Talk:Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legacy Section[edit]

Hey so this section basically says "the novel was published and then in the next few years tourism increased." This seems like a pretty undeveloped idea. I'm pretty sure it's trying to imply that tourism went up because of the book, though I really have no idea if that's true. If you look at the timeline of Savannah Georgia here on wikipedia it says that an international airport terminal opened in the city. I don't know if that's enough to account for the increase in tourism, but it's at least a possible alternative consideration.--108.36.87.136 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both claims are sourced, so I’m not seeing that there’s a problem. Seasider53 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Girl Statue move[edit]

I'm pretty sure that the Bird Girl statue was moved to the Telfair Museum in Savannah long before 2005. I just watched a documentary that was filmed in the mid-1990s, and it referred to the Bird Girl statue being moved there. Newager 10:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone identify who the 'non-existent main character (as well as pairing him with another female character' refers to?

Sophomore Effort?[edit]

For the benefit of non-Americans, can somebody who understands Americanese please translate "sophomore effort" into something more meaningful? JackofOz 02:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit was correct - I don't speak Americanese either! - Also why has "boyfriend" and "relationship" got apostrophes marked around it in the main text? Is it because they are terms not being used particularly strongly; or is it someone taking the proverbial when it comes to gay relationships? I usually use the apostrophes sign when I am belittling things. --Luccent 21:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In America, a sophomore is a 2nd year high school student. A better term for what you are looking for is sophomoric, indicating a lack of maturity and judgement. As far as the quotes around boyfriend and relationship I would attribute that to a non-NPOV, as homosexual relations are not well looked upon in the US for the most part. JohnCub 14:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ See Student#Years.
_ _ "Sophomore" (and in fact the whole freshman ("frosh")/sophomore ("soph")/junior/senior scheme) applies equally for secondary ("high") schools and "higher" education (colleges & universities). I've always thot of the terminology as primarily a university/college tradition, and derivatively (imitatively) a secondary-school one, perhaps bcz in secondary schools continuing the numbered and unnamed grades with 9th thru 12th grades is an common equivalent, and bcz i think of college students as putting more energy into extra-curricular activities organized along "class" (i.e., year) lines. (Don't know how typical my contrary experience is; i always assumed my fraternity- and sorority-free college did less of that than most, i.e., i assumed other schools did more.)
_ _ My take is that "sophmoric" denotes both raw immaturity, and the kind of overconfidence in one's own maturity and sophistication that is invited by the occasion to compare yourself to those in their first year.
--Jerzy•t 06:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That "... homosexual relations are not well looked upon in the US for the most part" is some people's perception; a different perception is that live-and-let-live broadly prevails, in spite of an inexplicable insecurity in some wide circles about gay marriage, and virulent homophobia and gay-bashing in some narrow, distinctly minority, circles.
--Jerzy•t 06:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophomore = the second in a series. A sophomore effort is a second effort. A sophomore novel is a second novel. A sophomore film is a second film. A sophomore album is a second album. None of them need be sophomoric. - Nunh-huh 00:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or soporific. The word "sophomore" is virtually unknown outside the USA, so it is probably best avoided in Wikipedia articles unless the context of the article demands it. That certainly isn't the case here. JackofOz 02:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Article text & tags contradict as to year of book: '94 & '96; perhaps this is due to the HC & PB editions, which IIRC were well over the usual 12 months apart. Even so, if BP date is mentioned, it needs to be clearly labelled. (IMDb does confirm '97 for the film.)
--Jerzy•t 05:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article split?[edit]

I made some minor revisions to the article - just regrouping some statements that were already here.

I did notice a section labeled "Critics" but it only spoke of the film. I expanded that section and retitled it "Film".

Is it just me, or does anyone else think there should be two articles - one for the book and one for the film? I think there is enough specific information for both to merit two articles. See Mommie Dearest and Mommie Dearest (film) for an example of what I mean....Thanks. NickBurns 18:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed up on the splitting of articles - added the flag to the main article.....wanted to ask for consensus, and see if anyone has an issue with this - I'll wait to see if anyone comments before I proceed. NickBurns 02:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - purely on the grounds that there's not enough content about either to justify seperate articles; if enough can be added to enable them both to stand as sufficiently detailed stand-alone articles, then I'll change to support. MojoTas 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but only if more work is done on content. otherwise I would agrees with MojoTas. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Should only be split if the size of the present article becomes unwieldy; it's a long way from that now. - Nunh-huh 00:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think there is enough content to justify splitting. --Hypertext 08:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now as the two sections are just too short to need splitting at this point. This has been proposed for long enough that I'm going to remove the split tag now. If significant expansion occurs, someone can always repropose a split later. -Aleta 16:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more background[edit]

(Not sure how to describe what i'm taking issue with, but i'll try.) I think this article needs more 'background'. That is, it kind of jumps right into things without giving any context or anything. For example, see this paragraph:

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (referred to by locals as, simply, "The Book") is atmospheric and Southern Gothic in tone, depicting a wide range of eccentric Savannah personalities.

First of all, the 'referred to by locals' part is pretty confusing. No geography is mentioned or alluded to in any of the text leading up to this statement, leaving one to wonder, 'locals of what?' How could somebody know what 'locals' is referring to when the only subject of the paragraph is a book?

'[A] wide range of eccentric Savannah personalities' suffers from a similar lack of context. As someone who lives in America i must assume that 'Savannah' is referring to the well-known city in Georgia, but i've never seen the movie or read the book, and there's nothing in the article that directly suggests that, so i don't actually know that that's the case.

Those are the two biggest problems, but overall i think the article is very sparse and does not offer enough detail to someone unfamiliar with the book. I think the synopsis, in particular, needs to be written to reflect a more 'linear' description (you know, use those essay-writing skills they teach in high school); currently it's kind of jumping all over. ~ lav-chan @ 14:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a local, I have never heard anyone refer to it as "The Book". Skiendog (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Duplicate Article[edit]

Would appear that Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil is a direct duplicate of this article, and should be merged into this one. Agreed? Fairsing 06:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase[edit]

The action that serves as a catalyst in the book is the killing of Danny Hansford, a local hustler (characterized as "a good time not yet had by all") by respected art dealer Jim Williams, an event which resulted in four murder trials, the final one ending in acquittal after the judge finally agreed to having the case moved away from the Savannah jury pool, and which is characterized in the book as a murder.

Isn't that a bit to much for one sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.102.186 (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've broken it up now. Aleta Sing 01:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

midnight/[edit]

I went to see midnight years ago. Recently I have been going to Savannah exploring and researching the charactors and such. I also read the book while there. This movie blew me away eve though it was different from the book probably for the movie playing in the alloted time. Jim Williams would have been a interesting person to meet. There was a lady in the christmas party scene who talked after serena made her husband speach. The woman looked so much like the charactor who played the girl who was raped in "Too kill a Mockingbird" not sure if it was. The story was brilliant the charactors interesting. I love Savannah so much. I'm from MI and loved the bird girl so much brought home a similar replica for my garden.....Peggy Sousa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.204 (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva[edit]

Some interesting info: The woman who was the basis for the voodoo priestess "Minerva" in the book Valerie Fennel Aiken Boles died 9 May, 2009 in South Carolina. Berendt says Boles did not like people to take her picture or touch her because she thought it put her at risk of being hexed. Read here --Kiwipat (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaventure Cemetery and the Garden of Good and Evil[edit]

One other error is that the garden mentioned in the title was not Bonaventure Cemetery. Minerva discussed the concept of "good and evil" time in cemeteries and this was on the way to a cemetery in South Carolina. Bonaventure cemetery was a setting for part of the book, near the beginning but was not a part of the book after that. None of the characters were buried in the cemetery.

I removed this paragraph because I believe it's fundamentally inaccurate. The book never claims that Bonaventure Cemetery is the location of the titular Garden of Good and Evil. Berendt makes it perfectly clear at all times that he's referring to the cemetery in South Carolina, not Bonaventure, despite what people who haven't read the book might assume -- possibly due to the cover photo of Bonaventure, but that hardly constitutes an "error." There's another minor inaccuracy in this paragraph as well; after the early part of the book, Bonaventure does make another appearance, in a pivotal scene near the end. --Masterofzen (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source[edit]

Settling the borderland: other voices in literary journalism By Jan Whitt --JN466 18:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Midnight_in_the_Garden_of_Good_and_Evil&oldid=1215772103"