Talk:The Prisoner of Zenda

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.

Time Wars

With regard to The Zenda Vendetta: For what it's worth, I think Hawke deliberately ignored the sequel; there's a consistent pattern of apparently-not-being-aware-of-the-sequel throughout the Time Wars series. This is probably because of the other point I wanted to raise, which is that The Zenda Vendetta is - again, as is the rule for the series - not based directly on the novel, but on one of the film versions; which might also explain various other differences between Hawke's novel and Hope's original. --Paul A 02:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zenda

Could someone please add an explanation of what or where Zenda is? Nareek 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Clarityfiend 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Nareek 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting

I beleive it's worth splitting. The novel entry is getting pretty good, and the film belongs to Peter Seller's starring filmography. It will help the film article develop further. Hoverfish 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree: It's getting pretty cluttered. The 1937 film alone definitely deserves its own article. Clarityfiend 05:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added another adaptation that is worthy of inclusion. I agree that it would be better to split the article than be forced to prune or remove content relating to the various film and television versions. MrsPlum 08:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would Kagemusha be another variant?

Strongly agree:Separate articles on the major films, and references here to the operetta a minor films. - PKM 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1937 film now has its own article. Clarityfiend 10:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove split tag?

Should the split tag be removed from the article? There is not obviously anything which should be split. Glancing through the history, it appears that the split was accomplished in February '07. Sbowers3 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "feckless"?

One editor, perhaps thinking that "feckless" was a typo changed it to reckless. I reverted it because in context feckless probably is the better word. Later, another editor deleted it and summarized the edit as "minor corrections". (There were two other minor corrections.) The dictionary defines feckless as "lacking in efficiency or vitality; unthinking and irresponsible", which fits perfectly.

I didn't write the word in the first place so I have no vested interest. I'm going to change it back one more time and insert a hidden comment explaining that it is a perfectly good word. If some future editor knowing the definition of the word still decides to delete, then so be it. Sbowers3 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought feckless a bit much, but have no real problem with it. --Counter-revolutionary 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm well aware of what feckless means! ha! --Counter-revolutionary 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave it up to you. The first editor of that word apparently didn't know it. Sbowers3 20:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish?

Anyone got any references for the suggestion that Duke Michael is part Jewish? A page number for the "mongrel" reference would be a good start, but an academic paper would be better. I just finished reading it and didn't pick that up at all. JustIgnoreMe, too lazy to sign in. 212.135.238.121 (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., so I remember the "mongrel" reference now... but it's not necessarily referring to Black Michael (although Rassendyll is talking to him). I've added the "citation needed" tag. I know anti-semitism existed in 19th century Europe, but I don't think the author's ever been accused of it. JustIgnoreMe (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I was playing a game with a mongrel dog," said Rassendyll. His injury was caused by Rupert's sword, wasn't it? But at Michael's order. I agree it is ambiguous. BTW not page numbers but chapters is more helpful in the age of e-text. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, true, I'm showing my age and stupidity there (it's not like there's only been one edition). It's Chapter 8. It's a bullet wound, and it's not clear who shot him (although it's possible the sequal clarifies it). -edit- And having perused the Ruritanian Resistance website (which is definitely a POV source :) ), I now see the fan-theory that Michael was Jewish. Interesting and very Wold-Newton, but not terribly academic. JustIgnoreMe 212.135.238.115 (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you did there with the edit... but it doesn't solve the problem that Black Michael's purported Jewish ancestry is not explicitly stated in the text. Any references that might suggest it could equally suggest something else. I might state, for example, that it refers to the colour of his hair (see the title of Chapter 2), to distinguish him from the Red Elphsbergs, but that would be original research unless I could find reference to that theory elsewhere. JustIgnoreMe 212.135.238.115 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who said he might be Jewish! So I don't feel moved to defend it either way. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me do a little more digging on this one. I've just found an interesting possible connection with a parody work by Bret Harte. Once I've verified it I'll see what I can add to the article. JustIgnoreMe 212.135.238.115 (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more sources the better! It doesn't matter if a source is POV as long as the article ends up NPOV. I was fascinated when I discovered the Ruritanian Resistance fansite! BTW can I encourage you to create an account? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have an account, but if I sign in from work... you know the score. The Bret Harte parody is interesting: it's called "Rupert the Resembler" and seems to mock Hope's work for racism... but I could be reading too much into it. JustIgnoreMe (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the full text here [1]. You have made my day! What an amusingly written parody. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "mongrel" bit was because his ancestry was illegitimate - where anyone gets "Jewish" from is beyond my imagination! 96.241.105.133 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the novel explicitly makes the point that Michael was not illegitimate, as the son of a morganatic marriage, (although Rupert subsequently uses "bastard" as an insult).

whatever subsequent parodists may have done, I agree there is neither reference nor implication to "Jewish" in the novel. This Victorian novel is amusingly non-PC in modern terms, biased towards the English, aristocracy, legitimacy, etc, but that cannot justify this Wiki-article introducing "rantisemitism". Calling Michael a villain, mongrel, bastard, Black, etc has precisely nothing to do with Judaism. You might equally infer that the Elphbergs are communist because they have red hair "If he's red , he's right!" (p.5)!Jezza (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar Plotlines

I read the plot summary in the Main Article, and I thought of Twain's The Prince and the Pauper. Has anyone ever determined if Hope was influenced by The Prince and the Pauper which was published a few years earlier, in 1881? I'm thinking that there may be other examples that might predate Hope and Twain and I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning them in the context of "civilian masquerades as royalty" or "civilian - royalty switch". (I suppose there is partial overlap with "royalty masquerades as civilian", too. E.g., the movie Roman Holiday.) AdderUser (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Dumas and the Man in the Iron Mask ? Genuine King locked away and look-alike sits on the throne RGCorris (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In "The Man in the Iron Mask," the double (Philippe) isn't "lowly" (as the article falsely says he is), he's Louis' (the reigning King) biological twin brother. Philippe's birth is kept a secret and he's immediately hidden away so there won't be a dispute over which of the twins succeeds their father as King when the time comes. It's suggested in "The Man in the Iron Mask" that Philippe may have a better claim to being King than Louis but, in any event, Philippe is of noble birth and arguably has at least as much claim to being the rightful King as Louis does. I think "The Man in the Iron Mask" differs enough from "The Prisoner of Zenda" (and "The Prince and the Pauper") that it really shouldn't be mentioned as a possible precursor but, if it is mentioned the claim that Philippe is lowly should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.110.12 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jhinder Bandi (or Bondi)

An anonymous, unexplained edit has suggested that this translates from the Bengali as "The Prisoner of Zenda" rather than "The Prisoner of Jhind". I have reverted it as I assume that "Jhind" is just as much a proper name as is "Zenda" There is also a suggestion that the book is spelt "Bondi" while the film is spelt "Bandi". Can anyone fluent in both Bengali and English (and preferably has read the book and seen the film) clarify this ? RGCorris (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zenda / Prince and the Pauper

Is there a linik between the Zenda-novel and the Prince and the Papuer? Both Stories make a change between a King and a normal man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.110.14.237 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]