Talk:The Cuckoo (novel)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that "the first Japanese novel presented to the West," Kenjirō Tokutomi's The Cuckoo, was considered even more tragic than Madama Butterfly? Source: "Non-Japanese audiences often compared her to the character in Pierre Loti's novel Madame Chrysanthème, which formed the basis for the opera Madama Butterfly. These comparisons found Namiko even more tragic and admirable than Madame Chrysanthème
  • ALT1:... that Kenjirō Tokutomi's The Cuckoo was translated into English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Swedish, and Finnish, but none of these included its most famous line? Source: "These lines are not translated in the 1904 or 1918 translations of the novel, perhaps because the translators assumed their readers would not understand the reference to reincarnation"

5x expanded by Oulfis (talk). Self-nominated at 09:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

• The article is long enough and sufficiently expanded in the proper timeframe, but I have issues with the hooks. The first, frankly, is a bit dull. I would prefer the ALT1 hook, except it is not what either the text of the article or the reference actually say. The claim that the line isn't translated has to be restricted to the first English and French translations, because the author of the paper states that she has not read those translations in other languages. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hm, I guess I am going a bit too far with Lavelle in ALT1. She says "some hints seem to show that the French translation is the only one not based on the English version. The Spanish and Portuguese ones open with a translation of the “Introduction” to the English edition, clearly presented as such: Introducciôn de los tradutores al inglés and Introdução dos autôres da versão inglêsa." So the English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese translations (based on her research) wouldn't contain the line, but German, Italian, Swedish, and Finnish could (in the unlikely scenario where they were based on the Japanese). Piecing things together like this is probably too much synthesis and falls under original research, though.

Do either of the following hooks seem more interesting?

• ALT2:... that Kenjirō Tokutomi's tragic novel The Cuckoo was "one of the most phenomenal commercial successes Japan had ever known" when it was first published? Source: "Thanks to its tear-worthy plot and flowery style, Tokutomi Roka (or Kenjirō, 1868-1927)’s novel was one of the most phenomenal commercial successes Japan had ever known in the first half of the 20th century." (Lavelle 97)
• ALT3:... that Kenjirō Tokutomi's bestselling novel The Cuckoo was based on a real incident, in which Yataro Mishima was convinced to divorce his wife because she had tuberculosis? Source: Nimura pp. 241-243 (I can type up the pages if you want)

I also personally find it fascinating that it went from being such a big success and cultural touchstone, in Japan and in America, to being almost forgotten and inaccessible -- but I suspect 'did you know nobody cares about this book anymore' won't be broadly appealing beyond literary critics, haha. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 04:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mangoe: I think I didn't properly ping you in my reply above, my apologies, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on these alternative hooks. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies: I did look at this back at the beginning of the month, but I should have replied right away so it didn't slip my mind. I am OK with ALT3 But I would rewriting ALT1 along the following lines:

ALT1a:... that the original English and French translations of Kenjirō Tokutomi's The Cuckoo omitted its most famous line? (same cite as above)

This strikes as a better tease, and is (I think) consistent with the citation. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in again. That suggestion is consistent with Lavelle, but actually Lavelle says something stronger: neither the 1904 French and English translations, nor the 1918 English translation, include the line about reincarnation, and these are the only French and English translations to exist (not just the "original" translations). Looking more closely at Lavelle, though, I see that they actually do put in something for the line, and seem to sort of translate the first half of it. So I think the following might be best: ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ALT4:... that the English and French translations of Kenjirō Tokutomi's The Cuckoo omit half of its most famous line? "One of the biggest mysteries surrounding the topic is comprised within the translations themselves. Namiko’s famous cry of agony is quoted at the very beginning of this paper. In its denunciation of women’s inferior condition, it perfectly encapsulates the novel’s spirit and has justly so been remembered in Japan for its strong message. However, none of the three translations we have been examining translate the sentence faithfully." (Lavelle 115)

• Reviews needed for new alts. Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

ALT3 passes requirements, but is clearly inferior as a hook to ALT1 and its variations. ALT4 thus would be a better hook, but I don't think "half" is supported by the source as sampled above. A variation on "unfaithfully translated" would I think be just as hooky if worded right. However, for such a hook to be used, the article would need updating. The relevant sentences mention only "the 1904 or 1918 translations". From the surrounding article I take it are both English translations, but this should be made clear in the relevant paragraph as should the particular French translation. CMD (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right to point out that I had been neglecting the article... I have rewritten and improved its coverage of this line, which I think now supports ALT4. Here's the new paragraph:

In the French translation and both English translations, Namiko's dying words are not translated faithfully, perhaps because the translators assumed their readers would not understand the reference to reincarnation.[2] Contemporary scholars have transliterated and translated the original Japanese lines as "Aa tsurai! Tsurai! Mō – mō on’na nanzo ni – umare wa shimasen-yo. Aaa!" ("Oh my heart! Such a torture! Never – never again will I be born as a woman! Aah!")[2] or as "Aa tsurai! tsurai! Mō—mō—mō onna nanzo ni—umarewashimasenyo." ("It's more than I can bear. It's more than I can bear. I'll never, never, never be born a woman again.")[3] The 1904 English translation translate Namiko's words only as "Oh, my heart! Such a torture!"; the 1918 English translation gives "Oh! My heart! My heart!"; and the French translation gives "Ah, mon pauvre cœur!.... Quelle torture! quelle torture! Mieux eût valu n’être pas née!... Je souffre!" (Ah, my poor heart! What a torture! It would have been better not to be born! How I suffer!)[2] All of these translations leave out Namiko's plea not to be reborn as a woman, which was considered a strong condemnation of the role of women in society.[2]

Source 2 there is Lavelle, source 3 is Ito. They don't state outright that the mistranslated versions are omitting half the line, though, even though comparing all the translations makes it clear that they are. So perhaps to be on the safe side with OR:

ALT5:... that the English and French translations of Kenjirō Tokutomi's The Cuckoo all mistranslate its most famous line?

I prefer ALT4, which I think is now adequately sourced (since I think ALT4 is a a little hookier), but am fine with ALT5 too. Thanks for the patience and attentions to detail, everyone, in getting this up to snuff... (pinging @Chipmunkdavis:) ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Would replacing "half" in ALT4 with a "key aspect" or similar meet your preferences? CMD (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be game for ALT6:... that the English and French translations of Kenjirō Tokutomi's The Cuckoo all omit a key aspect of its most famous line? ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ALT6. CMD (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rublov (talk · contribs) 14:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article shortly.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lead

• Clarify what Nami-ko is, e.g. an alternative English name? Should also probably be bolded and Nami-ko should be created as a redirect to this article.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• The story relates tragedies... — this sentence is a bit of a run-on. I'd recommend splitting the last part into its own sentence.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Better, but now the lead is a little choppy. I think the plot summary could be lengthened slightly, e.g. It is a tragic melodrama about the family conflict that ensues when a young wife contracts tuberculosis. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Good point, I've made some more improvements in the lead. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Link Japanese feudal values to Feudal Japan.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Recommend broadly popular bestseller → bestseller. A bestseller is by definition popular.
  • Hm, I think I disagree -- a bestseller is not by definition broadly popular, since a book can sell a lot of copies while still only appealing to a particular niche. This sentence is trying to summarize the fact that the book was popular with people of varied backgrounds, unlike the other major bestseller Konjiki yasha which only appealed to a more 'elite' crowd. Is there another rephrasing that would capture that nuance? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • If that's what you're trying to express I think you need to be more explicit: bestseller that was popular across Japanese society. However I do wonder whether this is really important enough to include in the lead. Up to your discretion. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, taken it out of the lead for now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Not a big issue, but the last sentence about "domestic fiction" doesn't appear anywhere in the body of the article.
  • I decided this made more sense in the synopsis section, so the lead could be more
• Not sure what the convention is for old books, but the 1904 English translation at least has an OCLC number and page count which could be included in the infobox.
  • I thought about this, and in the end, I don't like privileging the English translation in that way. This is an article that is fundamentally about the Japanese novel, and the 1904 translation just happens to be one of many foreign-language translations of it. Including its page count would, I think, be actively confusing-- it certainly has a different number of pages than the Japanese novel. And the OCLC number doesn't seem very helpful. So, on reflection, I prefer not to add this information. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Synopsis

• Delete first sentence; not part of the synopsis.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• First three sentences are choppier; could they be combined, e.g. Namiko, the daughter of a general, and Takeo, a naval officer and son of a deceased baron, are happily married?
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Naval should be lower-case.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Then three sources of unhappiness ruin it all — tone of this sentence is not quite encyclopedic.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• The first is Taneo, Takeo's cousin and Namiko's rejected suitor — possessive Namiko's feels awkward here, suggest something like a former suitor of Namiko.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Then there — this transition is too colloquial.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• whose illness prevents → as her illness prevents
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• absolutism — not quite the right word as it usually refers to absolute monarchy.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• he refuses to take a course of action — this is confusing because it has not yet been stated what course of action he took.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • In fixing this you introduced a typo: divorse should be divorce. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Takeo's choice is dramatically enhanced — dramatically is a puff word, and I'm not sure what it means for someone's choice to be "enhanced".
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• She in effect dissolves her son's marriage by sending his wife back into her family → I think it's better to flip the order here, e.g. She sends his wife back to her family, in effect dissolving her son's marriage.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Link Bible and remove "Christian".
  • I have wikilinked Christian Bible since it's not quite identical to Bible and the full phrase is what the sources use. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• I think the last sentence would fit better in the "Translations and adaptations" section.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Publication and reception

• not yet a particularly successful → was not yet a particularly successful
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• broadly beloved — bit of puffery, suggest merely popular instead.
  • Again, I am trying to capture the nuance that it was not just popular within a particular readership (as with crime novels or romance novels), but read by very different social groups... is there a better way to put this? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I'd say the same thing as for the lead: need to be more explicit if you want to communicate this nuance. I would still recommend against using beloved unless you have multiple sources to support that. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• effective, tear-inducing melodrama — similar, suggest just melodrama, also to avoid paraphrasing the source too closely.
  • I removed effective but I think the tear-inducing is relevant, because the sources talk A LOT about how much people cry over this book. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't love tear-inducing as an adjective though; maybe something like the novel was broadly beloved for its flowery language and melodrama; many readers reported crying over the book? Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I made some more edits in this section to address this & the popularity aspect. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• tuberculosis itself — itself is unnecessary.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Inspiration

• Last sentence needs a source.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Major themes

• First quote (from Ito) is not a complete sentence so the quotation mark should go before the punctuation per MOS:QUOTE, and similarly for a couple of other quotes in this section.
  • This part of the MOS does not form part of the Good Article criteria. However, I have implemented these changes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Interesting, I did not realize that. Anyway, I think you might as well fix trivial deviations from the MOS. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Madama Butterfly should be italicized.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• views of tuberculosis, characterizing it as → simply views of tuberculosis as
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Takeo himself — omit itself.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• although it may have had the opposite effect in practice — could you briefly expand on this?
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • hose → those Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Translations and adaptations

• Link Mizoguchi Hakuyō?
  • Hm, it would be a redlink, and I don't feel confident that they are actually notable enough for an article. I don't think their Hototogisu poems would pass NBOOK, for example, because I only ever saw them discussed in passing mentions to show how influential the novel was. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• fifteen different languages → fifteen languages
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• seem likely to have been → seem to have been
  • I don't think the sources support this edit. What Lavelle says is We did not have access to the Finnish and Italian translations; moreover, we do not possess a good knowledge of German, Spanish or Portuguese, even less Swedish. We cannot therefore state anything for certain, but some hints seem to show that the French translation is the only one not based on the English version. (106-7) For now, I have made no change. I think it could also say "might have been" or some other phrasing offering a cautious prediction. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • If anything I think my edit is more in line with the sources? In particular I'm not sure that the quote you provided supports the use of the word likely. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • To me, "seem to have been" indicates a LOT more certainty than "seem likely to have been." Lavelle goes on to make a reasonably persuasive case that they were based on the 1904 English (there's another page and a half on the topic), which is why I think this information is probably-true enough to be worth mentioning, but I don't want to oversell it. I've toned down the certainty to "may have been." ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wonder whether the manga is notable enough to mention?
  • It doesn't pass NBOOK for its own article, but the link source is (AFAIK) a RS review and I think it's interesting. It's also one of the easier ways to read the story in English, which is really what makes it seem worth mentioning. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• their readers would not understand the reference to reincarnation → this is confusing because you haven't stated Namiko's dying words yet, would recommend doing that first.
  • I had a friend who reads Japanese help me locate the original, and I think this section is much clearer and informative now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • French translation in parentheses should be in quotes. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• English translation should come first, with Japanese transliteration in parentheses.
  • I think this is no longer relevant. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• The reference for Andō Yoshirō in this section should use a citation template for consistency with the rest of the article.
  • I do not believe this is a GA criteria, but I have made this change. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I think it is covered by Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article. in MOS:FNNR which is part of GA criteria 2a. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see, I understood that to refer only to the use of, e.g., <ref> tags versus sfn style. Regardless, all sorted now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Overall

• Earwig's copyvio tool shows "Violation Possible" at 45.7% but almost all the highlighted passages are single-sentence quotes so it's not a concern for me.
• Both images are relevant and in the public domain.
• It's not clear to me how reliable the paper from Transcommunication is. Based on this it seems that Transcommunication is something a bit less than a full peer-reviewed scholarly journal. I don't by any means think you need to remove it entirely, but the article currently leans rather heavily on it for important claims like the novel was "one of the most phenomenal commercial successes Japan had ever known". If some of these claims could instead be sourced to the Stanford book or the Harvard paper that would be a definite improvement.
  • Hm, I see why you are hesitant. But I think this particular article was peer-reviewed normally and ought to be considered a reliable source. The description there says In addition to refereed articles, we will start publishing a wide variety of writings in the future issues. There will be visual essays, critical reviews, and opinion pieces. -- the Lavelle article is clearly not a visual essay, critical review, or opinion piece, which leaves it as a refereed article. The bestseller status etc is mentioned by the other sources too so I could dig through for other cites if you think it's necessary, but I liked how Lavelle put things so I'd prefer to keep it as is. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's fine. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice work. The article is close to meeting GA standards, so I'm putting the review on hold to give you the chance to address my comments. Ruбlov (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed comments! I will start working on these and will ping you when I think the article is ready for you to take another look. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rublov, thanks again for all your comments, I think I have addressed them all now! There were a few places where I took no action or wanted some clarification, so please take a look and let me know if there are further changes needed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: A few follow-up comments. Once these are resolved, I'll be happy to pass this. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rublov: Ok, I think they are sorted! Thanks for catching those typos. I think the lead changed the most but I think it gives a more thorough overview now without getting too in the weeds. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Looks good. Passing. Ruбlov (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your work in this review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)