Talk:Edmund Wilson

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

'critic and man of letters'[edit]

Hmmm ... judging by the following, he was thick and illiterate: A savage attack on Sayers's writing ability came from the prominent American critic and man of letters Edmund Wilson, in a well-known 1945 article in The New Yorker called Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?[28] He briefly writes about her famous novel The Nine Tailors, saying "I declare that it seems to me one of the dullest books I have ever encountered in any field." Wilson continues "I had often heard people say that Dorothy Sayers wrote well ... but, really, she does not write very well: it is simply that she is more consciously literary than most of the other detective-story writers and that she thus attracts attention in a field which is mostly on a sub-literary level." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

I added Wilson's dob, and corrected his dod, each based on Encyclopedia Britanica and other sources. --Jose Ramos 09:32, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The paragraph on Wilson's non-payment of income taxes seems slanted. I've added a few more items to the list of Wilson's works, and slightly regularized them. Mary McCarthy was one of EW's wives. He was married several times. I believe that Wilson inspired the "Library of America" --Rick Lightburn 17 Jan 2006

I put in what some might consider the "slanted" stuff against Wilson, mainly because I don't find his "anti-Cold War" defense persuasive at all. Wilson had no problems paying taxes during the World War II years. To be blunt, I think Wilson just wanted to keep as much of his money as possible, once he started earning much more after the war. That's understandable but hardly a high and mighty moral stance. The political influence that was used to reduce his penalties is hardly edifying, either. (It's discussed in frank detail in the final paragraph of The Cold War and the Income Tax: A Protest, where Lewis Dabney, a friend of Wilson, describes how the IRS was pressured to lower his fine.) Anyway, a subsequent editor has removed some of my verbiage, and the paragraph may now be more balanced. Casey Abell 20:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His review of Ulysses[edit]

Hi, Do you know any link to his review of the Joyce's Ulysses?

Mohammad

Personal Details[edit]

Didn't his friends refer to him as "Bunny"? If so, this should be included in the article.

I believe that "Bunny" was originally used by his mother, and the name stuck.

Bunny's Burial[edit]

After his demise, it was found that his ego wouldn't fit in a standard coffin and it had to be buried separately. Bunny accused V. Nabokov, a native speaker of Russian and an accomplished writer, of making language mistakes in his Eugene Onegin.Lestrade 16:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Yes, and this:

A savage attack on Sayers's writing ability came from the prominent American critic and man of letters Edmund Wilson, in a well-known 1945 article in The New Yorker called Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?[28] He briefly writes about her famous novel The Nine Tailors, saying "I declare that it seems to me one of the dullest books I have ever encountered in any field." Wilson continues "I had often heard people say that Dorothy Sayers wrote well ... but, really, she does not write very well: it is simply that she is more consciously literary than most of the other detective-story writers and that she thus attracts attention in a field which is mostly on a sub-literary level." He was a pompous idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Article's Opening[edit]

I feel that the opening of the Wilson article should make more clear how prominent, really pre-eminent, Wilson was in his day as a critic. I'll try to revise it to reflect this, but others should feel free to fiddle with the opening further.

Also, I've tried to suggest how the critical urge in Wilson harmed some of his personal relationships.

Andrew Szanton, 5/06

But his work has dated badly, hasn't it?(While Nabokov's star is still in the ascendant.) The insights, the sensibility do not seem so special. The range still depresses.

His work has indeed dated badly, but although Nabokov's stuff is now being printed as part of the Library of America, that merely reflects the idiosyncratic judgments of its editorial board, and may not stand the test of time either, IMHO. 66.108.4.183 02:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth[reply]
I think 'Most literary experts considered Wilson the preeminent American literary critic of his day, and perhaps of the 20th century.' is dubious. In general I think 'most people think he was the greatest' counts as weasel wording. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find intelligent praise of Wilson by informed sources. Remember that we're not here to praise Wilson, or to bury him either. We're here to register the verifiable fact that he was once a giant and now maybe isn't so much. Not to pass our personal judgments on the quality of his work. Lexo 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being notorious and fawned upon doesn't make one a 'giant'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book Dimensions[edit]

Bunny dictated the size of his books to his publisher. They were of an unusual size, slightly smaller than most other hardbacks. His publisher dutifully complied with his whim.Lestrade 01:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Information[edit]

I found this article and thought it may be of some use if someone would like to sort out the information. I don't know much about him, so I don't feel at liberty to do so. Though you will need a subscription to read it. Infonation101 (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H.P. Lovecraft,[edit]

"celebrated though error-riddled essay" could the writer of this section verify "error-riddled". The New Yorker was and is famous for its fact checkers, and it is difficult to believe this statement without some reliable verification. If the writer believes the criticism was wrong that is a different matter than errors in fact of the book reviewed.Nitpyck (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added in a citation-needed. I'm no Lovecraftian, but I did just read through Wilson's essay, which is primarily literary criticism: Wilson found those stories ludicrous and Lovecraft himself as a kind of fraud "a literary man manqué" who had fooled his friends. I guess the essay could have errors related to details of Lovecraft's worlds, but I agree that it is difficult to imagine the fact-checkers permitting Lovecraft's biographical details to be wrong. Note in passing that "Marvellous" is the original spelling. 64.81.48.147 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interest piqued by Wilson (whose collection Shock of Recognition I go back to occassionally) I stumbled on this; the celebrated but error ridden line on Wilson's HPL critique appears in an obscure review of "Near the Magician: A Memoir of My Father, Edmund Wilson" by Rosalind Baker Wilson. With no explanation of the errors by the reviewer. Oh well, some people hate ice cream. There is no pleasing all tastes. Wilson's was rarified. Or to put it in perspective: how many Weird Tales authors did Wilson write major essays about? Naaman Brown (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether Wilson's opinion on Lovecraft is worthy of a separate paragraph as it currently appears. True, Lovecraft has indeed become a major influence on what has become a predominant genre in the late 20th Century/early 21st (fantasy/sci-fi/horror), but Wilson's concentrations, interests or his own fame in his time hardly rested on any relationship with Lovecraft, his work, or his subject matter. He HAD noted connections to many other writers and subject matters, in which pointed paragraphs may be worth separating out, but Wilson's thoughts on Lovecraft, or TOLKIEN are hardly worth this attention. I suggest the sentences relating to Wilson's criticisms be removed. May I add that I say this not because I seek to hide the critic from contemporary criticism for being spectacularly naive or wrongheaded about these fantasy authors (while not a Lovecraft fan,I do love Tolkien personally), I just don't think it's important enough in the subject's life, thoughts or writings to warrant this kind of highlighting for what in his times were awfully minor subjects and genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.228.93 (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think it's especially notable that this professional literary critic panned Tolkien & Agatha Christie, the two highest selling authors of the 20th century? I think it's pretty reasonable criticism. He said the two things that were the most successful, long-lasting of all his contemporaries in the field he professionally judged were bad, and they proved to be the most enduring and significant of the things from his era. I think the fact that this 'celebrated' critic made such haughty, erroneous statements about much more remembered and notable works is... well, notable? Why don't you? 174.20.103.18 (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing "highest selling" and "criticism" do not go together at all, as those are completely separate spheres. A critic is not wrong because he criticises popular authors (nor is he right because he does so) - the two things just do not compare. There's nothing wrong, of course, with some information about what Wilson had to say about popular authors (if there is some context). As it stands now the statements about what Wilson said about authors such as Lovecraft, Tolkien, Christie lack any such context (and seem to stem from fans of these authors with no knowledge of Wilson, and who just seem to be disgruntled because they came across the fact that someone had to say some uncomplimentary things about their pet subjects). In Wilson's criticism writings about such popular authors are rare. And without an overall outline of the context within which he developed his ideas of literary criticsm such statements are purely meaningless trivia. --Albrecht Conz (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christie wrote mainly awful awful rubbish (best-selling rubbish, to be sure); but this supposed 'giant of literary criticism' also panned Dorothy Sayers (and Tolkien, etc); which does demonstrate his stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson comments on his contemporaries[edit]

I thought this would provide a thumbnail of Wilson's critical style; just a taste. The Library of American collections are handy, and seem to be available at many county libraries.--36hourblock (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism?[edit]

I thought it was well-known that Wilson was an alcoholic, mention should be made of this stuff if someone can find a reputable citation soruce? Historian932 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edmund Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edmund Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates for books and articles, as well as tables for organising short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edmund_Wilson&oldid=1194079552"