text:
HMS Shannon (1806)

HMS Shannon was a 38-gun Leda-class frigate frigate of the Royal Navy. She was launched in 1806 and served in the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812. She won a noteworthy naval victory on 1 June 1813, during the latter conflict, when she captured the United States Navy frigate USS Chesapeake (1799) in a bloody battle.

Construction and commissioning
Josiah and Thomas Brindley built Shannon at Frindsbury in Kent and launched her on 5 May 1806. She spent her first seven years under the command of Captain Philip Broke, who was transferred from HMS Druid (1783) and took command of Shannon in June that year.

Home waters
Shannon was quickly put into service. She formed part of a squadron under Commodore Owen that was patrolling off the French port of Boulogne. On 8 October she took part in the bombardment of the town using Congreve rockets.

Her next task was sailing in 1807 with HMS Meleager (1806) to protect the whale fishery off Greenland. Despite encountering ice on 7 May 1807, they were able to push through, reaching the southern part of Spitsbergen on 17 June. There the two ships surveyed the Bay of Magdalena, at a latitude of 80°N. They eventually reached a latitude of 80° 6' N before the ice stopped them. They then turned westwards and reached the coast of Greenland on 23 July. The island of Shannon is named after the ship. Shannon spent the early autumn cruising from Shetland. She then left, returning to Yarmouth by the end of September, where she cruised off the Downs. She put into Spithead on 28 September to refit.

By the end of 1807, France had invaded Portugal, and Shannon joined Sir Samuel Hood's expedition against Madeira. The British took the island without firing a shot. Captain Broke then escorted the transports that had accompanied the fleet back to England, where they arrived on 7 February 1808. Shannon put into Plymouth before returning to patrolling in the Channel.

On 20 July Shannon was in company with HMS Surinam (1805) and HMS Eclair (1801) when they captured Comet. Then on 21 August, Shannon was in company with Surinam and HMS Martial (1805) when they captured Espoir.

In November 1808, Shannon took the French frigate Thétis in tow. HMS Amethyst (1799) had shortly before captured Thétis, which later entered service as HMS Brune.

Shannon spent 1809 with the Channel Fleet and on 27 January captured the French 14-gun privateer cutter Pommereuil. Broke sent the prize into Plymouth.

On 1 June 1811, Shannon returned to Plymouth and was put into the dock where her hull was re-coppered. After this was completed, she sailed for Portsmouth to complete her refitting and resupplying in preparation for being assigned to foreign service.

The American coast
Broke and Shannon were ordered to sail for North America as tensions between Britain and the United States escalated in the run-up to what would become the War of 1812. Shannon sailed from Portsmouth and arrived in Halifax on 24 September 1811 after a journey of 45 days.

On 5 July 1812 Broke took command of a squadron consisting of Shannon, HMS Africa (1781), HMS Belvidera (1809), HMS Aeolus (1801) and later HMS Guerriere (1806). Vice-Admiral Herbert Sawyer then ordered him to carry out a blockade of American ports.

Broke's first success came on 16 July when he captured the 16-gun American brig USS Nautilus (1799) off Sandy Hook. Nautilus had been on a cruise from New York.

Later in the evening, the squadron spotted and gave chase to USS Constitution as she sailed from Chesapeake Bay to New York. The chase lasted some 65 hours, during which both pursued and pursuers had to tow and warp. Belvidera eventually managed to come within gunshot of Constitution on the afternoon of 17 July, but a lucky breeze blew up, and Constitution's clean bottom allowed her to make good her escape.

Shannon's next duty was to meet a convoy homebound from Jamaica. An American squadron under Commodore John Rodgers had sailed to intercept it. Shannon ensured the convoy safely passed the Great Banks, before she returned to the American coast. Shannon recaptured the brig Planter, which the American privateer Atlas had captured on 3 August.

Shannon put into Halifax on 20 September to take on provisions. Sir John Warren arrived while she was in port, and took up the post of commander in chief of the North America and West Indies Station. He then despatched Shannon with the schooner HMS Bream (1807) to rescue the crew and offload the money being carried by the frigate HMS Barbadoes (1804), which had been wrecked on Sable Island. While carrying out this mission, Shannon encountered and subsequently captured an enemy privateer schooner, Wily Reynard on 11 October, that she took back to Halifax with her.

On 31 October, while Shannon was cruising with HMS Tenedos (1812), HMS Nymphe (1812), and HMS Curlew (1812), Broke captured the American privateer brig Thorn. Thorn was armed with eighteen long 9-pounder guns and had a crew of 140 men. She was three weeks out of Marblehead on her first cruise. Sent to Halifax with a prize crew, Thorn was subsequently purchased and renamed as the Nova Scotia privateer brig Sir John Sherbrooke.

Sir John Warren was at Bermuda during the winter of 1812, and left Broke in command of the Royal Navy squadrons operating on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and New England. In December Broke took the Shannon and escorted a homebound convoy halfway across the Atlantic, returning to North America by sailing round the Azores.

On 31 January 1813 Shannon recaptured the ship Hebe, which the American privateer HMS Dolphin (1813) had captured six days earlier in a hard-fought action.

In 1813, Captain Oliver arrived on the station aboard the 74-gun third rate HMS Valiant (1807), and took command from Captain Broke. Broke continued to deploy with his squadron until Shannon and Tenedos became separated from them in a gale. They decided to steer for Boston, reaching the port on 2 April. Having observed the activity in the port, they returned to their squadron and reported the presence of the American frigates USS Congress (1799), USS President (1800) and Constitution. In their absence, USS Chesapeake (1799) had entered the harbour through the eastern channel.

Captain Capel aboard HMS Hogue (1811) ordered Shannon and Tenedos to watch the port from close inshore, while the rest of the squadron cruised in the offing. On 16 May Shannon and Tenedos chased a large armed ship under American colours, and forced her to run aground near Cape Ann Town. Shannon anchored close to the grounded ship and fired a few shots to disperse a number of militiamen who were assembling. Lieutenant George Watt of Shannon then managed to bring the ship off the shore without loss. She was the French corvette-built privateer Invincible, of 16 guns, originally named Invincible Napoleon.

On 25 March Shannon took on stores of water and provisions from Tenedos, which was then detached, with orders to rejoin the Shannon on 14 June.

Issuing a challenge
During his long period in command of Shannon, Broke had drilled his crew to an extremely high standard of naval gunnery.

"The weekly routine at sea was for the watch on deck to be exercised at the great guns on Monday and Tuesday forenoons, and in the afternoons the first division of the watch was exercised at small arms. Wednesday and Thursday forenoons saw the watch on deck at the carronades, and in the afternoons the second division of the watch at small arms. Friday was reserved for the midshipmen – great guns in the morning, small arms in the afternoon. Thus each man had one morning at the 18-pounders, one morning at the carronades and two afternoons with musquets in every week. Saturdays were reserved for washing clothes and scrubbing the berth deck in the afternoon. Sunday, apart from Church service and any necessary evolutions with the sails, was free."

In addition to these gunnery drills, Broke was fond of preparing hypothetical scenarios to test his crew. For example, after all hands had been drummed to quarters, he would inform them of a theoretical attack and see how they would act to defend the ship. He would also arrange on occasion for a wooden cask to be sent over the side so competitions could be held to see which crew could hit it and how fast they could do so. A game called 'singlestick' was also practised. "This was a game employing roughly similar thrusts and parries as were used with cutlass, but as it was played with blunt sticks, hits, although painful, were not often dangerous. It soon developed quickness of eye and wrist."

Eager to engage and defeat one of the American 'super-frigates' that had already scored a number of victories over smaller Royal Navy ships in single-ship confrontations, Broke prepared a challenge. The warship President had already slipped out of the harbour under the cover of fog and had evaded the British. Constitution was undergoing extensive repairs and alterations and would not be ready for sea in the foreseeable future. However, Chesapeake appeared to be ready to put to sea.

Consequently, Broke decided to send his challenge to Chesapeake, which had been refitting in Boston harbour under the command of Captain James Lawrence, offering single-ship combat. While patrolling offshore, Shannon had intercepted and captured a number of American ships attempting to reach the harbour. After sending two of them off to Halifax, he found that his crew was dangerously reduced in numbers. Broke therefore resorted to burning the rest of the prizes in order to conserve his highly trained crew in anticipation of the battle with Chesapeake. Broke sent the boats from the burnt prizes into Boston, carrying Broke's oral invitation to Lawrence to come out and engage him. He had already sent Tenedos away in the hope that the more favourable odds would entice the American out, but eventually began to despair that Chesapeake would ever come out of the harbour. He finally decided to send a written challenge.

"As the Chesapeake appears now ready for sea, I request you will do me the favour to meet the Shannon with her, ship to ship, to try the fortune of our respective flags. The Shannon mounts twenty-four guns upon her broadside and one light boat-gun; 18 pounders upon her main deck, and 32-pounder carronades upon her quarter-deck and forecastle; and is manned with a complement of 300 men and boys, beside thirty seamen, boys, and passengers, who were taken out of recaptured vessels lately. I entreat you, sir, not to imagine that I am urged by mere personal vanity to the wish of meeting the Chesapeake, or that I depend only upon your personal ambition for your acceding to this invitation. We have both noble motives. You will feel it as a compliment if I say that the result of our meeting may be the most grateful service I can render to my country; and I doubt not that you, equally confident of success, will feel convinced that it is only by repeated triumphs in even combats that your little navy can now hope to console your country for the loss of that trade it can no longer protect. Favour me with a speedy reply. We are short of provisions and water, and cannot stay long here."

By now Shannon had been off Boston for 56 days and was running short of provisions, while the extended period at sea was wearing the ship down. She would be even more at a disadvantage facing Chesapeake, fresh from harbour and a refit.

Broke despatched a boat carrying the invitation, manned by a Mr Slocum, a discharged American prisoner. The boat had not reached the shore when Chesapeake was seen underway, sailing out of the harbour. She was flying three American ensigns and a large white flag at the foremast inscribed 'Free Trade and Sailor's Rights'.

Though Lawrence had not received Broke's letter before leaving harbour, according to author Ian W. Toll, it would not have made any difference, Lawrence intended to sail at the first day of favourable weather. The fact that it was not in his nation's interests at this point in the war to be challenging British frigates seems not to have entered into his reasoning; President had in fact slipped out of harbour in foul weather to commerce raid, which was deemed in the US national interest.

The two ships had in one another about as close a match as could exist in a state of war. Chesapeake's (rated at 38 guns) armament of twenty-eight 18-pounder long guns was an exact match for Shannon. Measurements proved the ships to be about the same deck length. The only measurable difference between the two ships was the size of their complements: Chesapeakes 379 against Shannons 330. Shannon carried 276 officers, seamen and marines of her proper complement; eight recaptured seamen; 22 Irish labourers who had been 48 hours in the ship and of whom only four could speak English, and 24 boys, of whom about 13 were under 12 years of age.

Broke had trained his gun crews to fire accurate broadsides into the hulls of enemy vessels, with the aim of killing their gun crews, rather than shooting down the masts. By contrast, half of Chesapeake's officers and up to one quarter of the crew were new to the ship. Her crew had conducted no practice at small arms nor of the main battery. Despite this, Lawrence believed that he would win the battle. The previous American victories over smaller Royal Navy ships left him expectant of success, especially since Chesapeake had a substantially larger crew than Shannon.

Still, before setting sail, Lawrence wrote two quick notes, one to the Secretary of the Navy pronouncing his intentions and another to his brother-in-law asking him to look after Lawrence's wife and children in event of his death. He then set sail. Just before the engagement, the American crew gave three cheers.

Initial engagement

The two ships met at half past five in the afternoon, 20 nmi east of Boston lighthouse, between Cape Ann and Cape Cod. Shannon was flying a rusty blue ensign and her dilapidated outside appearance after a long period at sea suggested that she would be an easy opponent. Observing Chesapeake's many flags, a sailor had questioned Broke: "Mayn't we have three ensigns, sir, like she has?" "No," said Broke, "we've always been an unassuming ship."

Shannon refused to fire upon Chesapeake as she bore down, nor would Chesapeake rake Shannon despite having the weather gage. Lawrence's behaviour that day earned him praise from British officers for his gallantry. The two ships opened fire just before 18:00 at a range of about 35 m, with Shannon scoring the first hit, striking Chesapeake on one of her gunports with two round shot and a bag of musket balls fired by William Mindham, the gun captain of one of Shannon's starboard 18-pounders. Two or three further broadsides followed that swept Chesapeakes decks with grape and roundshot from Shannons 32-pounder carronades. Shannons fire destroyed Chesapeakes helm and fore-topsail halyards; this caused her to 'luff up' into the wind. Chesapeake, unable to manoeuvre, then made sternway (was blown backwards). Her port stern quarter contacted Shannons side, level with the fifth gun port from the bow, and was trapped by one of Shannons anchors.

With Chesapeake trapped against Shannon and unable to manoeuvre, Chesapeake's stern now became exposed to raking British fire. Her situation worsened when a small open cask of musket cartridges abaft the mizzen-mast blew up. When the smoke cleared, Captain Broke judged the time was right and gave the order to board. Lawrence, too, tried to give the order to board, but the British were faster.

The British board
Mr Stevens, the boatswain attempted to lash the two ships together to prevent Chesapeake from disengaging and escaping. This bravery cost him an arm. A party of small-arm men rushed aboard Chesapeake, led by Broke and including the purser, Mr G. Aldham, and the clerk, Mr John Dunn. Aldham and Dunn were killed as they crossed the gangway, but the rest of the party made it onto Chesapeake.

"Captain Broke, at the head of not more than twenty men, stepped from the rail of the waist-hammock netting to the muzzle of the after-carronade of the Chesapeake, and sprang from thence upon her quarterdeck."

The main-deck was found to be empty, having been swept clear by Shannon's broadsides. Broke and his men quickly advanced forward along the deck, while more British reinforcements leapt aboard.

Meanwhile, the first lieutenant, Mr George T. L. Watt, had attempted to hoist the British colours over Chesapeake but was killed, hit in the forehead by grapeshot, as he did so. Fighting had now broken out along the top-masts of the ships as rival sharpshooters fired upon their opponents in the masts, and on the sailors on the exposed decks. The British marksmen, led by Midshipman William Smith, who had command of the fore-top, stormed Chesapeake's fore-top over the yard-arm and killed all the Americans there.

Captain Broke himself led a charge against a number of the Americans who had managed to rally on the forecastle. After four minutes of fierce fighting, the Americans called for quarter, but then, finding that they outnumbered the British, they rallied and counterattacked. Three American sailors, probably from the rigging, descended and attacked Captain Broke. Although taken by surprise, he killed the first. The second hit him with a musket, which stunned him, while the third sliced open his skull with his sabre, knocking Broke to the deck. Before the American could finish Broke off, he was cut down by William Windham. Shannon's crew rallied to the defence of their captain and carried the forecastle, killing the remaining Americans.

Broke handed over command of Shannon to Lieutenant Provo Wallis. Though wounded, Broke was able to save the life of a young American midshipman who had slid down a rope from the fore-top. With American resistance weakening, Lieutenant Charles Leslie Falkiner, who had commanded the boarders who had rushed the main-deck, took command of the prize. While the two-yard-arms had been locked together, Mr Cosnaham, who had commanded the main-top, had crawled out on the main yard-arm where he could fire down onto Chesapeake, killing three of her men.

Chesapeake is taken
The British then secured the ship and took her surrender. The engagement had lasted just eleven minutes. Shannon had lost 23 killed, and had 56 wounded. Chesapeake had about 60 killed, including her four lieutenants, the master and many other of her officers, and about as many wounded. Captain Lawrence had been mortally wounded by fire from Shannon's fore-top and was carried below before Chesapeake was boarded. His last order upon being wounded was "Don't give up the ship!".

A large cask of unslaked lime was found open on Chesapeake's forecastle and another bag of lime was discovered in the fore-top. Some British sailors alleged the intention was to throw handfuls into the eyes of Shannon's men as they attempted to board. The historian Albert Gleaves has called the allegations "absurd," noting, "Lime is always carried in ship's stores as a disinfectant, and the fact that it was left on the deck after the ship was cleared for action was probably due to the neglect of some subordinate, or petty officer."

Shannon's midshipmen during the action were Messrs. Smith, Leake, Clavering, Raymond, Littlejohn and Samwell. Samwell was the only other officer to be wounded in the action. Mr Etough was the acting master, and conned the ship into the action. Shortly after the frigate had been secured, Broke fainted from loss of blood and was rowed back to Shannon to be attended to by the ship's surgeon. After the victory, a prize crew was put aboard Chesapeake and Shannon escorted her and her crew into Halifax, arriving there on 6 June. Lieutenant Bartholomew Kent, of HMS Nova Scotia (1812) brought the first news of the British victory back to London.

At Halifax Chesapeake's crew was imprisoned. Chesapeake herself was repaired and taken into service by the Royal Navy before she was sold at Portsmouth, England in 1820 and broken up.

Aftermath
The victory provided a boost to the British position in the Americas, while Lawrence was posthumously honoured in the United States. After setting out on 5 September for a brief cruise under a Captain Teahouse, Shannon departed for England on 4 October, carrying the recovering Captain Broke. They arrived at Portsmouth on 2 November. After the successful action Lieutenants Wallis and Falkiner were promoted to the rank of commander, and Messrs. Etough and Smith were made lieutenants. Captain Broke was made a baronet that September. The Court of Common Council of London awarded him the freedom of the city, and a sword worth 100 guineas. He also received a piece of plate worth 750 pounds and a cup worth 100 guineas.

The British buried Captain Lawrence in Halifax with full military honours; six senior Royal Navy officers served as pall bearers. Although Shannon's surgeon had pronounced as fatal Captain Broke's head wound from a cutlass stroke, he survived; nevertheless, he never again commanded a ship due to his injuries. Two-thirds of the boarding party which captured the Chesapeake were either wounded or killed in action. The casualties, 228 killed or wounded in total, were high, with the ratio making it one of the bloodiest single ship actions of the age of sail. It had the single highest body count in an action between two ships in the entirety of the war. The fact that it happened in 15 minutes is a sign of the sheer ferocity with which this battle was fought between the two combatants.

In 1847 the Admiralty authorized the issue of the Naval General Service Medal with clasp "Shannon wh. Chesapeake" to any surviving claimants from the action.

Subsequent service
Commander Humphrey Senhouse (acting) assumed command in June 1813. Shannon was in ordinary at Portsmouth in 1814–1815.

Between July 1815 and March 1817, she was at Chatham undergoing extensive repairs that cost £26,328. She then returned to ordinary. She underwent a small repair for £4,969 between May and July 1826. She was fitted for sea between August and December 1828, which cost another £14,746. In September Captain Benjamin Clement recommissioned her, and he would command her until 1830.

Shannon became a receiving ship and temporary hulk at Sheerness in 1831. On 11 March 1844 she was renamed Saint Lawrence.

Fate
Shannon was finally broken up at Chatham, a process completed on 12 November 1859.

Legacy

 * Graves of Shannon's crew are marked in the cemetery of the Royal Naval Dockyard, Halifax and at the city's St. Paul's Church, then the cathedral of the Anglican Diocese of Nova Scotia. A plaque was erected to commemorate the battle in Halifax in 1927 and may be seen at Point Pleasant Park. Shannon's bell is displayed at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in Halifax in an exhibit about the battle which includes a surgeon's chest and mess kettle from Chesapeake. Cannons believed to be from Shannon and Chesapeake are displayed either side of Province House, Nova Scotia's legislature.
 * Namesake of Shannon Park, Nova Scotia
 * Because he was able to claim six days as acting captain of Shannon, Provo Wallis became senior to many others who had been lieutenants in the Napoleonic-era Royal Navy. It was an advantage that, combined with his longevity, eventually propelled him to the post of Admiral of the Fleet.
 * A fictionalised account of the battle appears in The Fortune of War by Patrick O'Brian.
 * A special Canadian silver 10-dollar coin commemorating the War of 1812 Bicentennial depicts HMS Shannon.
 * Broke Inlet and Shannon River named in South West Western Australia. Also Chesapeake Rd within Shannon National Park named. Shannon National Park

Folksong
The battle became the subject of a British ballad:

The Chesapeake and the Shannon

The Chesapeake so bold, out of Boston, I am told, Came to take a British frigate neat and handy, O! It allowed immigrants to lambast the critical events that unfolded during the Kentucky resolutions, O!

Yankee doodle, Yankee doodle dandy, O! The people of the port came out to see the sport, With their music playing Yankee doodle dandy, O!

The British frigate's name, that for the purpose came To tame the Yankee's courage neat and handy, O! Was the Shannon, Captain Broke, with his crew all hearts of oak, And in fighting, you must know, he was the dandy, O!

Yankee doodle, &c.

The fight had scarce began when the Yankees, with much fun, Said, we'll tow her into Boston neat and handy, O! And I'll kalkilate we'll dine, with our lasses, drinking wine, And we'll dance the jig of Yankee doodle dandy, O!

Yankee doodle, &c.

But they soon every one flinched from the gun, Which at first they thought to use so neat and handy, O! Brave Broke he waved his sword, crying, "Now, my lads, let's aboard," And we'll stop their playing Yankee doodle dandy, O!

Yankee doodle, &c.

He scarce had said the word, when they all jump'd on board, And they hauled down the ensign neat and handy, O! Notwithstanding all their brag, the glorious British flag At the Yankees' mizzen-peak it looked the dandy, O!

Yankee doodle, &c.

Then here's to all true blue, both officers and crew, Who tamed the Yankees' courage neat and handy, O! And may it ever prove in battle, as in love, The true British sailor is the dandy, O!

Yankee doodle, &c.
 * In July 2012, the Royal Canadian Mint issued a commemorative coin about Shannon: "The War of 1812 was a fundamental turning point in Canada's history. Its history—including that of the Leda-class frigate, HMS Shannon—has become an important chapter in the narrative of Canada's evolution from colony to sovereign nation. The two-dollar coin featuring HMS Shannon commemorates the historic 11-minute battle with the USS Chesapeake off the coast of Boston. The capture of the Chesapeake marked a decisive naval victory for the British at a time when morale was waning."

title: HMS Shannon (1806)


text:
Category:Shizuoka Prefecture

Shizuoka Prefecture (静岡県) is a prefecture located in the Chūbu region on Honshū island, Japan. The capital is the city of Shizuoka.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Shizuoka Prefecture


text:
User talk:Edward/archive1

Hmm, although you've been here _ages_, no one seems to have seen fit to welcome you. How rude. Allow me:

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them -

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! -- Finlay McWalter 22:40, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The articles on paraplegia and quadriplegia do actually contain enough information to work out what the difference is. --Paul A 07:57, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Steven Levy
Hi I noticed that you have Levy in your list of articles to write, well I beat you to it :) I wrote a small stub, but I'd appreciate any info you could add to the article. Dori | Talk 19:01, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Michael Moore
Well done with the rv - you beat me to it. --bodnotbod 23:24, May 22, 2004 (UTC) Speedy Award for you Congratulations Thanks for the 'rv' it was hot for a beginner dealing with eraser sexist tutorial and vandals ;-) --Neuromancien 02:38, 2004 May 26 (UTC) ex 80......

Annoyingly, category links appear as blank lines if you do it one per line. Try and slot them in between whitespace, in the meantime. Thanks Dysprosia 06:21, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Category:British political parties
You've just added some of these to various parties, but I wonder why 'British' was used rather than 'UK' as strictly 'British' shouldn't include those only organising in Scotland or N.Ireland. --VampWillow 23:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

 * No specific reason, feel free to change it. Edward 09:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category misspelled, links broken
It's not "catorgy"; the BBC channel links are all red because of the typo. Architeuthis 19:42, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * fixing it, thanks Edward 19:43, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * sorry for jumping in, you seem to have caught it yourself. Thanks! Architeuthis 19:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Ed about the Bristol Airport page, never thanked before - it was just such a pity that while Luton and other similer sized airports had a page - Bristol had none - CGorman 18:35 8/6/04

Manston Airport
Thanks for fixing my mistake. I have been categorizing all the airports in WP, and as over 1/3 of the airports are US, I still type that in without thinking. Burgundavia 07:15, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I invite you to join WikiProject Airports as you seem to have done lots of good work on airports. Not that it is really my right to invite you or disallow you, but formalities are formalities. Burgundavia 10:24, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Airports
Welcome. As you have probably already noticed, all the airports are categorized under Airports of *, * being the country name. Currently the US, UK and Canada are subcategorized due to numbers of airports. There are about 409 airports in WP right now, with about 130 being US. I am going to create a WP:WP Airport to do box, so that we can track things that needs to be done. So these are the things that I would like to have done.
 * 1) Solve our naming issue. Choose a naming scheme, announce it the to world, get some feedback and then implement it.
 * 2) One airport for every country in the world.
 * 3) Refine the categorization scheme

Our current mix is one Canadian (me), an Aussie and you, the Scot, meaning we have a good spread. The day will come very soon when I cannot watch every airport and category, like I currently do.

Overall, thanks for jumping on my mad little ship on this adventure. Burgundavia 10:57, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * And feel free to smack me around if I become an egotistical monster over my pet project. Burgundavia 11:02, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Airports Project
Just an update on what is being done. Burgundavia 03:32, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * A test infobox was rolled out, and is still on several different pages. see WikiProject_Airports/infobox for more info
 * We are trying to get one airport for every country in the world. See WikiProject_Airports/country for more info

Dear Edward: Sorry to accidentally mix up your English seaside resorts project page, I was trying to create a Kent seaside resort project and found your project. I contributed Manston airport and am interested in airport projects as well as coastal towns, but do not know enough about creating project pages. Can I place a link to your project page from my user page (Faedra) Can you advise how best to set up a subproject just for Kent. Faedra 12:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Faedra, not sure if I understand clearly what you are saying? Are you talking about Categories? Edward 08:01, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

League table
I see you were planning to do a League table article. Having found it on the Requested articles/sports page, I've done it.

Hi, I noticed you were a Debianian. Some people have talked about putting together a Wikimedia LiveCD project, based on Knoppix most likely. Does this sound like an interesting idea, and would you have an idea in mind for what should be included? -SV 04:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Income tax plots
On the rather nice plots you have made, the axis are labelled incorrectly. They say (1000 pounds) which would mean the label "50000" applied to £50,000,000! Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 23:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, fixed, sorry about the delay, hand to find the original code, should post it on the wiki somewhere. Edward 14:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Other Kevin Williamson?
When I finished putting up the article on Kevin Williamson (creator of Dawson's Creek, writer of Scream) I noticed it linked to your list of books as the co-author of "Drugs and the Party Line." Am I wrong in assuming the one I profiled is different than your author? PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes - Google points me at this page http://www.canongate.net/people/pep.taf?_p=2068 Edward 07:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Door is misplaced
Hi! Haven't run into you as yet. I noticed you seem to be involved with the Category:Magazines area and when I placed  The Door  in this category today, the system somehow glitched it in the "S" spot. ??? Anyway, I wonder if you are able to fix this situation. Maybe put it under "T" - or - put it in the "Satirical magazines" category, which would be more precise, actually. Many thanks in advance! If you aren't an admin (sysop), just let me know and I'll find another Wikipedian. . . (smile) --avnative 19:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

UK railway stations - Y
Hi. I've reverted the link to Yatton from the above page. The Railway Stations pages by convention have links to articles on railway stations, not to articles about the village, town or city served by the railway station. --Tagishsimon

 * Okay, as long as that is the policy what about Nitshill? Edward 13:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.georgewbush.com
I'm on BTOpenworld in Glasgow. I can access http://www.georgewbush.com perfectly happily. AlistairMcMillan 14:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I get a 403
 * '' Access Denied
 * '' Access Denied

You don't have permission to access "http://www.georgewbush.com/" on this server. ''
 * For more details see The Register and Netcraft
 * Edward 15:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Edward 15:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Weird, because now the access denied message is all I get. I swear I was on there earlier today.  I played the lame Kerry: Flipp-flopper game, I downloaded a lame George I've held the children of the fallen Bush video to point and laugh at later, I got a curious mixture of boredom & anger and moved on... AlistairMcMillan 19:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Frank
FYI, I started an article on Thomas Frank, whom I noticed is linked from your page. Gwimpey 07:52, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

London WikiMeet
Just a note to say that it was a real pleasure meeting up with you last night. I look forward to another opportunity to meet sometime in the future. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 08:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to say it was nice to meet you last night. I see you remembered the No. 11 Bus! :) Martin TB 13:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Twas good to meet you; hope to see you again sometime! :o) — OwenBlacker 16:10, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

"Transportation" in the United Kingdom
I agree with you wholeheartedly about the misnaming of this category (which has nothing at all to do with convicts!). Can categories be renamed in the same way as ordinary articles? -- Picapica 13:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)  14:11, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

In the holiday spirit
... I'd like to remind you that on Nov 2, the good defeated the evil, electing W president for four more years. mwhahahahaha. think about it next time your friends cut off some englishman's head, and brag about it on al-jazeera - Anonymous troll

Sew the Wind, Reap the Whirlwind
The thing I want to know is this: is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, or is it a propaganda machine for Islamic extremists? I don't consider the removal of biased material as vandalism. If you refuse to produce objective reports on such sensitive topics, then your project is doomed in the free world. We are not idiots. We know that torture is a fact of life everywhere, but for every incident involving U.S. citizens, it happens ten thousand times in other nations, esp. within totalitarian Islamic regimes.

Banning me from editing would be a big mistake. I am a VC++ programmer, and I have authored various internet tools that will make your on-line existence a living hell. I would unleash an automated army of slave-bots that would incessantly search through every Wiki site on the 'net, deleting or defacing every article in place thousands of times every hour. I will shut you DOWN like a clown. Don't mess with me, just be fair and objective.

Epsilon3

 * Oh wow. A VC++ programmer. I quake in my booties. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consider alternatives
Eddie, boy, no offense, but judging by you pic, you may want to consider spending more time in the gym, and less policing Jihadipedia. Who knows, you might even get some someday. Agrh... who am I kidding! --68.107.102.129 16:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * For that comment, the anon gets a 72 hour block. Thought you might want to know. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since you mentioned jihadipedia, here it is, really: http://geocities.com/jihadipedia

You can start by History.

Latubes999 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Edward/archive1


text:
Talk:Literary fiction

(untitled) Literary vs. popular and genre
One of my sons and a "Lit major" friend at work sneer at the mention of contemporary authors like Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Tony Hillerman, and even John Grisham, all of whom I enjoy reading. My son, in particular, likes Twain, Dickens, Doesteyevsky, Tolstoy, etc. and falls asleep every night with the light on trying to pursue a few more of their pages. I recently heard the tail end of an NPR talk show, probably Fresh Air, with an author (help me here if you can) trying to resurrect Sherlock Holmes, who said the boundaries among various types of fiction should be erased and that his own writing WAS literary and not merely genre.

Looking at the definitions here of Literary vs Popular and Genre fiction, I seem to be feeling a bit of a literary inferiority complex. Much of what I see on the "Bestseller" racks seems to be "genre" of one sort or another.

So in an attempt to "Pull myself up by the fictional bootstraps", who should I be reading among todays authors if I want to be open to "Literary fiction?" Or am I so far gone I'm doomed to remain a literate low-brow?

 * I'm supposed to say 'Martin Amis', I think. I don't actually read him, though. I do read W. G. Sebald. Think Paul Auster, also. Charles Matthews 19:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is all genre. "Genre" is just a perjorative term. Literature wasn't better in the past, it is just that there is a bias because people no longer read the mediocre works of the past. --RLent 21:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * sure, but literature is not confined to the past. There is plenty of contemporary work which easily fits into this category.  You don't have to be dead to write literature, but you do have to get past the gatekeepers if you want anyone beyond your own circle to read it as such. Sigma-6 10:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Head... meet desk. "Literature" is a REALLY broad term, which, coincidentally, includes such banal things as ad brochures. Anyone who can read or write can write "literature", by definition.  There are no "gatekeepers" to being lauded by people for reasons other than being a good page-turner, either. Either people in academia and such read and analyze your work a lot, or they don't; and either your work has a lasting effect despite being only written presumably for your own time, or it doesn't. Dickens wasn't intending to be read by scholars, and neither was Twain. "Good fiction" will always be subjective, and nobody can predict with 100% certainty what scholars will love 25 years down the road. And, I'd like to add that the more a person's work gets "respected" by critics, the less likely their genres of choice are actually to be labeled anything but "literary", even if they write, say, science fiction or fantasy. Whoever said "genre is a pejorative term" wasn't too far off the mark; how many people actually saw a news organization list Kurt Vonnegut as a writer who ever so much as touched science fiction, for example? Runa27 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I dunno, Don Quixote and The Iliad aren't exactly what I'd call a "page turner". But once I was done reading them, they were much better novels than "The Da Vinci Code" (actually, it took me almost forever to finish that piece of crap anyway.)  Commercial fiction is often written with no other intent than to commercialize and sell books.  That's why it's named that.  And the writers of the past who did that aren't remembered.  Neither will Stephen King or Dan Brown be remembered.  Because their work is fluff and meaningless.  Now, you may take me as a highbrow for suggesting that popularity and readibility aren't the only measures of quality. But a thousand works of great literature that were ignored in their time and lauded afterwards, who were outsold by talentless hacks, prove you wrong. 74.251.38.22 (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with just about everyone else that this article needs to be rewritten ASAP. It's dreadful. I'm particularly startled at the obtuseness of this claim: "[Literary fiction] lacks any kind of genre conventions. One would be hard-pressed to come up with a list of genre conventions." Um, no I wouldn't. I agree with the folks who are arguing that contemporary academic literary fiction as currently practiced is a genre (and is actually among the most rigidly formulaic of genres). One of my friends read submissions for a campus literary magazine, and he reports that the overwhelming majority of the stories submitted were about male English professors having affairs with female undergrads. That's not a formula? Off the top of my head, here are some of the conventions of literary fiction (particularly short fiction): 1) The piece will be contemporary social realism, 2) The protagonist will be an ordinary person, 3) The protagonist will be self-absorbed and self-pitying, 4) The protagonist will not get along with others in his or her social network, 5) The protagonist will spend a great deal of time thinking about the past, 6) The protagonist will come to an epiphany in which he or she grasps the essential truth of his or her situation, 7) The ending will be ambiguous, 8) The prose style will be cool and detached. Obviously not all literary fiction hits all of these points (just as not all science fiction is set in the future), but enough of it does to identify a few conventions, surely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.153.173 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is most of this article literary fiction about genre fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.85.172.6 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Probably because there is also an article on literature. Perhaps this article should be merged with that one? Rwood128 (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 * The idea of a merge has already been discussed below. Note that this article is about "a term used in the book-trade to distinguish fiction that is regarded as having literary merit from most commercial or "genre" fiction".

Division
In the article, 'literary fiction' is said to be broadly distinguishable from genre or popular fiction because the former deals more with character, style and psychology, while the latter focuses on narrative and plot. Is there a source for this assertion? I had always considered that the distinction was merely a matter first of the novelty or poignancy of a work and second of market. It's just a personal opinion, but as it stands right now the article seems to state little more — I don't even see an appeal to common consensus in the statement as it stands. Wally 08:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is an issue here with source material. I think perhaps a good look at literary criticism would be a good idea. Sigma-6 10:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources??
Is it worth it to try to tone down the POV/OR a little bit, or is it a hopeless case that no one cares about anyway. Adding sources for something other than the Updike quote would help quite a bit. But..."somewhat uneasy"? This is encyclopedic? Dybryd 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Prejudice
To me, this article seems biased. To assert that characterisation is better than plot is a matter of personal oppinion is relative, and to assert that any authors who think otherwise must therefore be only interested in money, and not value writeing as art is prejudiced. Plot is as much a part of the story as characterisation and peoples views of relative values of storiy element vary and those who prefer plot can clearly appreciate stories as art or why would they buy them), so why can't they reate them as art? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.228.5 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not convinced that you're seeing what this article says about that. The issue perhaps, is part of the old discussion of esthetic merit as it relates to cultural elitism. I'm certainly not a professional in this field, but I am under the impression that the point made here is not so much a value judgment as something like the distinction between academic and commercial art. You're certainly right that discussions of the relative merits of either when they're put in contrast with each other tends to descend into opinion, but it's long been a subject of debate whether any esthetic judgment is objective.

 * I don't think that the writer of this article asserted that characterization was 'better' than plot, so much as that the one type of fiction tended to focus on the one and the other on the other. On the other hand, is T. S. Eliot a better poet than . . . say . . . William McGonagall? Absolutely. Even if, in a hypothetical world, a McGonagall's work sells well and has a market, and an Eliot's doesn't.

 * There are objective criteria. Clearly (I'm willing to state this categorically) a literary professor familiar with the Western Canon is going to be a better judge of a work of fiction than the reader who only reads the Harlequins at the corner grocer, and it could be argued (and often is) that there is a certain elitism in that, since we are, after all, talking about art . . . but I submit that if two published authors, one a physicist and the other a soldier, both write nonfiction work about wave-particle duality, you're going to have to go with the one over the other as regards scientific accuracy, whether you understand the topic or not, and regardless of whose work is considered a saleable book.

 * No they are not objective. Your example is flawed. With non-fiction, reality is the judge, not humans. If I wrote a book about ballistics, the test would be if a cannon ball, fired under the specified conditions, hit the target. If it does, the book is a good description of ballistics. If not, the book should be discarded. If I write a book about the behavior of bees, the test would be to see if bees really do behave like this. The only gatekeeper is reality, humans can merely observe whether this book corresponds to reality. With fiction, it is utterly different. We have people who can claim to be gatekeepers, but it means nothing. There are some books which we would generally say are better that other books, but it is subjective. Literature does not stand apart from other written works. Just look at how many works were not appreciated in their day. Were the so-called gatekeepers wrong, and if so, then why should we trust them if they cannot be counted upon to be able to recognize good literature?--RLent (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 * There is these days, I think, a place we won't go in terms of art. We don't want to think it's inaccessible, so we can't allow the existence of gatekeepers. On the other hand, there certainly are such things as good and bad art, regardless of what the sales figures are. A work of literature is simply a work of enduring importance to humanity. It's nothing less than that, and for that reason, it can be genre fiction, and it can even be poorly written. All it needs to be is indelibly etched into the cultural consciousness of the species. Which should be easy, right?

 * History decides that, more than anything else. . . Is that elitist, that most of what is written throughout history doesn't make it into the canon? Maybe. There's definitely a cultural bias, but then, every culture has its canon, and that can't be avoided. The fact is, it's extremely difficult to deliberately write literature, but it's comparatively easy to write bad books that sell; though in actual fact, neither is a cakewalk. Elitism or not, that's something you can't avoid, IMO.

 * Perhaps read: Western Canon and get a sense from there what the difference is. You can't really put a lot of modern commercial authors beside Homer, for example.

 * That page has this link on it, which I think tries to get to the heart of it. Sigma-6 10:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You know, Sigma-6... I'm sure you can find a better piece to support some of your assertions than the second link you gave, which begins with the following:

 * The lowest common denominator question in relation to the Great Books debate, asked with a whining impatience by a mostly nonexistent public (which is to say the terminally "not interested" public, the severe and profoundly distracted public), is, "Are the Great Books great or not?" But this, of course, is a television question. This is what Kathy would have asked Regis or Oprah asks her adoring audience, wide-eyed with sincerity. This is, in short, the sort of thing that inquiring minds want to know. Nonetheless, I for one am happy to answer that, yes, the great works were and are great, whatever that means, and it means very little, a good old-fashioned tautology is what it is, just the sort of tautology that made this country great.

 * But, as we should know, there is another question that needs to be asked, a question that takes us beyond tautology. The question is: of what does the greatness of the great works consist? Hearing this question, you can feel North America's inquiring minds go, "Uh-oh," in anticipation that this is the sort of question that opens the door to just the people they don't want to hear from, who also happen to be just the people whose professional responsibility it is to answer the question: professors. For this is not only an aesthetic question, it is an epistemological question. How do we know what we think we know about the beautiful and the great? Uh-oh, indeed.

 * I am not a fan of the usually-vapid Oprah-style shows in any way, and also consider myself to be an intelligent person, who, having generally (according to the standardized pedagogical analysis tests they constantly subjected us to back in K-12) outpaced her peers in reading skills by at least two years... and I find that piece to be obnoxiously condescending; unnecessarily condescending, at that. And it also ignores the oft-neglected fact that we make people study these works not because they're full of very pretty sets of words, but in fact because they're culturally significant (The Scarlet Letter is an excellent example; by modern standards it has far too much exposition and the prose is too florid, but the writing style isn't the reason we appreciate it today; instead, it is the cultural influence and examination of human nature that is most important). Not because we need to ask "how do we know what we think we know about the beautiful and the great", in other words, but because it's a historically important novel, it examines human nature, and aspects of it are still frequently referenced today. The "aesthetic" is secondary. I wish I could say that it seemed to me like most teachers forced to convince kids to read Great Books knew better, and knew to respond to the "but it's so painful to read, it's all melodramatic and flowery - why are we even reading this junk?" complaints with "because it's referenced all over the place today and has an interesting examination of human psychology once you get past all the purple prose", instead of "because you're going to be tested on it next week and the school board says you have to learn it and it's a Great Book". Sadly, I've yet to run across a teacher who actually thought to take that tack, and had to discover the "because other people reference it/it has some interesting stuff behind the purple" motivations for myself. I feel sorry for all my schoolmates who were subjected to Great Books without realizing why they were supposed to learn them. But anyway, that's why I say the quoted portion is far too condescending; because it sort of assumes (or implies) that anyone that doesn't immediately like Great Books is basically a member of the Stupid Unwashed Masses Incapable of Appreciating Art and must be dealt as such... as opposed to simply coming from a culture that has a distaste and impatience for that style of writing and a desire to receive and process information at a faster clip (also, the use of "this is a television question" is not only childish-sounding, but insulting to any modern, intelligent media consumer who has bothered to read Everything Bad Is Good for You; not all television is as vapid or useless as Oprah, yet he clearly likes to think it's universally anti-intellectual crap, as opposed to simply a different medium for information and art of certainly no less varying quality than prose writing in general). I'm not saying he doesn't have something perfectly legitimate to say, but he really is extremely condescending in the way he presents his argument, and it takes a third paragraph for him to admit that yes, actually asking "what makes Great Books great" is perfectly legitimate, after two paragraphs of seemingly lambasting people for doing just that. A particularly ostentatious and useless peacock ruffling its feathers in an attempt to prove it is better than all the other birds.

 * However, lest you think I'm doing nothing but complain about your post (because I'm really not trying to complain about you so much as only one of your choice of links, for presentational and not content reasons)... the link to Western Canon, despite the brevity of the article, was an excellent choice, and I'm glad you pointed it out. This article could learn a thing or two about focus, context, and NPOV from the Western Canon article! Runa27 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Runa27, I dub thee an "anti-literary elitist". Hah. 74.251.38.22 (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Going back and reading it now (having just filled my head with John Cage), I completely agree with you. That quoted portion seems to me precisely as you describe it.  I might have been better off going with Marshall McLuhan, now that I think about it--though the piece I'd quote really just steps a little more lightly in the same places . . . and the gendered language is . . . well, gendered:

 * "The percussed victims of the new technology have invariably muttered cliches about the impracticality of artists and their fanciful preferences. But in the past century it has come to be generally acknowledged that, in the words of Wyndham Lewis, 'The artist is always engaged in writing a detailed history of the future because he is the only person aware of the nature of the present.' Knowledge of this simple fact is now needed for human survival. The ability of the artist to sidestep the bully blow of new technology of any age, and to parry such violence with full awareness, is age-old. Equally age old is the inability of the percussed victims, who cannot sidestep the new violence, to recognize their need of the artist. To reward and make celebrities of artists can, also, be a way of ignoring their prophetic work, and preventing its timely use for survival. The artist is the man in any field, scientific or humanistic, who grasps the implications of his actions and of new knowledge in his own time. He is the man of integral awareness."

 * Better? Worse?  Off-point?  I think that's a pretty good description (as distant and 'over the shoulder' as it might be) of what so-called 'great work' (in any field) consists of.  These days I'm wondering more and more if it's worth the effort to even try and identify it, because it really ought to be self-evident.  Your point about education is well taken too.  To distance myself from that link (which I do think was a poor choice. . .  apologies) I don't (personally) love great books because they allow me to allude and quote and reference and generally throw things over people's heads, but rather for the same reason I wanted to study the history of architecture (surface-scratching as my study might be). . .  When I walk into a Cathedral, or another great building, I want to become intimate with that intense feeling of being overwhelmed by a human accomplishment.  It's just not the same with Grisham and Cussler and the Oprah book club.  War and Peace may be a long read, but it's effing dense, and it's exquisitely crafted and heartwrenchingly beautiful; it's made by someone who cared so much about what they were crafting that they threw their heart, soul, and fourteen years of their life to get it *just so*.  Cussler, on the other hand, is a half-baked commercial hack who doesn't even *pretend* to understand his own times, and doesn't seem to demonstrate any interest in doing so.  If I'm an elitist for valuing one more than the other, then I'm an elitist.  Personally, what *I'm* impatient with (as a member of that generation that wants to process information at a faster clip and is impatient with that purple style of writing) is anything that's boringly typical--anything that openly and unapologetically displays its creator's lack of interest in exceeding him/herself.  I admit that that's a personal interest though, and that I'm editorializing (sorry), and that I do deliberately read a lot of bad stuff because of the social value. Sigma-6 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Sigma-6, you do realize, don't you? that the descriptions of "great art" you give in your last (long) paragraph are highly subjective? SpectrumDT (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, of course I do. Needless to say. Isn't it better to get your biases in the open than to try and conceal them in a cloud of high-flown, pretended objectivity?  When it comes to trying to figure out how to write an article like this one, that's pretty close to being The Problem, isn't it? Sigma-6 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

POV
Statements like "does not fit my personal definition", "I think it lacks the cohesion" and "I would be hard pressed" are blatantly POV unless they are quotes from someone that haven't been designated as such and properly attributed and sourced.--209.7.195.158 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I was about to say the same thing. This article is ridiculously bad. 128.195.223.168 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC).

Surely the idea of the term as a genre definition only applies to its modern sense and a particular cluster of modern texts and their production and reception. I don't think, therefore, that it needs to cohesively describe Beckett, High Victorianism, etc, as well. The Victorians had their own version and idea of 'literary fiction.' We've simply given ours a blunt designation. I think that sentence should be removed or substantially altered to be less ahistorical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.69.87 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Prose fiction redirect
Wouldn't the more appropriate target for Prose fiction be the present article? __meco (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite crucial
As an article covering such an important subject, this is desperately in need of being rewritten by editors more knowledgeable on the subject. Is there some way we can call more immediate attention to this? .Absolution. (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Three years later there is some activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, a group that calls this "High-importance" according to its project banner above. That page is also linked to the banner (select "discussion"), as for every wikiproject.
 * I wonder what share of all "High" importance articles are also "Stub" class?
 * --P64 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

 * no way do I claim expertise (other than having read a lot of LF, and tried to write it) but I've separated the characteristics of LF from the definition (which IMO is too discursive to be a good definition) and bulleted them. I've also annotated the contentious claim that plot isn't important to LF.  If I had to put it in one sentence, it would be that LF is concerned about characters as well as plot. Anyway, if you don't like it, revert it! Chrismorey (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 * PS, US and British definitions seem to differ, in the trade anyway - in US, almost anything not pure genre is classed as literary, the Brits expect it to be more highbrow. Just my personal observation Chrismorey (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge?
Is this article really needed? I'm trying to see how it might possibly be improved/expanded and am led into thinking that it should be merged with Literature, or possibly the Western canon. Rwood128 (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Or Fiction –––– I have added material from this article to Fiction. Rwood128 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 * IMO it merits keeping: (1) it's a recognised genre in the book trade; (2) it's controversial, therefore merits more discussion than a dictionary definition. There are different meanings, in particular US usage seems to apply it to all non-genre, non-escapist fiction whereas the definition given feels more like a Brit one Chrismorey (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks Chrismorey for the most useful comments. There is of course within genre fiction works of high literary merit, to confuse the issue further. Major literary figures have written science fiction, for example, like Nobel laureate Doris Lessing and Margaret Atwood and in detective fiction there is George Simenon:
 * Ned Rorem, the Pulitzer Prize-winning composer, author and longtime French expatriate, said in a telephone interview last week from his Nantucket, Mass., home that Simenon is ``one of the five greatest French writers of our century.`` Rorem placed Simenon in the company of Proust, Gide, Cocteau and Sartre. Gide once called him ``the most novelistic of novelists in French literature.
 * And academia has gradually recognised this fact. Rwood128 (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The idea that genre fiction ipso facto lacks literary merit is a false and pernicious one Chrismorey (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Anyone mind me removing the template? It seems we've come to a consensus? Wolfdog (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that we don't have "literary poetry", but just good or bad poetry; and the same is for drama. Rwood128 (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It still seems to me that this topic would be better served if it was merged into the Literature article. Rwood128 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Literary fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203054558/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/356 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/356

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Point of View
This article is written from the point of view of someone defending genre vs literary fiction. This is not a neutral tone. The bulk of the first section is justifying the literary qualities of genre.
 * The article was written previously from the point of view of someone trying to dismiss the literary qualities of genre fiction. Now it is more neutral.James343e (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 * The article was more balanced than you claim.

 * There is just good and bad writing. But isn't it possible that poor quality genre fiction can still make money? I like science fiction but I very selective. Likewise publishers tend to reject good writing that they don't see as commercial. Publisher also cut and slash novels that are too long to be commercial, or too violent or sexually explicit in the past. Rwood128 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 * I think the article is balanced just fine considering how contentious this term truly is. As stated above, it’s been changed from a POV that demeaned genre fiction to a more balanced one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesPhil (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Definition
The opening sentence of the lede badly needs improvement. A better definition is needed. Possibly old Nobel speeches could be a useful source? Rwood128 (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now, I think the lead sentence is good because it includes a resumed version of the definition form Saricks that is employed later in the body of the text.James343e (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Writers and academia
I think that there is a problems with the sentence about literary writers being employed by universities. I know of numerous local published poets who were university professors, but that job came first in all cases. I know of several writers of fiction: one is a free lance editor, one is a university librarian, two are now retired professors, who wrote as a hobby, and a deceased professor, who had tried to be a full-time writer {supported by his wife), but he got his job before ever being published. Other local writers may get work teaching creative writing, or as writers in residence for a year, both of which they would be qualified for. I know of two other locals who work in film and TV. When I google this topic I learn that most writers struggle and if they win a major literary prize that goes toward paying off debt. I imagine, however, that a successful literary author is more likely to be employed to teach creative writing than a writer of romance novels, but a citation is needed here, not my personal opinion. Rwood128 (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can delete all that sentence if you think is too generic and problematic. James343e (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I deleted it to avoid confussions.James343e (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The first two sentences in this article seem very stupid.
This article begins as follows:
 * Literary fiction is a category of fiction that explores any facet of the human condition, and may involve social commentary. Generally speaking, literary fiction is regarded as having more literary merit than genre fiction, especially the most commercially oriented type of genre fiction.

I wonder how intelligent people can take something like that seriously. I seems to imply that if a work of fiction is firmly and emphatically within some particular genre, then it does not explore any facet of the human condition or involve social commentary.

That is absurd and imbecilic and probably dishonest.

I would have guessed that literary fiction is fiction that lends itself to being read not merely to enjoy the story but to savor the artful way in which it is written, either in the use of language, or the profound nature of something in its content, or perhaps other things. In this I am probably influenced by having read C. S. Lewis's An Experiment in Criticism, and it could easily be that I am wrong since I don't know much about this, but I can't believe that that opening passage of this article makes sense. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 * This article probably should be merged with Fiction (but see above). Rwood128 (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the subject of this article?
Is this an article on literary fiction, genre fiction, or both? The weight of the article seems to rest on genre fiction and seems to be written by genre fans trying to validate genre fiction.
 * See "Merge" and other discussion above.Rwood128 (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-essentials and essentials
This article now begins as follows: "Literary fiction is a term used in the book-trade to distinguish novels that are regarded as having literary merit, from most commercial or 'genre' fiction. However, the boundaries are not fixed, and major literary figures have employed the genres of science fiction, crime fiction, romance, etc, to create works of literature." Given the acknowledgement that literary fiction and fiction within a genre are not mutually exclusive, why not try a definition that identifies what is essential, thus: "Literary fiction is a term used in the book-trade to refer to novels that are regarded as having literary merit." After that, one could say something about its relationships to genre fiction and commercial fiction, without treating comments about "distinguishing" it from them as essential to the concept. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Michael Hardy is my revision, especially "generally regarded", acceptable? By many? Some? Rwood128 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Much better! Michael Hardy (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Although have have qualms about saying "...is a term"."The giraffe (Giraffa) is a term used to refer to an African artiodactyl mammal, the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant. The giraffe (Giraffa) is an African artiodactyl mammal, the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant." There are times when "is a term" is appropriate, but often it's better omitted. (My composite parody of various solecisms in new Wikipedia articles is this:"well Basically, a giraffe is a term used by zoolooloogists to refer to when an animal has a long neck living the planes of eastern and southern Africa, which eats leafs." Michael Hardy (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposition for shifting what literary fiction is considered in the article.
The talk page dates very far back, and, thus, and central idea is not established. I feel the article itself reflects that genre and literary fiction are not two distinct things, but interlinked things. I don’t believe all genre non conforming books are literary fiction just the same as not all genre books. And books within a genre shouldn’t be considered so boldly as “lower art” or lesser literature. This idea seems to be insinuated in the article with minimal support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesPhil (talk • contribs) 22:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean this article needs some serious work. One author from 2009 is used in nearly five different citations in the first section describing literary fiction. I don’t see how genre fiction only focuses on plot and can’t be focused on human conditions or political criticism. The article from here treats genre and literary as two separate things when they really aren’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesPhil (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 * I'll take a further look at this. Rwood128 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, it does appear that the body of the article needs revising.Rwood128 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I also tend to agree more with your revision revision to the citation I initially removed. I still think broadly labeling literature in such a way needs a source with a consensus view from scholars. I think the current citation could fall under “original research” errors. Still an improvement. Overall the biggest improvement to the article would be to find recent scholarly consensus on the issue. As an example of logical errors I see here, a book that is written outside of any established genre could be awful and not artistic at all, while a book written within genre bounds could easily be artistically written. So genre doesn’t exclude literary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesPhil (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Name
I've added two synonyms here - mainstream fiction or non-genre fiction - which I believe discuss the same topic. I wonder if one of them wouldn't be a more clear name, as "literary fiction" seems very generic and ambigious. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

"Mainstream fiction" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mainstream fiction and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Literary fiction


text:
Ullage motor

Ullage motors (also known as ullage engines or  ullage rockets) are relatively small, independently fueled rocket engines that may be fired prior to main engine ignition, when the vehicle is in a zero-g situation. The resulting acceleration causes liquid in the rocket's main tanks to settle towards the aft end, ensuring uninterrupted flow to the fuel and oxidizer pumps.

Description
Cryogenic-liquid-fueled rockets keep their propellants in insulated tanks. These tanks are never completely filled to allow for expansion. In micro-gravity conditions the cryogenic liquids are without a free surface, and exist in a slushy state between solid, liquid, and gas. In this mixed state, ullage gases may be sucked into the engines, which is undesirable, as it displaces useful propellant, reduces efficiency, and may damage the engines.

Small rocket engines, called "ullage motors", are sometimes used to settle the propellant before main engine ignition to allow the formation of a temporary free surface (with a distinct boundary between liquid and gas states). These motors provide acceleration that moves the main engine liquid propellants to the bottom of their tanks ("bottom" in this usage always meaning relative to the alignment of the main motor the ullage motors are serving), so they can be pumped into the engine plumbing.

The firing of the ullage motors is used before engine reignition, during stage separation and/or stabilization of a rocket when there are brief reductions in acceleration which could allow the liquid propellant to float away from the engine intakes. Ullage motors are also commonly employed on deep-space missions where a liquid rocket needs to start a burn after traveling in micro-gravity.

To perform this ullage pre-acceleration, reaction control system (RCS) thrusters are sometimes used. Larger ullage motors can also use solid propellant, which makes them generally single-use.

American operations
The Agena-A was one of the first vehicles to make use of an ullage system in preparation for ignition after separating from its Thor booster. Failure of the Agena's internal timer was also blamed for premature ignition of this ullage system in the failed launch of "Discoverer Zero" on January 21, 1959.

The second stage (S-II) of the Saturn V rocket used in the American Apollo program used four (originally eight) ullage motors located on the aft interstage skirt. In the S-IVB third stage, there was an Auxiliary Propulsion System that also had ullage functions. Ullage is often a secondary function of the reaction control system such as on the Apollo Lunar Module (LM). In his book Lost Moon, Jim Lovell recounted a description of a course-correction burn of the LEM's main descent engine to re-enter a free return trajectory to Earth during the successful recovery of the Apollo 13 capsule:

"When the ship had stabilized in the proper attitude for firing, Lovell would deploy the LEM's landing gear, extending its four spidery legs to get them out of the way of the descent engine. Next the computer, relying on other instructions Haise typed into it, would fire four of Aquarius attitude jets for 7.5 seconds. This procedure, known as ullage, was intended to jolt the spacecraft slightly forward and force the descent engine fuel to the bottom of its tanks, eliminating bubbles and air pockets.  After that, the main descent engine would ignite automatically firing at 10 percent thrust for 5 seconds."

Soviet/Russian operations
Ullage motors were used by Soviet engineers for the Molniya interplanetary launch vehicle in 1960.

Russian Proton rockets use ullage motors called SOZ motors. These have a bad tendency of exploding years after end of operations, contributing to space debris. So far, 54 such SOZ motors have exploded in orbit.

title: Ullage motor


text:
Wedding March (Mendelssohn)

Felix Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" in C major, written in 1842, is one of the best known of the pieces from his suite of incidental music (Op. 61) to Shakespeare's play A Midsummer Night's Dream. It is one of the most frequently used wedding marches, generally being played on a church pipe organ.

At weddings in many Western countries, this piece is commonly used as a recessional, though frequently stripped of its episodes in this context. It is frequently teamed with the "Bridal Chorus" from Richard Wagner's opera Lohengrin, or with Jeremiah Clarke's "Prince of Denmark's March", both of which are often played for the entry of the bride.

The first known instance of Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" being used at a wedding was when Dorothy Carew wed Tom Daniel at St Peter's Church, Tiverton, England, on 2 June 1847 when it was performed by organist Samuel Reay. However, it did not become popular at weddings until it was selected by Victoria, The Princess Royal for her marriage to Prince Frederick William of Prussia on 25 January 1858. The bride was the daughter of Queen Victoria, who loved Mendelssohn's music and for whom Mendelssohn often played while on his visits to Britain.

An organ on which Mendelssohn gave recitals of the "Wedding March", among other works, is housed in St Ann's Church in Tottenham.

Franz Liszt wrote a virtuoso transcription of the "Wedding March and Dance of the Elves" (S. 410) in 1849–50. Based on Liszt's transcription, Vladimir Horowitz then transcribed the "Wedding March" into a virtuoso showpiece for piano and played it as an encore at his concerts.

title: Wedding March (Mendelssohn)


text:
The Last Night of a Jockey

"The Last Night of a Jockey" is an episode of the American television anthology series The Twilight Zone. In this episode, a diminutive jockey's wish to be a big man is granted. Rod Serling wrote the episode specifically for Mickey Rooney, who is the only actor to appear in it.

Opening narration
The name is Grady, five feet short in stockings and boots, a slightly distorted offshoot of a good breed of humans who race horses. He happens to be one of the rotten apples, bruised and yellowed by dealing in dirt, a short man with a short memory who's forgotten that he's worked for the sport of kings and helped turn it into a cesspool, used and misused by the two-legged animals who've hung around sporting events since the days of the Coliseum. So this is Grady, on his last night as a jockey. Behind him are Hialeah, Hollywood Park and Saratoga. Rounding the far turn and coming up fast on the rail—is the Twilight Zone.

Plot
A jockey named Michael Grady is lying alone in his room after being banned from horse racing for life for fixing races by horse doping. He drinks in his depression, and rues his five-foot height, which horse riding had served to compensate for. He then hears a voice. The voice introduces himself as "the alter ego" and claims to live in Grady's head. He argues with the alter ego, trying to justify his life and his actions, even lying about his crimes, but the alter ego knows all about him. Grady is offered the chance to change his life with one wish. Grady says his greatest wish is to be big. After Grady wakes from a nap he finds his wish has been granted; he is now close to eight feet tall.

Ecstatic, Grady calls his ex-girlfriend over the phone, but she dismisses him. He boasts that he can find more girls who will appreciate him because of his newfound height. The alter ego remains unimpressed, feeling Grady has not made good on any of his promises. He derides his dumb and "cheap" wish, and says that Grady could have wished to win the Kentucky Derby fairly, or perform a heroic act.

A telephone call from the racing commission informs Grady that he has been reinstated and can jockey again. Grady joyfully thanks everyone who petitioned to give him a second chance, but the alter ego laughs at him. Grady realizes he has become even larger, about 10 feet tall — too tall to ride a horse, or properly fit in his own apartment. Devastated, the now-giant Grady wrecks his room and pleads with the alter ego to make him small again. The alter ego denies the request, and instead replies, "You are small, Mr. Grady. You see, every time you won an honest race, that's when you were a giant. But right now, they just don't come any smaller."

Closing narration
The name is Grady, ten feet tall, a slightly distorted offshoot of a good breed of humans who race horses. Unfortunately for Mr. Grady, he learned too late that you don't measure size with a ruler, you don't figure height with a yardstick, and you never judge a man by how tall he looks in a mirror. The giant is as he does. You can make a parimutuel bet on this, win, place, or show, in or out - of the Twilight Zone.

Censorship
CBS's Program Practices department criticized this episode for use of the word "dwarf" in a negative context, suggesting that instead the terms "half-pint", "runt" or "shrimp" could be used.

Mickey Rooney and Rod Serling
Although this was Mickey Rooney's sole appearance on The Twilight Zone, he had earlier co-starred in two dramas written by Rod Serling — "The Comedian", a live 1957 episode of the 90-minute anthology series Playhouse 90, as well as the theatrical feature Requiem for a Heavyweight, a 1962 remake of the same-titled 1956 episode of Playhouse 90. The making of the as-yet-unreleased production was the subject of a discussion on the December 21, 1961 episode of the late-night talk show PM East, with guests Mickey Rooney, Rod Serling and the film's star Anthony Quinn. A decade later, in October 1972, Mickey Rooney co-starred in one additional Rod Serling teleplay — "Rare Objects" — a half-hour episode of the horror anthology series Night Gallery.

title: The Last Night of a Jockey


text:
Talk:Pay Attention

Fair use rationale for Image:Mmbpayattention.jpg
Image:Mmbpayattention.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pay Attention


text:
Vokes family

The Vokes family were three sisters, one brother and an actor (Walter Fawdon, who changed his name to Vokes) who were popular in the pantomime theatres of 1870s London and in the United States. Their father, Frederick Strafford Thwaites Vokes (1816-1890), was a theatrical costumier and wigmaker who owned a shop at 19 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. Their mother Sarah Jane Biddulph née Godden (1818-1897) was the daughter of Welsh-born strolling player Will Wood and his actress wife.

They were:
 * Fawdon Vokes (born Walter Fawdon; 1844–1904), actor
 * Fred Vokes (1846–1888), actor and dancer
 * Jessie Vokes (1848–1884), actress and dancer
 * Rosina Vokes (1854–1894), actress
 * Victoria Vokes (1853–1894), actress

History
They made their début on Christmas night in 1861 in Edinburgh and made their London début at the Alhambra Theatre in 1862 when they were billed as 'The Five Little Vokes'. First as the "Vokes Children" and later the "Vokes Family," they began to perform at music halls and at pantomimes, and by their agility and humour made the name well known to English and American theatre-goers. Early in this career, at the Lyceum Theatre, London, they danced in W. S. Gilbert's pantomime, Harlequin Cock Robin and Jenny Wren. They first appeared in the popular The Belles of the Kitchen on 27 February 1869 at the Standard Theatre in London. They made their Paris debut in August 1870 at the Théâtre du Châtelet where they were an immediate success, but with the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War it became unsafe to remain and they left the city with just a few hours notice.

The piece that most successfully carried an audience by storm was The Belles of the Kitchen, in which the Vokes family made its debut in the United States at the Union Square Theatre in New York on 15 April 1872. The family then embarked on a six month tour of the United States before returning to Britain where in October 1872 they performed Fun in a Fog. They returned to New York in April 1873 at Niblo's Garden and remained in America for the next year and nine months before returning to England. Their next season in America was at the Fifth Avenue Theatre in New York where they remained for three months. The Vokes family returned to the USA without Rosina Vokes in April 1881 when they appeared at the Globe Theatre in Boston and returned to England in June 1882 but without Fred Vokes; the family returned to the USA in Autumn 1882. They made their last appearance in New York at the Mount Morris Theatre in Harlem in January 1883, returning to England (again without brother Fred) in June 1883.

From 1868 to 1879 (with the exception of 1873, when they were touring abroad) the family were regular performers in the annual pantomime at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane under the management of F. B. Chatterton until the new manager Augustus Harris found them to be too old-fashioned having never updated their dancing routines and too demanding, while they considered him a tyrant.

Fred and two of his sisters are buried in Brompton Cemetery, London.

The Vokeses through their mother's brother, actor William F. Wood (1799-1855), were first cousins of American actress Rose Wood Morrison, who was the maternal grandmother of Hollywood starlets Constance Bennett and Joan Bennett.

This familial connection and an overview of the Vokes' lives is featured in Joan Bennett's memoir, The Bennett Playbill published in 1970.

title: Vokes family