Talk:Daisy Miller

Comments

Don't want to get into a reversion war, but this article badly needs cleanup. At least one assertion is flatly wrong: there is no suggestion anywhere in the story that Winterbourne killed Daisy. She died of malaria, not homicide. The article also features many run-on sentences that need to be untangled, and some highly opinionated statements that certainly rub NPOV the wrong way. I'm going to complete the cleanup I began. If I get reverted out again, I'll take the matter to arbitration. Casey Abell 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Top tip: cite sources. That way, there's no confusion over which is the "right" version of an article. Dan100 (Talk) 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that my version of the article is the only "right" one. But there's no excuse for an article on Daisy Miller that suggests Winterbourne might have killed Daisy. That's just embarrassing. I used much of the pre-existing article as it stood on November 5, 2005, though I toned down some of the more out-there opinions and always tried to balance the discussion. Casey Abell 23:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Daisy goes into the Roman Catacombs (with a guide) against the advise of others, there she catches the Romand fever (Malaria) and dies from it. Winterbourne is part of her motivation to visit the catacombs that is his contribution to her death, but not more!

Actually, Daisy goes to the Colosseum with Giovanelli, not the catacombs. And Winterbourne in no way motivates her visit. He doesn't even know about it until he accidentally meets Daisy and Giovanelli at the Colosseum. Have you ever actually read the story? The Colosseum was notorious at the time for causing malaria, though people then didn't understand that the anopheles mosquito carried the disease, and the pools of stagnant water in the Colosseum bred the critters by the zillions. Anyway, as soon as Winterbourne sees Daisy in the Colosseum at night, he tries to get her away from the place and possible malaria. Again, it's silly to suggest that Winterbourne in any way "kills" Daisy. Casey Abell 15:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the amazon sales, they don't indicate any popularity. This novel is one of the examples often read at University in seminars about 19th century novels. And Amazon is the cheapest source for such books. So this has absolutely nothing to do with the popularity of the book. Same goes for "Turn of the screw".

Daisy Miller sold well during James' lifetime, and the Amazon rankings indicate that the story continues to sell, along with The Turn of the Screw. (I just checked and both were in the top 40K on the rankings, which isn't bad at all for books more than a century old.) Sure, some of the sales are to college students. Some of the sales are to all sorts of people. But the numbers indicate Daisy Miller and The Turn of the Screw are among the most popular and widely read of all James' works. Casey Abell 15:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Critical evaluation section

Way too pro-James and pro-Daisy. Personally, I couldn't stand the story and thought Daisy was an airhead; I was quite glad when she passed. Thanos6 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the section is balanced with a number of negative comments about the story ("the point of the narrative has gotten somewhat lost. Not too many people nowadays would care about Daisy's flirtations...some may feel that James tries to overload a simple story with too many trappings of tragedy...some feel he robbed the original version of its color and immediacy"). Your comment that you were happy when Daisy died may indicate that you're not the best judge of the section's POV. I am removing the tag. Casey Abell 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted "though the point of the narrative has gotten somewhat lost. Not too many people nowadays would care about Daisy's flirtations, after all." from the critical evaluation section. That section is entirely uncited, and so I'd like to delete a lot more of it, but I only took out these sweeping generalizations. MutantChair (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Smells like...Vandalism

Apparently four anonymous IPs have each had a go at this article, introducing dubious material that violates either WP:V, WP:CITE, or WP:NPOV:

• [1] and [2] are unreferenced and written in a slightly snide tone, suggesting either vandalism or POV-pushing.
• In [3] one editor tried to introduce a measure of sanity, but was soon thwarted a complete non sequitur added in [4].

I'm going to revert all these edits unless someone can provide any citations for them. Cheers.

Huntthetroll (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)