Talk:The Secret Agent

Does Wikipedia review movies?

I'm not sure that I agree with Benna that Wikipedia "doesn't review movies" (edit 4th October). My other comments in the piece "...very atmospheric..." and "...extremely sinister..." were not edited out by Benna. How can you describe a film without offering some comment on its merits? As I recall (and it's a long time ago that I saw it) the Hitchcock film is embarrassingly bad. Peter Maggs 20:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's always been my impression that wiki is supposed to be totally objective and not have any personal opinions in it. You could mention common criticisms/comments, with links to the appropriate reviews. I could easily be wrong about opinions on wiki, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabennet (talk • contribs) 22:32, August 13, 2006

Wikipedia does not "review" movies, since this is not exactly encyclopaedic, and because it would be impossible to do so while remaining impartial and objective (as per Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy). What Wikipedia can do, however, is include dispassionate articles (or subsections) on such films. So, regarding your comments about the film itself, I don't really know what "very atmospheric" means, but "extremely sinister" is no doubt something that would characterize all of Hitchkock's films, regardless of whether one thought it "good" or "bad". --Todeswalzer|Talk 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not being able to render an opinion on the comment, since it was edited out, I will say that, as an unlearned member of the peanut gallery, I know what "very atmospheric" and "extremely sinister" mean. Apart from the fact they can be slimmed down to "atmospheric and sinister," I see no good reason for censoring them from Wp. Haven't you read Wp articles on other films? [CC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.40 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

suggested external link:

Free audiobook from LibriVox.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackinaw (talk • contribs) 09:36, March 15, 2006

Article structure

Trivia section

Currently, there is one piece of "trivia" listed in this section and it runs as follows:

According to evidence from the Unabomber proceedings this book apparently had quite an effect on Theodore Kaczynski.

This phrase is so vague as to be meaningless. What kind of effect did it have? What evidence? How did Conrad's novel influence Kaczynski? It would be nice if this could be clarified by whoever wrote this, otherwise I think it needs to be deleted. --Todeswalzer 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No one's clarified the meaning of this sentence so I've removed it from the article. --Todeswalzer 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The recent inclusion by George Leung of more detailed information on this matter needs to be sourced or removed. (It also seems to me that the heading of "Trivia" isn't quite the right thing to call this.) --Todeswalzer|Talk 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm going to go ahead and delete the trivia section altogether. --Nick 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dedication

I've removed from the article the text of the dedication to HG Wells...

TO H. G. WELLS

the chronicler of Mr. Lewisham's love the biographer of Kipps and the historian of the ages to come

this simple tale of the XIX century is affectionately offered

... included by Dpapic, because it doesn't, on its own, add much to the article. I also don't know of any other articles discussing specific novels where the dedication has been included ver batim. However, it might be nice to know why Conrad chose to dedicate this novel to HG Wells: please, Dpapic, include this information (perhaps somewhere in the lead section) if you happen to know it. --Todeswalzer|Talk 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking up this article, and almost not having checked out the Talk page, I think the dedication would have added substantial information to my knowledge and understanding of the book. I wish someone would put it back in. CC (It's particularly interesting if you know of Wells' socialist slant. CC)

Unless someone can find a scholarly source which says WHY anyone should consider the information useful then it shouldn't be included. After all, it's just a dedication - guessing at what it would mean would surely be original research.--Adasta 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, but you don't need to say anything about the dedication to quote it. Quoting the dedication is not original research, it's just supplying information about the book, which touches on another writer. Similarly, one might find information that the author mentions in an introduction that a book was written in London -- you don't need outside research, because the evidence is internal to the book; and it's just another nifty fact about the book the average reader might find interesting. CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.46 (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Historicity?

Can someone render an opinion on the historicity of this novel? Is it based on an event that actually happened? Or, were there other events sufficiently close to this going on at that time?

Much appreciate it.

Great novel; a good article on it, too. [CC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.40 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion -- I've included some of the background on the Greenwich bombing. --Junius49 (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.46 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Kaczynski

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the Kaczynski section's inclusion in this article. a) as a paragraph, it has more words in it than either of the two sections about the book. b) it has the effect of adding sensationalist mystique to the book, constructing the book in a way that it appears to have central significance to Kaczynski's crimes. The book is absolutely prescient and relevant for a variety of reasons in the contemporary world. The narrative can be traced in endless revolutionary/terrorist actions -- so it seems to be silly to focus on this one event. (not to mention that the same paragraph exists verbatim in the Kaczynski article)

I propose removal of the Kaczynski paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.125.240 (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Unabomber section should be removed or at least reduced -- it should certainly be taken out of the intro. --Junius49 (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the Unabomber in the intro. --Junius49 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Generally - nice article; it interested me enough to make me want to read the book, so that's a great sign.

I've corrected spelling and typos.

The references need a bit of tidying up. No ISBNs in the refs, Referencing the book several times - I think it might be clearer/simpler to just have ONE reference to the book itself, listing all the page numbers you reference, ie

<ref name="The secret agent">{{cite book | first=Joseph | last=Conrad | date=1994 | title=The Secret Agent | publisher=[[Penguin Books|Penguin]] | pages=5, 18, 35-40| isbn=x-xxxxxx-xx-x}} </ref>

...and then just

<ref name="The Secret Agent"/>

on the others.

Unless there is some reason you need to reference different editions?

I suggest change "hansom" to "Hansom cab" for clarity

The link to Patrick Reilly doesn't exist - is the name misspelled?

Re. unabomber - is it possible to show any specifics that relate from the book to the unabomber actions?

Given the length of the article, I'd like to see 1 more picture in it, but I'm not sure what. Maybe a movie poster or something? Just to break things up a little.

HTH

Chzz (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Chzz's point regarding the references. According to WP:CITE#FULL: "When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers should be included whenever possible in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article." The article currently has the correct idea, but I suggest merely shortening the book references to include last name (year) and page number so as to differentiate between the different editions currently listed in the bibliography. For example: "Conrad (1994), 5" for the first ref. María (habla conmigo) 17:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On reflection - fair enough, just tidy it up so as many as poss use the same volume, and all the ones from the same book are listed together. TBH, I did ask a couple of 'experts' and got 2 different answers, so whether to have a separate ref for each page or not seems a bit undefined...depends on the article, etc. I just found the current refs confusing, but simple cleaning could sort that out. Chzz (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is quite defined, in fact. :) Book sources are not treated the same as website sources. As per the guideline stated above, page numbers are necessary for most instances in which there are numerous citations from one book; they should not be "cleaned up" or they will lose verifiability. Because I assume that the article will be expanded using the same works already listed in the Bibliography, it is important that sourcing is as accurate as possible. María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unabomber - It's very hard to define clearly if anything from the book directly influenced his actions. All that is known is that the book influenced him, and this is what I have referenced.

References - I reference different editions of the novel as they all have different information in their respective introductions.

Re. multiple refs problem, here is an excerpt from WP:FOOT which is relevent;

• Consider maintaining a separate bibliography/references section that gives full publication details for frequently cited sources, then you only need to cite the author, short title, and page number in specific notes, following Wikipedia:Citing sources. For examples of this usage, see Johannes Kepler and Rabindranath Tagore. For another solution to this issue, especially when a single source is cited many times in one article, but cites to different pages in that source each time, see Template:Rp.

Chzz (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

yes thats corect. Full bibliographic information included in the Bibliography, short citation (author, year/short title and page number) in the individual footnotes. This is all fairly basic. María (habla conmigo) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Adasta 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

It's been some time since I read the book, but I'm pretty sure Ossipon isn't panicked by Mrs. Verloc's suicide - quite the opposite. Ossipon, who's a professional gigolo, betrays Mrs. Verloc and steals her money, driving her to suicide, about which he doesn't really know, but can guess and gets so disgusted with himself that it hampers his earning power, driving him to starvation - perhaps the synopsis on the page is from some movie? I think the synopsis should be much shorter anyway - the novel isn't about the action anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.215.172 (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

by ryan agent of s.a.bm.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Secret Agent. 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/20070930035329/https://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.413 to http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.413
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sussex.ac.uk/english/documents/q3019_thomas.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Adaptations

Extended content

{{more citations needed|section|date=August 2017}} Stage In 1923 Conrad adapted the novel as a three-act drama of the same title. On 23 May 2006 the Feldkirch Festival premiered an opera based on the novel. Simon Wills wrote the music and libretto and Peter Kajlinger sang the main character, Adolf Verloc. A theatrical adaptation was produced in 2007 by Alexander Gelman, Artistic Director of Organic Theater Company in Chicago, IL, premiering on 18 April 2008. In January 2008, the play was staged in Italian by the Teatro Stabile di Genova of Genoa, under the direction of Marco Sciaccaluga. The Center for Contemporary Opera in New York presented the world premiere of a new opera by Michael Dellaira (music) and J D McClatchy (libretto), at the Kaye Playhouse at Hunter College on 18 March 2011. Amy Burton sang Winnie, Scott Bearden sang Verloc. It had its European premiere at the Armel International Opera Festival on 14 October 2011 in Szeged, Hungary, where the opera was broadcast live on the Arte Channel, and named the festival's "Laureat". Adrienn Miksch sang Winnie, Nicolas Rigas sang Verloc. The same production was reprised on 18 April 2012 at L'Opéra-Théâtre d'Avignon in Avignon, France. All productions were directed by Sam Helfrich and conducted by Sara Jobin. The Capitol City Opera Company of Atlanta presented the world premiere of The Secret Agent, an opera in two acts with music by Curtis Bryant and libretto by Allen Reichman at the Conant Center for Performing Arts at Oglethorpe University on 15 March 2013. Directed by Michael Nutter, the production featured soprano Elizabeth Claxton in the role of Winnie, baritone Wade Thomas as Verloc and tenor Timothy Miller as Ossipon. In this operatic treatment, originally completed in 2007 under the title The Anarchist, Winnie, discovering that she has been abandoned on the train, sings a final aria "Fooled Again." Bryant quotes one measure from Puccini's Tosca before Winnie leaps into the path of an oncoming train, ending her life and the opera. Film The novel supposedly formed the basis for Alfred Hitchcock's 1936 film, Sabotage, though the plot and characters are very different. (Another 1936 Hitchcock film, Secret Agent, was based on short stories by W. Somerset Maugham.) A 1996 film The Secret Agent, more faithful to the original novel, starred Bob Hoskins, Patricia Arquette and Gérard Depardieu. Television The BBC adapted The Secret Agent in two 45-minute episodes in 1967, with Nigel Green as Adolph Verloc, Mary Webster as Winnie, Dennis Waterman as Stevie, David Collings as Mr Vladimir, Edwin Richfield as Chief Inspector Heat, and John Cater as The Professor. A second BBC version, a single 95-minute play, was screened in 1975, with Paul Rogers as Verloc, Frances White as Winnie, Peter Clough as Stevie, Anton Rodgers as Mr Vladimir, Peter Sallis as Chief Inspector Heat, and John Cater reprising as The Professor. A third BBC version, in three 55-minute episodes, appeared in 1992, with David Suchet as Adolf Verloc, Cheryl Campbell as his wife Winnie, and Peter Capaldi as Mr Vladimir. Verloc was transformed into a more sympathetic character for this work, in which he deeply grieved for Stevie's death. In July 2016 the BBC broadcast a fourth version, starring Toby Jones, Vicky McClure and Stephen Graham. Radio David Napthine dramatised a radio adaptation for BBC Radio 4 in 2006, starring Ron Cook and Robert Glenister. References

Archiving this unsourced list of adaptations here. Feel free to reinstate with reliable, independent sources. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 13:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)