Talk:Henry James
From Academic Kids
| Contents |
Opinionated?
Am I the only one who finds the recent update to the Henry James page (everything after the first paragraph) to be a little bit more opinionated than the usual "neutral Wiki" tone? And also to include specific points of fact that are detailed enough to require either citation or specific indication of the author's knowledge? (in other words, much of this sounds like material from specific biographies/critical works/lectures that would need to be cited as "the opinion of" the source in question). As an academic with an interest in this page and this subject (and who authored the IMO neutral, descriptive paragraph that heads the entry), I'm wondering what other Wikipedians think.
- Yes. It needs citation. Also, formatting according to English standards (italics for book titles, etc.). --KQ
- Indeed. I note such phrases as "his short fiction tends to be easier to read than his novels", etc. Unfortunately I myself am relatively uninformed with regards to this author, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of other statements made in this article. --KA
- Above from Sept02 P. Riis 18:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Homosexuality
Also, the statement that he "was a male homosexual" is complete speculation; I remember reading a review of a James biography a couple years ago where the author speculated James and Oliver Wendell Holmes were lovers as young men; the reviewer said there is no proof of this, or that James ever had sexual relations with anyone. What is known is that he proposed to a young lady once, but that she rejected him b/c he had not been brave enough to already enlist in the Union Army (this was during the Civil War) -- jleybov
- Above from Feb03 P. Riis 18:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Given the uncertainty, should he really be in the category "Gay writers"? Gwimpey 09:02, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I think Gwimpey is quite right--a minor change I made to the main text a while ago was meant to correct this problem--and I shall go ahead and remove the "gay writers" categorization. Hydriotaphia 02:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Given the uncertainty, should he really be in the category "Gay writers"? Gwimpey 09:02, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
Abacci Books links
Also, and more generally, does anyone else object to all these links to etexts at Abacci books? I object because Abacci doesn't actually provide anything other than links to the Project Gutenberg plain texts, and there are better (as in more readable) editions out there on the web (e.g. my own ebooks site). Not to mention that Abacci is somewhat commercial -- when you go there, links to Amazon are prominent. I'd prefer to link users to one of the free etext directories, either the IPL or the Online Books page, both of which are pretty good at indexing available etexts (although neither indexes everything). User:pamplemousse
- I've replaced them with a link to the Online Books page. You could have done it yourself.
—Paul A 06:48, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Opinionated tone
I agree that the tone of the piece is unnecessarily opinionated. It contains some statements that many scholars/readers of James would find problematic, including the attack on James' prose style as impenetrable and a preference for the novellas over the novels. Portrait of a Lady, The Wings of the Dove, and The Ambassadors are generally considered some of the greatest works in the English language. The discussion of James's sexuality is also a problem. While no thoughtful critic would deny that he had strong homoerotic attachments and in a different age might have been an active gay man, there is no evidence that he ever had a sexual relationship with either gender during his life. The automatic linkage between 'homosexual' and 'feminine' is stereotypical and offensive. --FtLouie
- Above 4Jun04 P. Riis 18:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
NPOV, really?
The NPOV label was added by an anonymous user on 10Sept04, without comment. It looks like most of the things that people were concerned about previously have been taken care of. At least nobody's talking. The article clearly needs a bit of work, but is the NPOV label necessary? If there's a dispute, it's certainly low-grade. (Or Jamesian in its subtlety?) P. Riis 01:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, it's been over a week and not a peep, so I took it off. If it still is a problem, feel free to put it back. P. Riis 15:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-I've replaced the NPOV because a number of the unsubstantiated comments about James' writing style and the silly way of referring to his sexual orientation remain without alteration. -FtLouie January 1st 2005
- I suppose you all know all about Leon Edel and the decision not to discuss the letters that turned up while his multi-volume biography was appearing. No need to confuse anyone with facts.... --Wetman 00:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"British American" author!
The latest in the string of Wikipedians working slightly beyond their level of competency here is this recategorization! --Wetman 00:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Astounding gender stereotyping
By what act of the gods of wiki can the phrase some of whose tastes and interests were rather feminine be deemed NPOV? Exactly which human traits are to be assigned to the feminine and which are masculine? I'm dying to know. Filiocht 15:55, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty bad. I tried to do something about it 6 months ago, but I just looked at my edit and realized I had basically evaded dealing with the problem. I have no idea what the original writer of that sentence was thinking, but let's put the best construction on it: perhaps s/he meant something like, "His tastes and interests were, according to the prevailing standards of Victorian Anglo-American culture, rather feminine." This, I think, would avoid the absurdities of the current version—and has the virtue of actually being true. (See Leon Edel's voluminous biography, passim, for information on how James's habits were—to his contemporaries—a little effeminate.) Hydriotaphia 04:50, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Additions
I'm the guy responsible for the latest additions to the article. The last six paragraphs cover James' non-fiction and critical reputation. I tried to keep them as neutral and factual as possible.
I also added three sentences to the fifth paragraph on James' style. This has always been a contentious issue, and Edith Wharton's sour comments on James' later books have often been used to attack his prose. I just tried to balance the ledger by pointing out how, even in his later years, James often wrote in a very accessible manner by any standard.
The sexuality issue has been chatted about to an almost ridiculous extent. There's no convincing evidence that James ever had an actual physical relationship with anybody else. His letters to both men and women are often filled with expressions of affection, but it's never been shown that any of these expressions were acted out.
Generally, comments on James' sexuality tend to reveal more about the commenters (and I'm obviously included in their number) than about James. Right now the comments in the article are about as strong as can be supported by the evidence. I thought about adding some more qualifiers, but they probably aren't needed.
Incidentally, one of James' loudest critics for his supposed lack of masculinity was Teddy Roosevelt. James responded by labeling the president "Theodore Rex," a title used by Roosevelt's latest biographer. Wouldn't you know, when the two men finally met at a White House dinner, they chatted amiably and at length, as if they were the best of friends. --Casey Abell 14:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
British author?
Is James ever really considered to be a British author? I thought he was pretty much universally considered American. While T.S. Eliot gets included in both the Norton Anthology of American Literature and the Norton Anthology of English Literature, James is included only in the former. It was always my understanding that he is basically considered an American writer. john k 02:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
