Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:11, 26 March 2012

Should move some stuff out of lede into body

Most of what is beyond the first paragraph of the lede should be moved into a section of the text. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article contents, not an essay unto itself.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Brantlinger (copied here from YGs talk page)

YK, as far as I can see Brantlinger asserts that Dickens Perils had a significant impact on British response to Indian rebellion (which ought to me mentioned). (See "Orphan texts: Victorian orphans, culture and empire" By Laura Peters) But nowhere that I can see does Brantlinger assert Dickens "spawned a new genre" of hate literature.

As I have asserted before

1) Racist fiction existed before Dickens & racism was prevalent in the Victorian detective novel.

2) Notable subsequent examples of racist fiction (for example in America The Klansmen or in Germany the racist element in Richard Wagner) are not particularly influenced by Dickens.

Ergo, I don't think we can assert this.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't "spawned a new genre: hate literature" as you read it, but " a new genre of hate literature". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading exactly as you say I read it, as should be clear from the last sentence of my first paragraph.) In what sense in Perils a new genre of hate literature?? And what is the exact quote from PB??

Genre is not the same as style (or method).--WickerGuy (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In The spirit of reform: British literature and politics, 1832-1867 p. 117 Brantlinger explicitly describes Dickens as an advocate of social peace.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the context? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Genre refers to a species or a type of text, a poem, a horror movie, a commercial or some other kind of text. Is there a limited number of text types? What is it that defines a genre? Is it a question of some formal qualities of the text itself, or merely of the caterorizer's owm suppositions? Genreric convention is continually shaped by the production and dissemination of texts as well as the reactions of audiences. Genre is not something that exists outside of its manifestations. Genres are abstracts, classifications made by the examiners of a number of certain kinds of texts. Genres produce expectations which in turn affect how the text is read and understood. Genres are similar to trade descriptions. Genres help dismantle the differentiation between text and context. (Mikko Lehtonen (2000). Cultural analysis of texts. pp. 128–129.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the concept of genre is fluid and flexible, but here we should stick to the most general sense of genre (as well as to exactly what Brantlinger says). In general usage, genre refers to things like comedy vs. tragedy, novel vs. play, detective stories, science-fiction, historical epic, etc. I cannot see any meaningful sense in which Dickens "spawned a new genre of hate literature" and want to know exactly what Brantlinger said about it.

Brantlinger was deflecting Harriet Martineau's criticism that Dickens seemed to advocate that the poor resent the rich in the quote I supplied.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, "spawning" implies widespread influence on subsequent literature. Does Brantlinger say Dickens did that?--WickerGuy (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(1)That is what I read from Brantlinger, moreover we seem to agree, you write "YK, as far as I can see Brantlinger asserts that Dickens Perils had a significant impact on British response to Indian rebellion", I am happy with that. (2)Will you please supply the paragraph, page from which the quote is extracted? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider the quote from Brantlinger germaine to this article. I only note it here on Talk to observe that Brantlinger's view of Dickens is fairly nuanced, and he also regards Dickens as layered and complex. Thus not too much should be read into PB's statements. It is, as I already said above, on p. 117 of the book. It reads

For many middle-class writers the desire for raprochement between classes places them in the awkward position of stressing what they wish to overcome. Harriet Martineau is not alone in accusing Dickens of being a "humanity monger" and of making the poor hate the rich instead of love them. But Dickens sees himself as an advocate of social peace and criticisms like Martineau's must be balanced by the assessment of the Hammonds, who declare that Dickens did "more to draw English people together than any other influence in the time." In any case, when "humanity mongers" can be perceived as dangers to the state...

I insist there is no significant body of later hate literature (novels or plays) influenced by Dickens, and I serious doubt that Brantlinger declares that there is. That is what "spawning a genre" would imply. None of the prominent examples of American racist literature (novels or plays) reflects any influence of Dickens at all! You are, I think, projecting something into PB which is not there, or else don't understand the implications of the word "spawned".

As for Brantlinger's view of Perils I am mostly going on what second-hand sources who cite PB say about him, mainly Grace Moore. I am at home rather in the library where I left it. I don't have the quote handy. However, see "Unequal partners: Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins, and Victorian authorship" by Lillian Nayder on the contrast between Dickens and W.Collins. I quote from p. 167

As Patrick Brantlinger notes in his study of mutiny literature, British writing about India before 1857 generally suggested that the natives "might be helped to progress in the scale of civilization" but denied these "hopeful but obviously ethnocentric problems" after the sepoy revolt depicting the Sepoy Indians as inherently violent and superstitious. Yet Collins not only feels the mutineers can be reformed; he feels that reformers should look to oriental rather than Western ideals in accomplishing this ideal. Instead of preaching to the rebellious Indians from a Christian text, he draws from one of their own- from the lesson delivered to the seventeenth-century Muslim emperor Shah Jehan by the wise man Abbas...Collin disassociates himself from Dickens who expressed the desire to "exterminate the race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested" when writing....about the mutiny. Whereas Dickens writes of a race "stained" with "cruelties" whose members have "disfigured the earth with...abominable atrocities, Collins suggests that the Indians are as capable of moral goodness as the British"

A couple pages later, Nayder suggests that in Collins' play The Moonstone, Collins conveys his sense that it was really Indians rather than British on the defensive in 1857.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(1)Brantlinger wrote about Dickens engendering a certain response to the events on 1857 in Britain, now we cannot go scurrying around rummaging, to verify primary sources, that is what Brantlinger said, that bloke is not FRINGE, and is RELIABLE and NOTABLE, (uppercase used to denote WP terms, in place of providing links, which become tedious). If you disagree with Brantlinger, you would need to find someone (RELIABLE etc) who agrees with you. (2) You are right about Collins, I read that the chapters in "Perils" that he wrote are used to caricature "whites". (3)Your edit "However, in his subsequent Noble Savage essay, his attitude towards Native Americans is one of condescending pity, tempered with some reflections on the arrogance of European colonialism," sorry to say was very confusing, "tempered with some reflections on the arrogance of Eurpean colonialism", however now "... by a counter-balancing concern with the arrogance of European colonialism." makes the statement clear as daylight. We can never be too careful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Important note

Nayder in commenting on a later work by Collins "A Sermon to the Sepoys".--WickerGuy (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Scholar: Comes across as PEACOCK. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is there to distinguish from "journalist". As there are both bad and/or controversial scholars, there is nothing peacock about it. Peacock is descriptions like "brilliant", "eminent", "famous". Given that so many Americans think that scholars are over-occupied with micro-analyzing minutiae to the point of missing the big picture, there is nothing peacocky about "scholar".--WickerGuy (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(1) Wasn't "journalist" an afterthought? Anyways adding professions before the sources we quote, is as far as my experience goes a little rare on Misplaced Pages, please take it off, no I won't do it myself. If someone needs to know what Brantlinger does to pay his mortgages, a few clicks and a few seconds are all that it would cost them. (2) We need to put RS to the sub-section, or it would be soon marked as un-referenced, I request you to do so as most of the section is your creation (in its present form). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Often (but not consistently) subsections that are summaries of an article elsewhere (effectively acting as a preview of a lede) on WP don't have references, but we could certainly afford to put a few in. Will do. Please continue discussion on SUBarticle Talk page to where I have copied this.

Incidentally, WPedia does indeed prefers citations from scholars over journalists in spite of a prevalent anti-intellectualism in American life (Americans in general often view reporters as really being in the field, while they see scholars are locked away in their study).

Please continue discussion on SUBarticle talk page.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Would it not be better to say all of the above on the article talk page? I know from experience that YK will not budge from his anti-British ideas and WG seems pretty adamant that YK has got it wrong. So the pair of you will surely need to seek consensus by drawing on the thoughts of other parties. OTOH, if you both want to continue here then I guess that is your business. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Stalker of this mess: this American prefers scholar and uses it liberally in articles. Furthermore, this editor believes the sources should lead instead of looking for sources to shore up one point or another. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, no, it's not "their business"; it's WP's business. WP is not a personal blog. I think this article should be deleted, myself, and if I didn't have dispute resolution fatigue I'd nominate it myself. It's nothing but a POV fork with weight problems that can't be fixed because it's obviously Yogesh Khandke's personal hobby horse. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with this - particularly the part that it's Misplaced Pages's problem. And it's a serious problem. I am happy to see that the page has been tagged. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that YK has continued the discussion on his Talk page, even after I, going along with Sitush, moved the stuff here, though the bulk of the discussion is still here.

At any rate, I've tried to do a lot to fix the weight problems, especially by introducing a fair amount of exculpatory material from Grace Moore who disagrees with the assessment of Dickens' race attitudes from Patrick Brantlinger, whom YK both likes to quote and over-interprets even that.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

POV Issues

From previous thread just above- 2nd copy

Sitush, no, it's not "their business"; it's WP's business. WP is not a personal blog. I think this article should be deleted, myself, and if I didn't have dispute resolution fatigue I'd nominate it myself. It's nothing but a POV fork with weight problems that can't be fixed because it's obviously Yogesh Khandke's personal hobby horse. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with this - particularly the part that it's Misplaced Pages's problem. And it's a serious problem. I am happy to see that the page has been tagged. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that YK has continued the discussion on his Talk page, even after I, going along with Sitush, moved the stuff here, though the bulk of the discussion is still here.

At any rate, I've tried to do a lot to fix the weight problems, especially by introducing a fair amount of exculpatory material from Grace Moore who disagrees with the assessment of Dickens' race attitudes from Patrick Brantlinger, whom YK both likes to quote and over-interprets even that.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

End material from previous thread

I am aware that this article is in enormous danger of being a WP:POVFORK. First of all , the content of this section is controversial, but I still hope this can be discussed here from a WP:Neutral point of view. However, as there was an enormous danger of giving the whole issue WP:Undue weight (or notability) in the main article, that I feel there was also a legitimate reason for a sub-article.

It is true this was created in the wake of a heated content dispute (accompanied by some disruptive editing) on the main article on Dickens, which should indeed be a red flag. But even if the subject has been approached without full balance, I still think there are good reasons for the fork as well.

There is considerably less public discussion of Dickens' race issues than there is of that other 19th-century giant Richard Wagner. The San Francisco Jewish museum and Los Angeles' Holocaust museum devote a lot of space to Wagner's anti-Semitism, but none to Dickens. (Indeed, there was a showing of the film Oliver at the Jewish Museum of London in 2011). So on the one hand, it's good to be aware of it, but if the main article has a section on Dickens' legacy, the amount of space devoted to this issue there should be fairly minimal, at most I would think 10-20% of the legacy section.

This also accomplishes the task of separating skirmishes about this issue into a separate article-space, which is I think a good thing.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Policy states "Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." Let's all try to keep to that, but just keep the battles/disputes here rather than in the main article.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

From my point-of-view it's best to deal with the controversial material on the main biography page as was done for Ezra Pound who was tried as a traitor, and clearly anti-semitic, yet valued for his literary contributions. The trick is to balance the issues one a single page instead of splitting out - if we split this out, we should then split out other issues as well, such as his attitudes toward industrialism for example. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the issue of whether to create a split-off article due to the notability of the controversy?? I note there is a fork article on the anti-Semitism of Richard Wagner but none (as you note) on either Ezra Pound or T.S. Eliot. There is a fork article on the controversies surrounding Rushdie's novel (fork article is The Satanic Verses controversy) but none on the race issues surrounding Huckleberry Finn (the latter still fairly hot-button in the American south). There is a fork article on the Polanski sexual abuse trial, but none on Charlie Chaplin's paternity suit filed against him by an underage girl. There is a fork article on President Thomas Jefferson's relationship with his slave Sally Jemmings Jefferson-Hemings controversy but none of Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon, etc. etc.

If the issue is the relative lack of notability for most moderns of Dickens' racism (due to the absence of its influence on 20th century life), you could have a point. The online Holocaust encyclopedia has five articles that mention Richard Wagner (though not one focused on him), one that mentions Ezra Pound, but they never even mention Charles Dickens at all. YK keeps this issue alive because he thinks Dickens' racism is still highly influential on contemporary life, when the rest of us understand it is not.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. We're sending something out to the internet that other reputable publications either don't cover or cover minimally, at the whim of a single editor. This is highly problematic as far as I'm concerned. I have a fair number of edits in on Ezra Pound and am in full cognizance of how difficult it is to balance - but the main biography page is where the balance should occur. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess then it's time for an RFC. Incidentally, the print "encyclopedia on anti-semitism" does indeed have an article on Dickens, though it's fairly short.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The existence of this artcle

A legit issue at hand challenging this article is that:

1) On the one hand, virtually every opera fan in America sooner or later learns of Richard Wagner's disturbing essay Judaism in Music (Das Judenthum in der Musik), and most folks who like Wagner feel apologetic/disturbed etc. that the man who wrote the music they like also wrote this unsettling essay.

2) On the other hand, a large majority of Victorian literature fans (except for specialized scholars) have never even heard of Dickens' long-forgotten Noble Savage essay.

There is however a a modest public awareness of The Frozen Deep and The Perils of English Prisoners (still fairly minor works of Dickens), and a wide public awareness of the Fagin problem in Oliver Twist as well as an awareness that the Jewish community has largely forgiven Dickens for the latter (Addendum in strong contrast to continued apprehension about Richard Wagner).

So how WP:notable is this topic? Should we bring The Noble Savage and related works to greater public awareness or assume the lack of awareness makes the subject less notable?

My personal feeling is that since there is at least one full-length book solely devoted to discussing Dickens' relationship to imperialism (Grace Moore's Dickens and Empire) the topic might be worthy of its own article. However, others feel that since the topic is little discussed in books about Dickens in general (biographies or broad critical surveys of his body of work), it is not so notable.

Consider this a preliminary RFC.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored Lede Sentence

The original lede sentence "Although Charles Dickens is best-known as a writer of coming-of-age novels about children and adolescents and as a champion of the downtrodden poor, it has often been noted that both in his journalism and fiction he expresses attitudes that are profoundly racist and xenophobic." was deleted on the grounds of being synthesis. I am restoring it for two reasons.

1) WP is explicit that statements justified in the body of the article don't have to be cited in the lede. We already have in the body of the article "The Historical Encyclopedia of anti-semitism notes the paradox of Dickens both being a "champion of causes of the oppressed" who abhorred slavery and supported the European liberal revolutions of the 1840s, and his creation of the anti-semitic caricature of the character of Fagin." This justifies the lede statement, as does For authors Sally Ledger and Holly Furneaux, it is a puzzle as to how one can square away Dickens' racialism for concern with the poor and the downcast.

I will slightly modify and cite the statement, however.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are sources why are they not cited? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have in fact both

1)added citations, and

2)noted that in general statements in lede supported by subsequent body text (which is in turn cited) don't generally have to be cited in the lede.

For example,

Lede paragraph- Charles Keaton's career was marked by occasional scandal (No citation)

Later in article body- There were several scandals in Keaton's career, including the Maritown savings and load

is entirely legitimate.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary significance

"The online Holocaust encyclopedia has five articles that mention Richard Wagner (though not one focused on him), one that mentions Ezra Pound, but they never even mention Charles Dickens at all. YK keeps this issue alive because he thinks Dickens' racism is still highly influential on contemporary life, when the rest of us understand it is not", the Curley-Dickens reconciliation is evidence of the contemporariness of Dickens' insults, and has been added to the articleYogesh Khandke (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I entirely agree.

PS I'm doing relatively little typing and editing over the past week due to a finger injury from a week a go.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an excellent and worthy addition to the article. Thanks for keeping us a bit less Anglo-centric.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)