Talk:Ann Radcliffe

I just want to say that when I came to this article I found a lot of nonsense in it. I looked in the history to see what had happened. I tried to fix some of the problems, but accidentally re-instated some nonsense which had previously been removed. I think I've fixed it now, and will come back to the article later. But I want to say that I didn't make the mess on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashton1983 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

::Why does it say there are no images of her when the article is illustrated with an image?KD Tries Again (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)KD Tries Again

:::Yeah, Imma fix that! Rainspeaker (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I adapted some Radcliffe-specific information from the Gothic fiction page. CapnZapp (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I inserted a thumbnail of the image into the infobox in the Ann Radcliffe article, but subsequently removed it after discovering it was a portrait from a later era of a Princess Helena, held by the Royal Collection Trust. https://www.rct.uk/collection/420323/princess-helena-1846-1923

Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Painting_of_Ann_Radcliffe.jpg

Cliffewiki (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

: Thank you for removing that image, and for finding its real source! I also removed that painting from the article back in December, so I am surprised it reappeared. The woman in the painting is so obviously from the wrong era, it is a strange mistake. I have put back the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ann_Radcliffe.jpg standard image of Radcliffe]. I'm not entirely sure where this ink drawing portrait of Radcliffe comes from but I do recognize it as the standard image of her and it is used, e.g., [https://womensprinthistoryproject.com/blog/post/37 here] and [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/30/ann-radcliffe-gothic-fiction-mother-in-law here] so I am confident it is accurate. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

:: Oh lol I see that you literally said you added it, which is how it reappeared -- that does make sense if you were just going off the image's attribution. Thank you for starting the process to rename the file, that will help prevent future mistakes. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 22:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let's hope! What's even funnier is that this all started after I watched a 2007 PBS version of Northanger Abbey with Felicity Jones as the young Catherine Morland, who's addicted to Ann Radcliffe novels. I had to look her up! Seeing no image, I searched wikimedia and came up with the one in question -- owned by an apparent descendant (or practical joker?) who somehow uploaded it without an account.

Cliffewiki (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

By my research, the [http://estc.bl.uk/T186693 second edition] of this travel narrative (which also came out in 1795) was two volumes, but the [http://estc.bl.uk/T62060 first edition] was one volume (see the "physical desc." field). Since the first edition was a quarto rather than octavo, its pages were twice as big as the second edition, meaning it could fit the same material into only one book. Probably it was most commonly printed as two volumes (a quarto is pretty big and fancy for a travel book!) but I think usually we give this information for the first edition, so I have changed the description to say 1 vol. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"the sublime motivated the protagonist to create an image that was more idealistic within the plot."

Does this sentence "work", make sense, for native speakers?

To me it looks absurd, mixed up. 2A02:3035:C14:B03F:1:0:3F09:B5 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

In the "Influence on other writers" section, there is a pull-quote that cites "Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey" as its source, as if the quotation was an opinion of Jane Austen. Instead, this is a fictional statement spoken by the fictional character Henry Tilbey in Austen's novel. What's the correct way to format the citation to clarify that the source is a fictional character, rather than being the author's own opinion?

Here is one example of the quotation in its published context: https://archive.org/details/novelslettersofj00aust/page/134/mode/2up?q=udolpho 73.171.45.17 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Multiple image|total_width = 250

| image1 = Ann Radcliffe.jpg

| caption1 = 1853 image

| image2 = Ann Radcliffe etching.jpg

| caption2 = mysterious etching

}}

Since I've gone down the rabbit hole a bit, I wanted to document what I've found in terms of portraits of Radcliffe. Essentially, the scholarly consensus is that there are no confirmed images of her from her lifetime. I actually contacted her biographer Rictor Norton and he confirmed this. Non-scholarly sources like the Guardian sometimes use a wholly imagined portrait from J. S. Pratt’s 1853 edition of The Romance of the Forest, which is in Wikipedia as [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ann_Radcliffe.jpg File:Ann Radcliffe.jpg] but this is definitely not from life. There is also an etching that a Wikipedian found in a 1980 newspaper, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ann_Radcliffe_etching.jpg File:Ann Radcliffe etching.jpg]. Norton said (and I agree) that it's vaguely plausible this could be her, but that the evidence/provenance that currently exists is not enough to actually confirm the identification. Since putting an image in the Wikipedia infobox will dramatically increase others' use of that image, I think it's best not to have any. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Talk:Ann Radcliffe/GA1}}