|Portnoy's Complaint has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Arts. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class by the WikiProject Vital Articles.|
|WikiProject Judaism||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Novels||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Sorry but this book hardly qualifies as a jewish topic. And speculating into his private life is just as morbid as can be expected of people in the US. Someone ought to show good sense and a proper ethical code and remove this section in its entirety. It's just perverse.
The line "notably demoting him from a scientist to an artist of the subconscious" lacks NPOV -- although Freud considered himself a scientist, there is absolutely no objective position to say that the move from scientist to artist is a demotion. Personally, I think it is a promotion.
Also, the reference to Martin Tupper is meaningless; is there any basis, besides the POV of the author of this contribution? Slrubenstein
"The acceptance as fact of Sigmund Freud's various psychological theories (most of which have been abandoned by practicing psychiatrists) is the most dated aspect of Portnoy's Complaint."
This is a strange piece of 'trivia'. First of all, Freud's theories have not disappeared, in fact they continue to form the basis of modern psychoanalytical practice, and much more besides. Secondly it seems strange to say that psychiatrists have abandoned Freud's theories, since in the usual sense of the term, 'psychiatrist' refers to a medical doctor who treats mental illnesses, often with pharmaceuticals. A psychoanalyst/psychotherapist is someone who treats patients with 'talking therapies' i.e. on a couch, so if anyone's purported abandoning of Freud's theories is relevant (particularly in the context of this book) it is psychoanalysts' not psychiatrists'.
Re QUALITY. This is another very good literature article in this Wikipedia. Mr Roth himself could perhaps not have done better. I would even go so far as to say that it would not be out of place in the German Wikipedia. If you permit me one little quibble however: The definition of Portnoy's Complaint does not appear on the first page of the novel in the edition of the copy in our public library which is of 1967. There it appears on the dust jacket, which can not be called the first page of the novel if we want to adhere to scientific accuracy. So the statement in the article is incorrect because it does not hold true for all copies as implicitly suggested by the article, and would therefore have to be amended. Also, the text as written on the dust jacket in our copy, and nowhere in the novel proper, clearly suggests a dictionary entry quoting among other things an article in a learned Journal (that this Journal is designated as a German Journal is certainly not a coincidence, and neither is the fact that it is called a Journal for Psychoanalyse, which even with the most limited knowledge of the German and English languages cannot be read to stand for "psychiatry", as Ms Rubenstein has correctly pointed out above), and under no circumstances a "manual" as apparently on the novel's first page in the copy that the author of the article holds in hand. It is of course unfortunate that completely different versions with completely different connotations of Mr Roth's text are in existence, but as this can not be changed, an important entry in an excellent work like the Wikipedia ought to take account of all the different versions of a novel, if there are more than one, and abstain from jumping to conclusions based on no more evidence than the one copy of the novel that the author of the article happens to hold in his hand. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- The copy of the book I have lists the original copyright date as 1967. In subsequent Trade Paperback editions, the fake article properly appears as an epigraph and shouldn't be listed as the first page of the book. --Waterspyder 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Portnoy's Complaint 2005 rejacket.jpg
Image:Portnoy's Complaint 2005 rejacket.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Learn to write.
"the book's sexual frankness was both a product of and an inspiration for..." What the fuck does this mean? If it inspired it, it came first. It it is a product, it resulted from something pre-existing. What utter nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
While I was not the writer of the quote you mention, I think I can clarify its meaning. The original writer seems to be saying that the book was a product of the feelings that created the sexual revolution, but such an early example of it in writing that it was an inspiration for many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamcomic (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Stimulating suggestion. In the category there are currently no articles about fiction; but this doesn't mean they shouldn't be added. I would say to actually create a subcategory on "Masturbation in fiction", and add a few other articles too.--Sum (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Allusions to the title
The article section "Allusions to the title" had no sourcing, so I'm challenging the section, and removing it. Sections in some articles which are often entitled something like, "In popular culture" and which are not trivial allusions may be relevant to the article, but are not immune from Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. Portions of the content of this section which meet standards of verifiability and which are presented properly as part of the narrative and not just a trivia magnet may be added back, along with appropriate sourcing with citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)