Talk:Becky Sharp

studies?

Are there any studies to show if Becky Sharp is modeled on Harriete Wilson who at one time was mistress of the real Lord Steyne? 100.15.117.207 (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, now added—thanks, 100.15.117.207! ——SerialNumber54129 12:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as there is a slight consensus per the discussion below. (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 16:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

---

• Becky Sharp (character) → Becky Sharp
• Becky Sharp → Becky Sharp (film)

The character has consistently more views than the film - about 2/3 the total views - so WP:PTOPIC per #1 but also by long-term significance as the character is the basis for the film, and has much more scholarly coverage etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 13:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I was thinking about doing this at the time (mainly on the grounds of it being the source of all other Becky Sharps, presumably), but I felt it would be too unilateral. So I do support this move, per the nominating rationale; but perhaps I have a conflict of interest. ——SerialNumber54129 12:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• support Hyperbolick (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Inconclusive. Consider the outcome of not having a primary topic, and instead having Becky Sharp disambiguate to both the character and the film. That is, I would like to see more supportive argumentation before changing my opinion to support - "2/3rds of total views" is not convincing enough on its own, not if there are only two principal search targets (the character and the movie). Also, the heroine of the Becky Sharp movie is also called Becky Sharp. So how do you distinguish between looking for the film's character (played by Miriam Hopkins) from looking for the character in general? Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oouh lots of mislinks going on. Oppose first, support second, create TWODABS - this looks like a situation where activating the dabbot to catch mislinks to the 1935 film might be worthwhile. Provided that @Galobtter: is willing to fix all the (film) links. If not then leave as is. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Well THREEDABS Becky Sharp (disambiguation) seeing as the Kitchen Confidential (TV series) character is not a reference to Vanity Fair. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I would agree that the character, one of the best-known characters in English literature who has also featured in a number of stage and screen adaptations, is primary. The film, only one of many adaptations, certainly is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

AfD result

Regarding the {{Old AfD}} box above, the article was massively improved during the discussion (after nomination before its "speedy/SNOW keep" outcome). Great work all involved! CapnZapp (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Becky Sharp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 08:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• the novel follows Sharp's efforts at snaring a wealthy, but simple, husband, and being outdone by fate in her attempt. — This isn't explicitly said in the body, and could go at the end of "Context."

1. Added

• It is possible that Thackeray's model for the Becky Sharp character was the 18th-century French courtesan, Madame du Barry. — Seems like undue weight given to one theory, given it's treatment in the body.

2. Tweaked to highlight the numerous possibilities.

• has been the subject of much scholarly debate on issues ranging from 19th-century social history, Victorian fashions, female psychology and gendered fiction. — This could perhaps be expanded upon.

Absloutely. Any ideas how?!

Context

• Thackeray wished to demonstrate — Full name and a link, and possibly a brief description, should be used to introduce Thackeray in the body

3. This better?

• the impossibility of Victorian England's closely held belief that it was impossible — This is confusing (the impossibility of an impossibility), can you rephrase?

4. That was classic Serial Number  :) Although, if you liked that, you'll love "...provides full confirmation of what the scanty evidence of as to the character of his earlier career suggests, that Ros was a man of just and equitable temperament" :D

• it is a "vast satirical panorama of materialist society" — What's the "it." Vanity Fair? If so you should say so, because it hasn't been introduced yet.

5. Indeed.

• Waterloo Campaign — Link? What's the relevance?

6. Linked. Well, the action moves to Belgium (Fabrique Belgique, as they say) and takes the characters with it.

• strictly speaking the book's heroine is Amelia Sedley ... Amelia and Rebecca are joint-main characters — So one is the heroine but they're both main characters?

7. Yes, that was rather BS... hopefully less so now.

• Amelia and Rebecca — Is there a convention for calling the latter Rebecca instead of Becky?

8. No, in fact the opposite; adjusted.

• Who's John Frazee?

9. No idea, except that he's written stuff on Victoriana (see ). Now redlinked...just in case.

Character

• who are at least middle- if not upperclass — What about Sharp?

10. Clarified.

• her ability to create herself into something she naturally is not. — What does this mean?

11. Recreates her circumstances, more like it. Tweaked.

• This section is fairly high level to someone (like me) who hasn't read the book. Perhaps some examples, or a brief plot summary in "Context," would help.

12. You and me both, brother. Still waiting for the Cliffsnotes to arrive. In the meantime, I've added a plot section/synopsis. This has now added nearly 4K bytes and almost duplicates the "Career" section. Hmmm.

• What does the block quotation have to do with this section?

13. Very little; I've moved it to where that woman was talking.

Origins, appearance and personality

• says Meade — You introduce/link her down below, when it should be done up here.

14. Linked.

Career

• hers is a traditional Burneyean entrance to the adult world — What does this mean?

15. Bloody good question; hopefully clarified now.

• he is by now unable to do. — Why?

16. Misread the source; he can, just comes to depend on her.

• he proposes marriage — So was he planning on bigamy, divorce, or death?

17. Now widowed. As you point out above, much of this is possibly already addressed by the synopsis.

• the only character who ever sees through her well-to-do English facade is Old Dobbin — Who is he? This clause also seems a bit out of place, coming as it does after a clause about Sharp being honest about her background.

18. I must be missing something here; but I added "now". Better?

• Sharpe's debut is at the 15 June Brussels Ball — Who's funding her lifestyle at this point?

Not sure I'm afraid; probably another one for York notes. Stand by.

• she had no means of transport — To the ball, or from?

19. Recast.

• Jos wants to propose to Sharp — At what point in the narrative?

20. Time indicated.

• Rawdon and Sharp have secretly wed — Who's Rawdon? This is the first mention of him. Do you mean Pitt Crowley? Rawdon is called Rawdon Crawley later on. Also, why was the marriage secret?

21. Hopefully the synopsis covers this; but I've removed "secretly" because it wasn't.

• a prop for Sharp to demonstrate her marital bliss. — How could she do that if the marriage was a secret?

See above;no longer so.

• the King, suggests Thackeray, had created the very conditions which allowed Sharp to flourish. — How so?

22. Ah. I've added a refnote explaining that it was the King who led by example throughout the decadance of the Regency era in which Becky-types...flourished.

• Her marriage to Rawdon Crawley is a major step up the social ladder, although, comments Bloom, this "ladder was a magic one and could withdraw itself at will". — As formatted, this is a one-sentence paragraph. Is it supposed to be the lead sentence of the following paragraph?

23. Visual editor fucking me over, but you're dead right, cheers.

• When her husband is arrested and held for a £100 debt — Is her husband's financial downfall a major part of the plot, or was it simply that Sharp wasn't able to find a husband with enough cash that an invoice coming due couldn't potentially send him to debtors' prison?

Not sure; will adjust when SparkNotes arrives.

• Sharp was not sleeping with Steyne, however; rather, she reckoned that she needed what she calls a "moral sheepdog", and that that was to be Steyne. — This is confusing: being caught in flagrante suggests being found in bed with someone else, but it doesn't seem that that happened here. What was the compromising situation in which she was found?

24. A degree of WP:SYNTH there; she was playing cards or something. Removed the latin swank.

• she was further ingratiating herself with him — "him" refers to Rawdon here, but I think you mean Steyne.

25. Absolutely, many thanks.

• This is an example, says Rosemarie Bodenheimer, of how the Victorian novelist used London location — "a London location"? "the London location"?

26. plural, done.

• How exactly Sharp falls from grace isn't said. Did Rawdon assume she was sleeping with Steyne, and throw her out?

Hopefully now covered by synopsis?

Love life

• Sharp clearly has sexual misadventures — Why misadventures?

27. Quite! Changed to "adventures" (and unlinked), but I'm wondering if it sounds a little bit twee now?

Critical

• Victorian literature during this period — What period?

28. Clarified.

• Tobias Smollett's grotesques. — Smollett's grotesques in particular, or Smollett-esque grotesques?

29. Nicked "Smollet-esque", cheers!

• a radically different worls". — World?

30. Spot on, cheers.

• More personally, suggests Henkle, to Thackeray himself she represented the power of the artist and the writer. — How so?

31. Added explanaition.

Real-life models

• The three paragraphs seesaw from 'no direct role model' to 'possible direct role models,' and then back to 'no direct role model.'

32. H'mm; think I've tweaked that to show that there were possibly both...

• her memoirs went through over 30 editions — Editions, or printings?

Both, it seems: The exact words used by the source are "30 editions were printed", which is an odd way of putting it, but...

Dramatic portrayals

• In 1899, Langdon Mitchell's production toured the United States — A production of Vanity Fair, presumably?

33. Clarified.

• her marriage scene was filmed in Boston's Louisburg Square, representing Russell Square in London. — Seems pretty random.

Yeees...well, I dunno, human interest (although not sure to whom; residents of Boston and Russell Square, I guess), and it was a bit of detail regarding a production about which I had very little else to say. Also, Russell Square of the book is mentioned elsewhere, so...

• Little won the Best Actress in a Drama Series category in the following year's Biarritz International Television Festival as well as a BAFTA nomination for Best Actress in a Leading Role as well. — For this role, presumably?

34. Added.

• What's the criteria for including/not including a production?

35, Err, whether I noticed or not I think...and didn't notice the blooming Navbox which lists them all! Have now added and sourced all the other productions/actresses.

See also

• Is the purported correlation between Sharp and Becky (slang) strong enough to justify talking about it in the article?

36. No mate, it's total bollocks. Sacked. (It's the only remnant of the article as I found it.)

Overall

• It's a good article, but it takes the reader's knowledge of Vanity Fair somewhat for granted. I think "Career" should be placed earlier—perhaps before "Character"—because it provides much needed context for the analysis. It provides the plot summary, without which the analysis of Sharp does not make much sense without having read the book. This would also resolve some of my comments about "Character."

Indeed, added (see #12. above, of course).

• There are a lot of quotations, which would make attributing all of them somewhat clunky, but it's unclear why you choose to attribute some of them but not others in-text.

Indeed!

Second read

• Per the second "overall" point above, perhaps worth considering on a case-by-case basis whether to introduce Amy Montz,John P. Frazee/Jennifer Hedgecock/Harold Bloom/E. M. Forster/Roger B. Henkle/Ulrich Knoepflmacher/Michael Schmidt/Kathryn Hughes/Margaret Atwood/F. M. Salter/Patricia Marks/Marion Meade/Gordon Ray/etc. Maybe not worth doing, though, if it would just be 50 permutations of "according to the writer [name of writer]".
• Opening in 1814 in London — I reworded this, but just want to make sure that the fair is also in 1814 London.
• "who is now poor." — Well yes, you've just said she's bankrupt. Do you mean that George's father forbids the marriage because she is poor?
• "Becky embarrasses Amelia" — How?
• "she has secretly married his son" — Still getting caught up by this secret thing. Why secret, and how secret if she has a son?
• "Jos dies in suspicious circumstances" — Details? Not because it's relevant, just because it sounds interesting.
• "opera-girl" — Is the hyphen in the original?
• There's some inconsistency in present/past tense when you have "writes [commentator]"/"suggested [commentator]" and the like.
• "Sharp finishes her days self-styling herself the Lady Crawley, a demi-mondaine living in penury[4] in Curzon Street." — But didn't you say in "Synopsis" that she finished her days respectably middle class?
• "Becky as Circe, who turned Odysseus's men into swine." — Is this discussed anywhere?
• "Clarke was originally ... annuity from the King." — Back-to-back sentences with a semicolon, might consider revising.
• Ref #12 not needed, that should go on the image's page instead.

Looks like another well-written and thoroughly-researched article, Serial Number 54129. Straight to AfD it is! --Usernameunique (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Usernameunique for the thoroughness of the review and the kind words. I've addressed/responded to all your points (to a greater or lesser degree, of course)—check it. Hope yer well! ——SerialNumber54129 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Err. What Gives?! ——SerialNumber54129 18:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What, does Becky Sharp feel she isn't getting the attention she deserves? The horror. Or perhaps it's just that a candy ass is reviewing this one. Serial Number 43018, I'll try to finish this up by early this week. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Taking a hundred days would certainly be apt :p cheers Usernamecandybuttocks  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 19:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, more stuff for you to plod through, above. And then a third round to follow, and then a fourth, and then a... Gonna keep this going until you give up! (If you thought this review was long, by the way... Template:Did you know nominations/Dermophis donaldtrumpi --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think 3 weeks is too bad...try 3 months!  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 17:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the length of time, but rather the length of the review: 179,684 bytes! --Usernameunique (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha! True O King, I see what you mean—this entire article is less than 59K!​ Incidentally, I've attended to most of your later points, but just can't be arsed to fill in my responses  :) bit late here. Talking of...sorry about "candyass" though :) ——SerialNumber54129 20:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, Serial Number 54129. The pass is yours; you should also consider nominating this for the gold star. Oh ... and as I'm sure you could tell, I was mortally offended by the comment. The nerve! --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Pierrepont, Duchess of Kingston-upon-Hull

Wasn't this character modeled on the real-life person Elizabeth Pierrepont, Duchess of Kingston-upon-Hull? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Systemic POV imbalance: The article as a moral indictment rather than an encyclopaedic treatment

I'd like to raise a concern that goes beyond a single section. Having read the article in full, I believe it suffers from a systemic point-of-view imbalance: it reads less like a neutral encyclopaedia entry and more like a compendium of moral condemnations of Becky Sharp, with Thackeray's satirical framework and the character's profound ambivalence largely absent.

The nature of the problem: The article consistently selects and foregrounds sources that frame Sharp in overwhelmingly negative moral terms, while the structural irony of the novel — its unreliable, sermonising narrator and its satirical critique of the society that Sharp manipulates — is mentioned only in passing and never allowed to shape the article's own voice. The result is that the article itself often sounds like the novel's hypocritical narrator, passing judgment rather than analysing. Concrete manifestations:

The plot summary as a charge sheet: The synopsis reads like a catalogue of Sharp's transgressions — her schemes, her coldness to her son, her indifference to Waterloo, her suspected poisoning of Jos. Entirely absent are the contextual elements that create ambivalence: her penniless orphanhood in a society that offers an intelligent woman no legitimate path upward; the early, genuinely happy phase of her marriage to Rawdon; her charisma, wit, and resilience. A reader unfamiliar with the novel would not understand why this character is considered one of the great creations of 19th-century fiction.

Characterisation through selectively negative quotations: Sharp is introduced as "notoriously immoral," "the embodiment of moral transgression," "famously a bad woman, selfish and endlessly designing," a "duplicitous trickster," an "outlaw, female insubordination personified," with "an aggressive streak," "obsessed by money," and "narcissistic." Positive or neutral descriptors ("unfailing good temper," "wit, cleverness and flippancy," "high-spirited") are invariably undercut by an immediate pivot to condemnation. The cumulative effect is that of a prosecutorial brief, not a balanced overview.

Conflation of narrator and author: With rare exceptions, the article treats the moral pronouncements of Thackeray's deliberately unreliable narrator as transparent vehicles of authorial intent. The satirical framework — in which the narrator's sententiousness is itself an object of critique — is acknowledged once ("the Narrator... does recognise that her behaviour reflects the hypocrisy of the world") but never allowed to inform the article's own analytical stance.

The satirical function is buried: Sharp is not merely a "bad woman" but a satirical device: her "immorality" holds up a mirror to the respectable society that enables and enjoys her performances. This is the organising insight of most major critical treatments of the novel, yet in the article it is reduced to a couple of sentences submerged beneath a weight of moralising quotation.

The ending presented without tragic dimension: The article's treatment of Sharp's final state — as a demi-mondaine, a social outcast, possibly a murderer — omits the tragic irony: she survives, but at the cost of everything that might have made survival meaningful. The character's hollowness is noted, but not the pathos of it.

What I am not proposing: I am not suggesting that Sharp's morally transgressive behaviour should be downplayed, nor that the critical sources currently cited are invalid. They represent legitimate perspectives. The problem is one of proportion and framing: the article currently endorses a moralistic reading as the default position, rather than presenting it as one interpretive tradition among others.

Suggested way forward: The article's own narrative voice should be brought into line with the scholarly consensus that Vanity Fair is a satirical novel with an unreliable narrator, and that Sharp is an irreducibly ambivalent figure — not a villain to be sentenced but a product and mirror of her society. The plot summary and characterisation sections should be rebalanced to include the contextual and sympathetic dimensions that create the novel's celebrated moral complexity. The article should draw on the extensive critical tradition — from early reviewers through to major Thackeray scholars — that treats Sharp's energy, intelligence, and performative genius as central to the novel's meaning, not as incidental footnotes to her "wickedness."

I look forward to hearing other editors' views, particularly those with access to major critical editions and scholarly monographs on Thackeray. Henry Despencer (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)