Talk:Psmith

Psmith's first name

The listing of Psmith's first name is, if not inaccurate, misleading. "Ronald Eustace Psmith" was in fact used in only one book, Psmith's last appearance, Leave it to Psmith. True, his first name is seldom mentioned, but I think its rash to imply that it was used only once to Mike, and thus a joke. In the second book to feature the character, 1910's Psmith in the City, Psmith's own father refers to him as "Rupert, my boy." This can be easily confirmed through the Project Gutenberg e-text: Gutenberg page

The reason for the change in Leave it to Psmith seems to have simply been to avoid confusion with Baxter, whose first name had been established more recently in Something Fresh as Rupert. This would not be the only time that Wodehouse would later change a character's name. Bertie's temporary valet in Thank You Jeeves is named Brinkley in the original text, but later books featured the recurring location Brinkley Manor, the home of Aunt Dahlia. Thus, when the character returned decades later in Much Obliged Jeeves (aka Jeeves and the Tie That Binds), he was renamed Bingley.

In light of all this, I'm very much inclined to alter the entry, listing "Rupert" first but also discussing "Ronald" (especially as there's a significant link to Rupert D'Oyly Carte, cited by Wodehouse himself as the inspiration, from anecdotes, though there's some dispute as to whether he'd been confused with his brother Lucas). Of course, any other thoughts are welcome, but in keeping with the nature of Wikipedia, it seems only right to discuss the use of both names rather than to, in the text, implicitly disregard the first (and more commonly recognized) one. Aleal 01:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have altered the page in agreement with the above remarks; I choose to think of Psmith as Rupert when I think about his first name at all, and trying to come up with a plausable non-metacommentary explanation for the name change is giving me a headache. The explanation that he introduced himself as Rupert as a joke has never made sense to me, since his father calls him Rupert. Emily

I edited the Psmith page basically to time the reversion of the edit; it took about 10 hours, confirming several hypotheses of mine about the current state of Wikipedia. The entire argument about his alleged change of first name in "Leave it to Psmith" is nonsense. The only place that "Ronald Eustace" occurs is in the following passage, towards the end of the book:

"Mr..." She stopped. "I can't call you Mr McTodd. Will you please tell me your name?" "Ronald," said Psmith. "Ronald Eustace." "I suppose you have a surname?" snapped Eve. "Or an alias? ... "There's not much sense in pretending now, is there? What is your name?" "Psmith. The p is silent."

I can't imagine any possible reading of that text that would indicate that Psmith was not in fact "pretending" in calling himself "Ronald Eustace". Note also that, early in the book, Psmith signs himself "R. Psmith" and not "R. E. Psmith". Note also that I made my edit after laying my hands on a copy of the book to confirm my memory; the one who reverted it obviously didn't.

Finally, the comparison with Brinkley/Bingley is not quite accurate: Wodehouse does seek to maintain continuity by suggesting that Bertie misunderstood/misremembered Bingley's name in the earlier book (he initially refers to him as Brinkley in the later book, and is corrected by Jeeves).

None of this is important in the larger scheme of things, but all of it is emblematic of what is wrong with Wikipedia. - Rahul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.35.59 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I know what you mean by "what is wrong with Wikipedia". Nothing has gone wrong here. I removed your unsourced change. I'd be perfectly happy to reinstate your change -- or, preferably, add a few sentences discussing the issue of his name and presenting a series of relevant quotations -- with inline citations from sources such as the book itself, or perhaps a book about Wodehouse's work, to back it up. Now of course you are welcome to do this, or I'll fish up my copy of Leave it to Psmith, find the bits you're talking about, and do it myself. I figure, since you felt strongly enough to edit the article and then leave a long comment, you're probably better suited than I to give the issue the diligent attention it deserves.

If you're not willing to give an actual quotation and citation to support your claims, surely you see that nobody can take you seriously -- we can't be expected to take the word of everybody who says "but I looked it up, I promise". Writing a footnote with page numbers is a very simple matter. If you don't know how, take a look at Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Cheers — Dan | talk 15:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

By "what is wrong with Wikipedia", I mean "unsourced" changes (as you call them) are removed without verification, even if the original text was not sourced either and it would be quite easy to verify the correction; while blatantly wrong statements survive for months or in extreme cases (like this one) forever. The first name of Psmith isn't of concern to most people, but -- to take one example I ran into -- the article on "literate programming" was in a mutilated condition for many months earlier this year. It used to be that Wikipedia was reliable on technical subjects, but no longer. Yes, I feel strongly since I used to admire Wikipedia (and even contributed several new articles, years ago) and I continue to use it as a resource. But I realised a while ago that editing it is a losing battle, and am not keen on continuing. This was just to confirm my suspicions (and my blunt language was with the same idea: I think a sugar-coated, but equally "unsourced", change would not have been noticed. Feel free to revert your revertion of my change, if you like. Page numbers depend very on the edition, and the present topic hardly justifies the effort. - Rahul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.35.59 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Innocent Smith from Chesterton?

Has anyone ever noticed the similarities between Psmith and Innocent Smith from Chesterton's Man Alive? Is there anything significant in this? - Philip Smith

'left arm bowler'

I have just changed the description of Psmith as a 'left-hand bowler' to 'left arm bowler'. This is the correct terminology, as pointed out here [1] and elsewhere.Cajiad 14:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Psmith from Phil Foglio

Should there be a note on the page to distinguish Psmith from the Phil Foglio character of the same name?--72.220.148.36 03:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Added dab notice — Komusou ^talk @ 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Psmith as an unreliable narrator…

It is clearly stated in the first book that Psmith claimed to have added the ‘P’ to plain Smith to stand out; however, in Psmith in the City, he relates a tale of Norman French ancestry, “a certain Sieur de Psmith”. Given that his first name also changes, could it be that all the information he gives us about names is false, or at best unreliable? He seems to be very much his own creation in all that he does, so perhaps his name(s) are too? At least, we may not be able to know what the truth is, and that just because we were told one thing before another, doesn’t make the earlier version “more true”? Jock123 (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)