Talk:Shōgun (novel)

Macron in title

Shouldn't most of the Shogun articles be moved to Shōgun? The Japanese word certainly should, according to the Manual of Style, and as far as I know the novel, miniseries and Infocom game consistently used a macron (at least in the title). --KJBracey 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[Palehorse864] This one should probably be given the overlying mark above the O since that seems to be the system the book used. For the title itself, Shougun is also appropriate, and in my opinion, more precise to the japanese spelling　of　"しょうぐん". Note that the first two characters, the し　and small よ combine to form Sho. The rest is as you would expect (U and GU and N).

12 episodes?

The tv series I saw had 10 episodes. That is also the information that IMDB has. --Coma28 04:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• IMDb's info, while usually pretty accurate, does contain errors. Shogun originally aired on five nights over one week (the mists of time have obscurred exactly which days of that week). The first and fifth episodes were three hours long (with commercials) and two, three and four were two hours each. This is why you will find some websites (like jamesclavell.net) where they list it as a 12 hour, or episode, series. There was less commercial time per hour in 1980 (oh those were the days), so that is why you will also find it listed as the nine hour epic. As with other epics through the ages changes to this original version began almost immediately. The two hour theater version being the most exteme example. Subsequent TV showings gave us the ten part version that some of you (and the person who entered the info on IMDb), will be familiar with. Scenes from the original showing had been edited to fit this new format. Amazon shows the current DVD total run time as 547 minutes, but I have not seen it to see where, or if, they have the episode breaks. Maybe someone who has can add that info to this discussion.MarnetteD | Talk 05:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Text cut from article

The two-episode version is unknown to me.
You're supposed to be writing from a 3rd person's POV -- Project2501a 09:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removal of direct links to abandonware downloads

I am removing the direct links to the abandonware games mentioned. With the focus on removing copyvio in our text, I don't believe we should be linking directly to downloads of abandonware games, even with a disclaimer (in spite of my own personal feelings on the issue.)I've changed the text to simply confirm their existence, and to suggest that they may be available at a site like Home of the Underdogs. JubalHarshaw 05:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More information need on the cover illustration

The new infobox for books is great, but we need to indicate which edition is illustrated here. Obviously it is not the first edition, but a later paperback edition. Can someone add this? Thanks. 23skidoo 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhh. Yeah. Hi. When I added the infobox I didn't know the cover artist, so sorry about that. Thanks to whoever added it.

And the artist IS Ed Vebell. I have that edition so I checked. LonelyPker 17:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Better Summary

Personally, I think that summary is very vague. Could someone add a little bit of detail to it? Thanks much. LonelyPker 17:52, May 13, 2006 (UTC)

Why mark this as unsourced?

An editor marked this article as not citing its sources. From what I can see all that's here is a summary of the book -- so the BOOK is the source. Plus there are mentions of spin-off products that are factual by their existence. I invite the editor to explain what he/she feels is not sourced. As far as I'm concerned, the infobox contains all the sourcing. 23skidoo 03:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out the lack of sources in the "historical accuracy" section. 24.16.164.87 (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

E-book available?

is there any place where the copyright has expired and one could download the pdf/txt version of this great novel?

````

I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to read a 1000+ page novel on a computer screen. In any event, the book is only 30 years old. It's doubtful there is any place on earth where it isn't copyrighted (and it would be a copyright violation to download it if you happen to be in a place where the copyright is in place, anyway. Which basically means if you're in the Americas, Europe or Asia you're definitely out of luck for the next 50 years or so. That said, it's always possible a publisher holding the rights could issue an e-book (though again, why?) but I've yet to hear of this. 23skidoo 14:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mariko is torn over Christian faith?

It's been decades since I read the book, but the miniseries is fairly fresh in my mind and I don't remember Mariko being torn at all, and actually I could swear she said something to Blackthorne suggesting that worshipping the Christian god, on top of a 1001 'Japanese' gods, didn't really present a problem for her. Is this a revision of the miniseries? Cryptonymius 17:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, Mariko is conflicted between her duty to her feudal lord (Toranaga), her Christian beliefs, and her love for Blackthorne. In the end she manages to serve all three to a greater or lesser extent. I don't recall it being any different in either the miniseries or the novel (though the novel shows in greater details the behind-the-scenes political dealings she is involved in, of course.) JubalHarshaw 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't about the miniseries - which differs quite a bit from the novel. Among otehr differences, it's the political end not shown in the miniseries that brings out her conflict. 24.16.164.87 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Currently the article says that Mariko is "torn between her new faith and her loyalty as a samurai's wife and to Toranaga." This seems a bit unclear to me, and also implies that Mariko is not samurai in her own right. I would like to change this to read "Mariko must balance her loyalty to her new faith with the loyalty she owes as a samurai to her husband Buntaro and to her liege lord Toranaga." Revanneosl (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fernão Mendes Pinto

Look at this guy. Id say Clavell draws more from him than from William Adams. Pinto claimed to be shipwrecked on Japan, being the first European in Japan, introducing the gun, had contact to a contact and met a guy named Anjiro (hence the name if the village).--Tresckow 13:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure Clavell borrowed a number of things. The fact Blackthorne was based on Adams is well-known but the book isn't a biography of Adams, so he might well have included elements of Pinto. However Blackthorne is not the first European in Japan by any means, nor did he introduce the gun to the country. If anything Pinto might have more connections to Rodrigues. 23skidoo 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Judo

Under 'historical inaccuracies' there is this phrase

For example: early on in the book a character is said to practice Judo, despite Modern Judo not being invented until hundreds of years after the book is set.

Some forms (Jikishin-ryū Judo) of what is now called Jujutsu were referred to as judo historically, also at the time of writing the translation of whatever the character was doing as judo would have been sensible as this was far better known in the west (as an Olympic sport) than jujutsu. As such it is not so much an inaccuracy as poetic licence. Should this be re phrased or removed?--Nate 12:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference is to Mura, village headman at Anjiro (and actually Toranaga's samurai spy), incapacitating a truculent Blackthorne through an unnamed unarmed combat technique. At no point is it called Judo or Karate or anything else. Blackthorne simply notices Mura's incredible proficiency in hand-to-hand and the skill is not elaborated on. If Clavell had called it by one of those names it would have been an anachronism, but he didn't. 131.96.215.74 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hiromatsu

in the list, it has hiromatsu as two real life people, would it be better to just give hiromatsu one spot so to speak?--70.173.126.2 (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotations aren't "Miscellaneous"

I'd like to remove the tag on the quotations section. The quotes are well-chosen, appropriate, and hardly "miscellaneous". They're evocative of the book as a whole, fit in perfectly with the rest of the article, and should be kept. (Though I do agree that the plot summary has grown overly long.)

Wellspring (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly agree with your nearly year-old suggestion and do this. That tag is, in my opinion, intended for much more egregious violations than this rather well-done quotations section. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The plot summary needs a serious re-working. There are substantial elements of the plot that are either glossed over or ignored altogether (in particular during Blackthorne and crew's early days in Japan -- they weren't just tossed straight into a pit and tortured). I'm going to take a crack at reworking some of this, but other editor contributions would be welcome. I just finished the book myself but even with it fresh in mind I'm positive I don't remember all salient aspects of what was quite a plot labyrinth. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The Approach to the Japanese Coastline.

I read Shogun years ago and I remember a reference to the "wheel". Subsequently, I read that in 1600 the tiller was the only way to steer the ship. Wheels were not used until much later. What is the consensus on this?Longinus876 (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite correct. The ships wheel doesn't appear until early 1700s. 85.229.56.88 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Reception section says nothing about how critics responded to the book.

The "Reception" section says nothing about how critics responded to the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:5600:5AC:396A:DD57:84B0:A1F (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Major flaw - Chess

Throughout the novel, Clavell refers to strategy of "western chess". However, chess was never popular in Japan (shogi was/is popular), and so Toranaga would have never known chess concepts. So, he couldn't have "sacrifice the queen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.236 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a work of fiction, so, no, it isn't a "flaw" and without some sort of reference to point to you are wasting space here. No Original Research and citations only, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Question on English

The Reception section reads, "Clavell said that Shōgun "is B.C. and A.D.". Is this an idiom meaning it changed everything like the birth of Jesus Christ? Google search feeds me only basic definitions of the acronyms.--2400:4050:95C3:2B00:8D1:D0EF:64A5:1FA1 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Self-resolved: After more searches, I found a NYTimes article where Clavell said "For me, that was like the difference between B.C. and A.D. All of a sudden everybody knew my work." The meaning is correct, though the phrase may not be a widely used idiom. 2400:4050:95C3:2B00:4C90:C32E:3FB2:E8E9 (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

In popular culture

An IP editor has added a new subsection § In popular culture. The content of that section is unsourced trivia that has had no notable impact on 'popular culture'. For those reasons, I reverted that edit. Within a minute, and in violation of WP:BRD, another IP (presumably the same editor) reverted me. So I've started the discussion part of that and won't revert again. If this new section of trivia is to remain in the article, at the very least, each tidbit of trivia must be sourced to relaiable sources. As you might guess, I oppose the inclusion of the §In popular culture.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring/content disputes

I recommend everyone start discussing more, and reverting less, or I'm going to start locking the article from editing soon. Please start hashing out your issues here on the talk page and waiting until there's a WP:CONSENSUS before you proceed. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Noted 5ive9teen (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

32 revisions later and the lead is still not okay, 5ive9teen. I can't keep repeating the same thing: this is not helping the article. See your talk page. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 23:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please take note of Sergecross73 admonitions and discuss suggested improvements here and only here 5ive9teen (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And 37 revisions since. You know you can also make one edit, right? And maybe use straight apostrophes. I am going to put back the lead. I am asking you to stop changing its wording. Yours was grammatically and stylistically incorrect. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 04:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I've also copy-pasted a more suitable premise. After nearly 70 (!) edits, you didn't spot "Shogante"? soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 05:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No such thing as a Shōgun restoration. Shogunate restoration was the correct term, amd the omission of that suggests that the Shogunate was uninterrupted.

5ive9teen (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You just did a revert wo discussion, this is edit warring 5ive9teen (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be willfully ignoring me. I've put back the proper lead and the premise. Take another look at the diff. Before: "Shogun recounts the events that would lead to the Shogante restoration of1603." The novel is Shōgun, it doesn't "recount the events", it is fiction. "would lead to" is clunky and in this case unnecessary regardless. Really, again, despite nearly 70 revisions, "Shogante". And no space between "of" and "1603". It is objectively better. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 05:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sergecross73, please step in. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 05:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No idea of what is coinciding with what. This may be the third time this has been pointed out.

set the stage to become Shogunthrough early moves coinciding with and facilitated by a newly arrived English sailor John Blackthorne 5ive9teen (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the novel extends beyond the battle and is not solely set to only what happens before the battle.

Set in feudal Japan before the pivotal Battle of Sekigahara of 1600 helped usher in the Edo period 5ive9teen (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You are to specifically point out in discussion the grammatical and stylistic issue here, Where we will work towards a consensus. Only then can can the edits be made, 5ive9teen (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. I disagree with your edits. So there is no consensus, so stop pushing. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 06:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, there has been no consensus since you’ve made no attempt towards it, and though you are obliged to do so. Again, discuss, gain consensus, then edit. 5ive9teen (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT? I have left you several messages and issued you two warnings. There is no consensus, I am saying you are not improving the article yet you continued all the same. And I need to discuss? The lead and premise are objectively better. I've asked Sergecross73 for help. This sounds like WP:OWNERSHIP at this point. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 06:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

From above:

Please start hashing out your issues here on the talk page and waiting until there's a WP:CONSENSUS before you proceed. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 19 April 2024

A less belligerent approach would be helpful 5ive9teen (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Please, Sergecross73, there are nearly 70 edits by 5ive9teen. I've left them messages, and I have gone through several points that are not okay. They hardly reply at all and most communication by them goes through edit summaries. The lead was and incorrect and that the premise had typos and erors (again, Shogante!). What else would like you for me to do? I cannot keep repeating myself again and again. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 07:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to see I copy-paste the discussion from User talk:5ive9teen#Shōgun (novel) lead? What else is there to do? soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 07:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting, especially when warned not to, is not a solution, You’re cordially invited to enter a good faith dialogue in which grievances are not productive at all. 5ive9teen (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You can stop the holier-than-thou attitude. Cordially invited, my ass. I had to notify an admin to get you to start talking. One reply by you on your talk page. I've said my piece. The lead is better this way. WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 09:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, this approach, which has resulted in an edit war halted by an edit restriction, is not productive. It is better to assume good faith and proceed accordingly 5ive9teen (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, page protected then. Please hash things out on the talk page, or start reaching out to outside groups for input. (WP:WIKIPROJECTS, WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc.) I don't know enough about this book or its subjects to really mediate anything myself. Sergecross73 msg me 11:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Premise

This is false:

Set in feudal Japan before the pivotal Battle of Sekigahara of 1600 helped usher in the Edo period

Shōgun extends to the aftermath of the battle

A corrected edit could read

Shogun is set around 1600 when feudal Japan, ridden by domestic and European factions, was temporarily without a Shōgun. It is mostly centered on the months before the Battle of Sekigahara and ends in its immediate aftermath. Key actors and people from this period shaped the formation of the Edo period which began in 1603 with the Tokugawa shogunate and lasted for 265 years. 5ive9teen (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Use precise language. Set around 1600? 1599? 1590? "Ridden with factions"? No. "Ridden" is vague. Two, twenty, two hundred factions? "Temporarily without a shogun"? Was the shogun inconvenienced for a spell? "Actors and people"? Redundant. And this is fiction, the events in the book did not shape anything. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 09:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

OK

Japan was without a Shōgun for 30 years, and this defined this chaotic period. The whole book, before anything else, is about the Shogunate restoration. Why the Shogunate was temporarily dormant (an accurate description) is beyond the scope of the book, but, again it was and in no case should that be omitted. 5ive9teen (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Updated suggested edit

Shogun opens in a 1600 feudal Japan chaotically divided by domestic and European factions; being for almost three decades with no Shogunate. It centers on the months before the Battle of Sekigahara and ends in its immediate aftermath. The fictionalized actors and events are based on those that shaped the Edo period’s formation in 1603; inaugurating the Tokugawa shogunate rule of Japan for 265 years and the moving of Japan’s seat of government from Osaka to Tokyo. 5ive9teen (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I propose this be the Premise in its entirety. It sets the backdrop, says what is fictionalized, and what has consequential, lasting significance—prologue, story, epilogue—without devolving into a partial, brief plot summary.

To be forthright and clear as possible:, with no comments, though they are most welcome and solicited (some have proved truly helpful), I’ll presume this Premise is acquiesced to. If there is a revert or a material, undiscussed edit, I’ll then revert and request another article protection, and whether or not that is implemented, I’ll put the Premise to a mediating 3rd Wiki party as has been suggested.

40 revisions on this talk page. 40. That is forty. And what do we get? This. I truly believe you lack WP:COMPETENCE, 5ive9teen.

• Why mention add "historic" to the premise? It is a historical novel. The correct word would be "historical", not "historic"
• "Chaotically divided", so not neatly divided?
• European forces? The plot mentions the Portuguese, which were not a "force"
• Again, shogun is the person, shogunate the political office. The "central ruler" is not the political office, but the person.
• Use straight apostrophes (I can't keep telling you this, or you just ignoring me?)
• No reason to make links like [[Tokugawa shogunate|Tokugawa shogunate’s]], again with an incorrect apostrophe
• Shōgun is historical fiction, no reason to mention the real world and historical Tokugawa shogunate at all in the premise!
• No reason to use unnecessary bold for Sakoku

You haven't responded to any of my points before and I suggest you won't now. Maybe CapnZapp, HiGuys69420 and Areaseven chime in. I can't keep repeating myself again and again. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 20:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

And instead of replying... you are adding original research. You could argue that the events in a historical novel lead to a historical event? No. No. No. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 20:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You’re talking an edit comment, and have distorted it, oh well. Unsure what about the actual edit might be at issue 5ive9teen (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I have "distorted" it? I haven't edited the article. What are you talking about? And are you WP:REFUSINGTOGETIT? I have stated, point by point, the many issues I have with your edits. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 16:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your points to the talk page to seek consensus, albeit energetically. Prior to the lifting of the edit block, it would have been beneficial to discuss and consider these points. But we are where we are. I have no issue with simply "Premise." The chaotic division of Japan bears resemblance to the warring principalities of Renaissance Italy or of England before the Battle of Hastings. In stark contrast, the US, Western Europe (excluding the Basques), and India are neatly divided. Portugal and Holland exerted significant influence, with Portugal literally a miltary force by launching a covert invasion of Japan with 200 ronin and cannon. Clavell mentions this since it has great ramifications for the story. The Jesuits, as agents of Imperial Portugal, further interfered in Japan's internal affairs, a theme prominent in Shōgun. Holland, another soon to be imperial power, sought to replace Portugal and would likely acquire similar colonial aspirations, as they shortly did in India. A novels premise, especially for a historical novel, per general knowledge and literary conventions, refers to the historical context of a novel, crucial for understanding works like Shōgun. I intended to unbold "Saku" and will do so, thanks for the suggestion. The novel's title, Shōgun, signifies the absence—and eventual restoration—of which resulted in a chaotically divided Japan, and it is linked to one of Japan's most significant shogunate inaugurations. The historical background and consequences of the novel is likely unknown to casual readers but crucial for understanding Shōgun. The point is to be helpful towards readers. Please specify any points you consider to be original research; I am happy to address them. I’m sorry that my apostrophes are a bother, and would of course not object to your preferred form. Moving forward, lets preserve comity by minimizing past grievances and assuming good faith among editors. I look forward to continued dialogue with all editors. 5ive9teen (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

to repeat: Shōgun is historical fiction, no reason to mention the real world and historical Tokugawa shogunate at all in the premise. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The premise is key since it explains the exact dynamics the novel has in play and does not deviate from. It would be a disservice to readers to not have its benefits which take nothing away from the novel 5ive9teen (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Rather than go back and forth on whether to have a promise or not, we could reach out to WP:3O for a disinterested take on the question. 5ive9teen (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that is no longer needed, since CapnZapp disagrees also. Your edits are not helping, yet you continue all the same. I am not convinced you understand what a premise is. A premise to a historical fiction novel does not include what happens in the real world and not what happens 265 years later. And why stop there? Why not mention the Meiji restoration? The Russo-Japanese war? Pearl Harbour? Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Nintendo? Pokémon? Please undo your reverts. I can't keep repeating myself. soetermans. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK</sup> 16:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Valid point about the mention of 265 years of rule. The Premise no long mentions it. However, the premise, in the broad terms it is presented is what happened in Japan, and Clavell held to it closely. 5ive9teen (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)