 1922. If the own publisher Herbert Jenkins says so, we must believe it. --AngelSanz1977 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WorldCat shows 1934, and the discussion in this article compares the prior novel, published in the same year, with Right Ho, Jeeves, noting that after this novel, Wooster stopped challenging Jeeves as he did in this novel. The link posted by AngelSanz1977 above does not show anything now. A first edition for sale today on Abe Books does show an interior page of the book with year of publication as MCMXXXIV, or 1934. The other thing that might make it certain is to look at the books already published by Wodehouse, a page at the back of the first edition; he did not have as many published by 1922 as by 1934. The link is here, click on the other images below the image of the dust jacket (selling at 7 and 6 back then) to see the interior page with the year. My link has a short life as the book might be sold, even with its asking price over 2,200 pounds. Using the artistic style of the dust jackets to judge the year of publication seems dubious at best. Why Project Gutenberg shows 1922 and the Indian published book said 1921, I have no idea, JohnnyZen. My understanding of the copyright law is not that good. Wikisource indicates before 1924, and mentions death of the author plus 30 years, and that date has passed. Perhaps the MacIlvaine book will settle the year of publication, though that book is in a few university libraries from what I can see on WorldCat. Can anyone get a look at that book? Wikisource shows 1934 for this novel, here. The year of publication seems an important fact on which Wikipedia editors might agree. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This source mentions that Right Ho, Jeeves has been in the public domain prior to January 2, 2019, but does not explain why. That article is here. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I have the McIlvaine book in front of me, and it says that, in the United States, Right Ho, Jeeves was first published in 1934, under the title Brinkley Manor. It appears that Wodehouse might have forgotten to renew this book's copyright in the US; this would explain why the book is in the public domain (in the US), according to this article here. Miles26 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Miles26, I think that settles it, the year of publication is 1934. The reviews from London and from New York were written in the same month in 1934, so publication was nearly the same date in the US and the UK. Thank you for finding that explanation of why this novel is not under copyright; the copyright was not renewed in a timely fashion under US law. I will consider that Project Gutenberg and that copy later printed in India have errors on the year of initial publication, and this article is correct to say 1934. Thank you! --Prairieplant (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Plot summary

Even my revised plot summary runs a little long, but then, Wodehouse is often said to have written intricate and involved plots. They're difficult to summarize effectively. Dgcuff (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the plot summary is a bit long, but for completeness it MUST include the fact that after Madeline breaks her new engagement to Gussie following his disgraceful performance presenting the prizes, she resolves to marry Bertie instead, whose personal code will not permit him to refuse her after having seemed to propose to her. The terrifying prospect of being married to the drippy Madeline gives Bertie a personal stake in the outcome of the issues--he's not just trying to help others anymore, now HE'S in the soup.

The plot summary should also include Bertie's annoyance at the beginning of the book with everyone thinking Jeeves is smarter than Bertie, and his order that Jeeves offer no more advice, together with his reconciliation to his dependence on Jeeves' intelligence at the end of the book--this is an essential element of the story. It should also include a brief mention of Tuppy's attempt to catch Gussie and beat him up. I've tried to make up for the additional material by shortening the existing summary, but as the editor above said, Wodehouse's plots are EXTREMELY complicated and difficult to summarize briefly without leaving out essential plot-elements. Even as I have left it, it still leaves out important sub-plots, such as Bertie's attempt to reconcile Angela and Tuppy by insulting Tuppy in Angela's presence (hoping to arouse her motherly, protective instincts) and Tuppy's subsequent attempt to beat Bertie up. And, the entire episode of the steak-and-kidney pie, easily one of the funniest parts of the book, is left out of the plot summary as it currently stands Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As it stands today Goblinshark17, the Plot summary is within the guidelines for length from Wikipedia, and to me it seems to cover the main plot points. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Better than start class?

With its long list of references, might this article be better than start class? --Prairieplant (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)