Talk:The Historian/Archive 1

Reasons for edits

Reasons for edits:

I changed the name of the main narrator to Elsie, as opposed to Elise as it was originally printed. Her name is seen on pg. 625 in the line: ""Oh, Elsie," said a broken English voice." From what I remember, this is the only time her name is printed in the book.

Surely the reason he says "Oh, Elsie" is that this was the name of his fiancee who he had finally avenged? I'm really not convinced that this is the name of the narrator, so I'm going to remove the reference. Vikingwoman2 (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I also added a spoiler warning to the Background and Motifs section since there are some things discussed that give away certain aspects of the plot. I know if I was reading the novel and had some of those things spoiled for me I would be upset. -- Jberg88 14:19, 22 October 2005

Please note the reasons I made the following changes:

1. The quote from the gypsy about killing Jews is written with the idea of capturing the speaker's Scottish accent. I removed this attempt at dialect to make the passage readable. If anyone feels that these misspellings must be restored to make it accurate, go ahead and do so, although I will not accept responsibility for the result.

2. I deleted much of the text in the stub after finding (to put it politely) that much of this text can be found, word-for-word, in already-published reviews of the book.

--L. 15:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about the name of the narrator in this book and I thought maybe, Elizabeth Kostova herself is the main character in this story. Please tell me what you think! --Northernn 20:21, 21 November 2005

I don't think that the name "Elsie" is the narrator's as it was said out by Master James,an old friend of Paul and also a historian, at the very end of the novel while he was dying.As you see,people cry out their beloved ones' names,but not the old friends' daughters' before they die.That could be Master James' lover or wife or somebody very close to him.

I agree with the previous comment regarding the name "Elsie." Master James called out "Elsie" at the end as a reference to his former love, Elspeth, mentioned earlier in the novel. Elsie was his fiancee; their relationship ended sadly after her car accident in England when she saw an apparition and swerved. This story was told to the male protagonist. --Mpagano 99 18:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the bit about Helen's disease probably being AIDS, which was founded on nothing in the book. I still do not agree with the general statement about Helen's death though, as in the book it just says "I could not know then that she would also drift from us at times, not speaking for hours, fingering her neck, or that a wasting illness would take her for good nine years later". The matters of the vampiric bites and the illness of Helen is not shown to be related here. It could be a non-blood related wasting illness, such as cancer. The are no grounds to assume otherwise, as far as I can tell.

Other issues that I don't know what to change into:

-The comment about the narrator's storyline: she is 16 years old when she starts travelling with her father and hears his story, but two years have passed before her father disappears and she goes to look for him with Stephen Barley (which is set in 1974)

-In the plotline section, it says that Helen disappeared after showing signs of vampirism. However, she did not do such a thing: she cried a lot, wouldn't talk to Paul about what was bothering her and was generally more disconnected from her world; symptoms of depression rather than vampirism, I think.

-Again in the plotline section, it says that Dracula's tomb and library were constantly moved around. The passage in the book that this was probably based on, though, has Dracula saying the tomb in Sventi Georgi is his favourite, suggesting that he has more than one at the same time, not one he moves around. Next to that, the Sventi Georgi one has an elaborate underground chamber to house the library, whereas there is no such indication for the one in the Pyrenees. It seemed to me that the move of the library away from Sventi Georgi was its first move.

-There is mention in the Background and Motifs section of constant reference "to a deadly and horrible terrorist attack on American soil". Where? I read the book and found one reference to a terrorist attack: on one of the last pages. No more. Did I read over all that or is that comment based on a single line in the book? It also says the terrorist attack was by Islamics, which it doesn't say anywhere in the book and that it is near where the narrator holds an academic position, while she is in actual fact there on a conference. ---PA, 6 July 2006

I read the book in Finnish and they had apparently removed all but the last bit about terrorist attacks and lots of other political things too. Is there information about that somewhere and should that be mentioned in the article? Niina, 6 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.195.11 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Historical Inaccuracies

Also somewhere in the book, Paul (I think) is recounting the World Wars and saying how a nation or a people fought against the "Axis in both World Wars." This belies Paul as a Ph.D. historian, as any historian would be historically accurate about such things, especially a historian who lived through the events. I didn't post this in the article because I don't recall exactly where it was, in short <<and ironically>>, I don't have my facts in order! --RedJ 17 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in the 'Historical Inaccuracies'

The statement that Stalin's crimes came to the light only after the 1956 Khrushchov speech misses the truth as it appear to take into consideration only the Western public opinion, poorly informed about the Soviet internal policies and their activities in Central-Eastern Europe during and after WW II. It should be noted that Stalin's crimes do not imply only the famous political cleansing and include a multitude of other crimes, like the Soviet hard labour camps for non-communist population of occupied Poland and Ukraine. As the case refers to a person of Eastern European provenience, it is indeed erroneous to point out the conscience of Stalin's crimes attributed to this character as a anachronism. Therefore, I'm eliminating this paragraph. -- Vampa Vampa (talk), 14 June 2008

Fair use rationale for Image:Historiancover.jpg

Image:Historiancover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Count me in.....

Righty-ho - loved the book. What to do comprehensiveness wise....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to have a section on historical inaccuracies or some other more succinct heading comparing the lore of the book that is presented as factual with actual knowledge of the geography and history of what is covered. I note some reference to a section above which is not in the current version, so I presume it has been removed. It might be prudent to place the removed material here on the talk page so it can be discussed. I think in a novel such as this (and the Da Vinci code) where there is a real sense of plausibility, distinguishing fact from fiction is even more important than usual. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources on that yet, though. I've been through LexisNexis and am now working through Access World News. Where would you look for sources? Awadewit (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to think about that one. I suspect some commentary in a book- or horror-related periodical - tricky as I am aware we cannot just have refs of the actual historical events but need ones on the novel's inaccuracies. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Was there something in the back of the book about what was real and what was made up? I can't find my copy now....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a "Further reading" section put together by Kostova - that's it. Awadewit (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bother. Maybe she did some interviews somewhere in Good Reading or some other book magazien or something...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved text

Here is the retrieved text. Better here than in article as I suspect much will not be able to be sourced and what can be will need an overhaul and rewrite: Casliber (talk · contribs)

The Historian takes certain obvious liberties with the story of Vlad Ţepeş, the historical Dracula, yet it also makes a number of other historical mistakes.

Helen Rossi describes a communist upbringing and a Marxist education, yet communism only came to Hungary in 1948, when Helen would have been eighteen years old. If Helen were a real person, only her college education would have been Marxist.

Paul describes seeing spartan Soviet housing complexes, yet these complexes would not have existed outside Budapest in the early 1950s.

In libraries and archives of the 1950s, you were already not allowed to touch any book or document older than 200 years without protective gloves, etc.

Paul and Helen call Helen's aunt by dialing several numbers from Istanbul to ask for help for travel. In 1950s, it would not have been possible to make a direct phone call to Hungary from Istanbul.

Ottoman official documents, despite various characters' claim in the book, can not have been written in Arabic but would have been written in (Ottoman) Turkish using Arabic script. However, Arabic was often used as a language of record, particularly, but not exclusively, where religious affairs were concerned.

..actually looking at it again I doubt any will be sourceable but you never know.... (I am a hoarder don't you know ;) ) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I found one statement made by the author on this front. Apparently, Kostova was concerned that "some readers might confuse fantasy and reality", so she tried to fictionalize the book a lot, including only one real historical personage and altering the names of geographical locations. Maybe such a section is therefore not really needed, since the novel is (ahem) fictional? :) Awadewit (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe. It does read a bit factlike. I am regretting lending the book to my brother-in-law now as I wish to look at it again...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible, totally awesome article

Do you think we could create an article on vampire killing kit? Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can check my sources tonight (in about 9 hours) to see if it rates a significant mention in two of them. I think the answer is a probable yes. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we do this? I'm dying to have a cool DYK. Like all of the other kids. :) Awadewit (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bother, I knew there was something else I meant to do on teh weekend! Give me a few hours...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

To be able to rewrite the plot summary, I will have to reread the book. I'm doing that now. Awadewit (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started working on the first part of the plot summary. Wow, it's hard. Awadewit (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reads well. Only minor issue is the bulletted bit - ican see why you've done it and I do agree it is a very effiicent way of summarising the plot without going into too much detail (and may be the best way of doing it actually). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't do that - I haven't gotten to that part of the plot summary yet. Much work needs to be done on the summary. Do you remember the novel well enough to help? I'm really struggling with this section. Awadewit (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the things that is not well-reflected yet in the plot summary is the switch between narrators and the use of letters. Awadewit (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I tried writing the plot summary backwards today. That didn't work at all. Now I've messed up the timelines. I'll try to straighten them out in the coming days. Awadewit (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I finally have the basics of the plot summary down. It is too long and not all that well written, but now we finally have a draft to work from. Awadewit (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will have a look later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) am massaging the plot a bit. e.g. Rossi was interred I think in a coffin, but I don't think it was buried as such, so I changed to "interred" as there is no such word as "coffinized". Feel free to revert any bits and pieces you don't feel help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the plot

• Is the person who tampers with the manuscript in Istanbul the "dead" librarian from the states? (231 vs. 266) Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling it is, from what I recall, but I have leant the book to someone (either my brother-in-law or mother..). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is. Awadewit (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything but the plot summary

I've sketched out the article using sources from LexisNexis and Access World News. I focused on articles and reviews published around the time the book was published. I still need to go through Google News and see if I missed anything important. Awadewit (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell, this article has improved greatly. Looks pretty comprehensive too. The only other thing I can think of is maybe reception from dedicated horror, vampire and dracula enthusiasts, how those people feel about this addition to the dracula canon as it were. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea - who are they? Where would I go for that? Awadewit (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me think on it. All that comes to mind right away is the horror magazine Fangoria but there must be others. My mother might haev some ideas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: 1 am here and I need to sleep - did a cursory search and this page has some promising links to what I was thinking of above. Anyway, I am off to sleep so have a look if you want, otherwise I might nose around the links there tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

more links in this Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been through these sources. Unfortunately, I don't think most of them meet our WP:RS policy. I added a bit from one. It also talks about an introduction Kostova wrote for an edition of Dracula. Let's try to find more about that. Awadewit (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I found it (the cover is romantic gothic). Any other mentions of it in secondary sources would be nice. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous feedback

The Historian is founded on Bram Stoker's Dracula, however it is not a horror novel, but rather an eerie tale.

"founded" strikes me as an odd verb to use here. I'd also switch the conjucntions around for flow to: "Although founded on Bram Stoker's Dracula, The Historian is not a horror novel, but rather an eerie tale." Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do change away! Awadewit (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Bram Stoker1.jpg

We need more specific information on this image. Do any of your books have info, Casliber? Awadewit (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I will have a look tonight. I think I have seen that photo before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to self - look this up tonight...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Frustrated. on page 10 of Hollywood Gothic by David J. Skal 1990, there is a photo which is very very similar to this one. B. S. in same clothes and lighting but head is tilted ever so slightly forward to away from the camera, which has been supplied by the Billy Rose Theatre Collection, New York Public Library at Lincoln Centre, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've resolved this issue. Awadewit (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Big sigh of relief. I did get a shock when I looked in the book and thought, "heck! he's moved!" Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's that eerie quality of Victorian photography. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

On the way to GA

• Check Google news for stray sources
• Revise and rework each section

• It is the plot summary that needs all of the work - it needs to be cut down (100-200 words need to be cut) and revised (what should we do with tenses? what are the leaps in logic?)

(i think tenses will scan out with a combination of present, perfect and pluperfect - my latin schooling) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My question was this: Plot summaries are usually written in the literary present, but since we have three timelines, should we write some of those timelines in the past? You seem to suggest yes. Awadewit (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My sense of it, upon recalling the lot as I read the plot summary, would be to have the two later threads in the present (the Paul/Helen one as it is a main thread for a lot of the book I recall), and the third, oldest one in the past (?). I think having that one in the present as well might be stretching it a bit and more confusing for the reader, but I might be wrong. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Copyedit
• Peer review
• Copyedit
• Check images

• I can't find an image of the author

(why not get in contact with her? She might donate one :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not been able to find an address for her. She has specifically kept it private to avoid Goth fans. Would you like to research this some more? Awadewit (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(I suspect that might be her answer on submitting a picture too, will have to think on this.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nominate for GA! Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd just nominate it for GA now I think. I think it reads well, so let's see what an independent set of eyes thinks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Image of author

• There is a rather nice photo on Flickr, but the license is non-commercial. I emailed the photographer and asked them to change the license. No response on that yet. Awadewit (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a start. Flickr response times can be variable....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been a few weeks now. I'm kinda giving up hope. Awadewit (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

O-kay, you might be right in pursuing other avenues..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• We could email Little, Brown, and Co. and ask for a photo. Awadewit (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm emailing them today. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    • They responded by sending a pic without the proper license. I've replied. Awadewit (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • No response. Awadewit (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• We could try and find Kostova's email/mail address and ask her for a photo. Awadewit (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fan address: Elizabeth Kostova c/o Author Mail Little, Brown and Company 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020

• There is a photo here. I have emailed the photographer and asked them to release the rights under GFDL, etc. We'll see what happens. Awadewit (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• No response yet. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• No response yet. Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

more gratuitous feedback

WRT the adjective here in bought the novel for a stunning US$2 million. - I don't mind it but some might think it is too, shall we say, emotional/POVish? I'd anticipate this by using 'remarkable' here, but if you really want the emphasis on 'stunning' that is up to you. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

When she asks her father, Paul, about it, - with a one-word name, do we still need the commas before and after it? Looks a little jarring to me.

Removed. Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Part III begins with a revelation by Turgut that leads the search for Dracula's tomb to Bulgaria. - I was just reading this again and pondering...the 'revelation' I think then leads the reader to expect precisely that (a revelation, that is), but it just sort of jumps to going to Bulgaria. I know this means more words but I think this needs a rephrase or actually clarifying what the revelation was of. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the revelations in the book are very complicated documentary revelations - that is why I left it out. Should I reword it to sound less fantastic and exciting? :) Awadewit (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Gah! (sigh) let's see what a GA reviewer thinks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Historian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Better late than never?

I am (finally) getting to this review - apologies for tardiness.

The text is elegantly written, with some exceptions primarily in the plot summary; it is well referenced, neutral and stable; and all images appear to be in order. It appears comprehensive and suitably focussed, with the possible exception of the coverage of awards won (see below).

Specific points

• Lead: "The novel is concerned with questions about history, its role in society, and how it is represented in books..." It is not immediately clear what "it" is in this sentence. I had to read it three times to realise the word referred to "history", when I kept trying to figure it meant "the novel", even though such a reading would not make sense. Redraft?
  • Grammatically, "it" clearly refers back to "history". Pronouns refer back to the last noun in the sentence. However, I have rewritten the sentence. It now reads: The novel is concerned with history's role in society and how history is represented in books, as well as the nature of good and evil. Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lead: "to land at number one on the The New York Times bestseller list..." I read the expression "to land" as meaning that it was in the number one position on the first week it was included. If that is not what is meant, please revise.

• I checked the source. It says "When it was published in the U.S. last year, The Historian became the first debut novel to hit No 1 on The New York Times bestseller list", so it has the same ambiguity. I'll have to check the NYT bestseller lists themselves. I will come back to this. Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I checked the NYTimes lists - the very first week it was published it was at #1. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Plot summary: "As a result, Rossi researched Vlad Ţepeş,..." As a result of what? There is no explanation of why two people finding the same book would logically lead to a sudden impulse to research the inspiration for Dracula stories. Nothing here suggest this was "a result" of anything.

• Clarified that the books were handmade and thus it was strange to encounter two of them and that the woodcut was connected to Dracula. Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Plot summary: "Rossi traveled as far as Istanbul, however, the appearance of curious characters and unexplained events caused him to drop his investigation and return to his graduate work." This sentence is strangely at once specific and vague. "Curious characters"? How do these "cause" him to drop his investigation?

• There are a lot of subplots in this book that it is not worth elaborating on in a summary. This is an example. Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Plot summary: "During her father's story, the narrator begins researching Dracula and she and her father travel across Europe." Huh? The father's story was in the 50s; how can she travel with her father in the 70s, "during" the 50s?

• "Part I opens in 1972 Amsterdam. The unnamed sixteen-year-old narrator finds an old vellum-bound book with a woodcut of a dragon in the center. When she asks her father Paul about it, he tells her how he found the handmade book in his study carrel when he was a graduate student in the 1950s. Much of the ensuing novel is told as a story, either orally or in letters, from father to daughter." - The events happened to her father in the 1950s, but he is telling them to his daughter in the 1970s. How can we make this clearer? Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

An aside

I haven't read this novel, so I'll just say this, and we can discuss what this means for the article: the plot summary, written in perfectly sound english though it may be, pretty much makes no sense to me. Now, I'm guessing this is down to the slightly baroque structure of the book and its reflexive plot. Nevertheless, how is a lay encyclopedia reader going to make sense of this? My rather radical suggestion is this: rename and reduce the plot summary to a bare paragraph, that tells us the themes, characters and settings of the book but does not, in a literal manner, attempt to summarise the plot.

I'm not prepared to throw out the plot summary just yet. Could you explain a bit more what was difficult to understand? I doubt that nothing made sense. Let's try to work out what did make sense and what did not. Your points above, for example, were very good. Awadewit (talk)

Back to specific points

• Composition and publication: There is something odd about the idea that recordings made two decades ago "will be" deposited in the L of C. Why future tense?

• The source says "will". Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lead, and Genre and style: he only term with which I am not familiar in this article is "epistolary". I know it is linked, but might it need explanation, or a less technical near-equivalent?

• I hate to substitute this word because it is the exactly right word. If that is the only link people have to click, I am ok with that - they will learn a new word. Besides it is so cumbersome to say "a epic in letters". Ew. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I will let this bit of wikipedagogy through :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Genre and style: "For example, in both The Historian and Dracula, the protagonist is both..." Can one of the uses of "both" be eliminated?

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• The awards are listed at the end of the "reception" section without commentary, which seems strange. Were not the winnings of these awards themselves events that drew comment from reliable sources?

• I didn't see all that much commentary and this is a pretty typical way of listing lesser awards. These are not the Nobel Prize in Literature or anything. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fair point that they may not have got much third-party coverage, but i sitll feel it is very strange to have some awards listed without any reference at all in the body text. Did not the judges / awarders of these prizes themselves make some comments about what they thought of the winning work? If so, that is deserving of treatment in the text just as are the words of other reviewers (as is currently done). By way of example, I've just done this for Danie Mellor. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but I did look through hundreds of sources on LexisNexis and other databases and I didn't see anything. I'm afraid I don't have time to look this up now - my dad just had open heart surgery. Cas, if you want to look further, please do. This is also the format I used for Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell and The Time Traveler's Wife, which are both featured. Awadewit (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's it. Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am needing to sleep, and need a fresh head to explain and figure out what to do about the plot. And it really is Awadewit's baby, but I will have a look tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

plot summary again

• Begin with a general introduction. A couple of sentences that state a few key points.

• "The plot blends the history and folklore of Vlad Ţepeş and his fictional equivalent Count Dracula." (ie. repeat this, or similar, from the lead).
• The novel blends narratives in two/three time periods: the mentor of the narrator's father in the 1930s; the narrator's father's travels blah blah in the 1950s; the blah blah in Amsterdam in the 1970s, etc. (this can be cannibalised from the current last sentence of the first para of the plot summary)

Excellent idea - I've added the following to the beginning of the plot summary: The Historian interweaves the history and folklore of Vlad Ţepeş, a fiftheenth-century prince of Wallachia known as "Vlad the Impaler", and his fictional equivalent Count Dracula together with the story of a professor, his daughter (the narrator), and their quest for Vlad's tomb. The novel ties together three separate narratives: that of the professor's mentor in the 1930s, that of the narrator's father in the 1950s, and that of the narrator herself in the 1970s. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, in doing this, we need to be told who Vlad Tepes is - a WIkilink in my view won't cut it with a crucial element of the story - this can also be done using text from existing first para. Only after the above has been done should the existing plot summary then proceed, the current first para becoming a second para.

• "..she is going to publish the definitive work on Dracula to punish him for deserting her." Reads as though Dracula deserted her.
  • Fixed pronoun. Awadewit (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• "During her father's story, the narrator begins researching Dracula and she and her father travel across Europe." This needs to be rephrased to differentiate between story in the sense of the pages of the the book, and story in the sense of her father's relating of his account. Also shoudl make explicit that it means "While her father is telling/writing her his story,..." Actually, I can't make sense of this sentence at all. Explain it again?
  • Revised: While hearing her father's story, the narrator becomes interested in the mystery and begins researching Dracula as she and her father travel across Europe. Awadewit (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Helen and Paul conclude that Rossi might have been taken by Dracula to his tomb." Be more explicit in your structure. This should begin "During their travels in the 1950s..." Don't rely on the end of hte previous para - I certainly didn't make the link at first.
  • Clarified. Awadewit (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Rossi intended to marry Helen's mother, but he was later drugged and forgot the entire incident." OK, that's wierd. But is it actually relevant to hte plot? Can we omit this sentence? The text already reads rather disjointedly. Ditto "Because the trip takes place during the 1950s and Hungary is behind the Iron Curtain, Helen's Aunt Éva must put elaborate political machinations into place to allow Paul access into and travel around the country." This does not appear relevant.
  • Removed the second one - the first explains why he wasn't persuaded that Helen was his daughter. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Helen's Aunt Éva again helps them get into the country; however, throughout their trip, they are shadowed by political representatives of the government and they must constantly maneuver to speak only when such people are out of earshot." Again, doesn't appear relevant in the scheme of things.
  • Removed. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• "...Dracula is a scholar and has a secret library. Rossi has written an account of his imprisonment and hidden it in the library." He hid his book in Dracula's library???
  • He was imprisoned there - clarified. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• The first mention of "Saint-Matthieu-des-Pyrénées-Orientales" gives no explanaiton, whereas the second mention tells us about it being a monastry - can this be re-jigged to a more logical order?

• • Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• "...is compelled to jump off a cliff. She survives and decides to hunt him down and kill him." Sounds odd put this way. Someone surviving a cliff-jump immediately puts the reader in mind of the supernatural, or that Helen is a vampire. Is that the intention?

• • No - there is nothing supernatural about it. I don't know how to fix this - suggestions? Awadewit (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not really. I thought about it but didn't come up with anything. So that's fine. Everything else has been improved. We're done here, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• These are just the points where I felt able to put my finger on the problem. There are others where I just didn't like the prose for some reason i can't explain, but, frankly, I blame the book, not the wikipedia editors! If my wife's lukewarm opinion of this book had not dissuaded me from reading it, your helpful summary certainly has. Dan Brown with pretentions :-)) Sorry - I guess you are fan of it to go to the trouble of writing this article, but there you are. I'll keep an eye out. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your insightful suggestions - they were very good. I'll try to finish this up tomorrow. Thanks also for your patience. Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)