Talk:Evelyn Waugh

comments

Pfortuny, maybe you could give us a few more details about this anti-catholic purge? It would certainly reassure people who are of a skeptic disposition. DJ Clayworth 18:42, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry I cannot and I am sorry I did the "undeletion" without previous research. This has quite clearly been a mistake on my side, sorry. I thought "if it has been there so far, it must be documented, and as the deletion was anonymous, I guess the reader simply got annoyed". Now I feel I have no grounds to support the "anti-catholic purge": I just searched the interent a couple of hours ago and found nothing...

William F. Buckley is the founder and editor emeritus of The National Review. See National Review Online or his columns carried by various American publications. He is considered the founder of the modern American Conservative renaissance.

Shall I revert my reversion? Real sorry. My

only "aliby" was the anonimity. Pfortuny 20:21, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, I added some material about EW's marriages and early life. I also removed some of the text about his war experience, because there was too much of it in relation to the rest of his life. (He is mainly remembered, after all, as a novelist not a soldier.) . However, the Royal Commandos' Association has gone back in and restored all the military bits. It would be good if someone else cared to restore the balance by adding more on the non-military aspects of this important artist's life. (txn)

Is there a specific reason the photograph of Waugh's supposed "boyfriend" shows Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews from Brideshead Revisited's televisionseries? FoekeNoppert 17:10, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Who is William F. Buckley (mentioned in the first paragraph)? He needs an article and a link here; otherwise, I think, the quote attributed to him about Waugh seems a bit insignificant. 00:00, July 8 2005

Re: The statement that whether the author knew that a London reviewer referred to him as Miss Waugh is unknown, is false. He wrote a letter to the London Paper and told the reviewer they should have done their research. Sorry I don't have an accurate quote, I heard it on the Radio on BBC7's "Waugh on Five Fronts" the other day and it has now expired from the iplayer. If anyone has a copy of his published letters, take a look.

On Editing Evelyn

I've made some edits that I'm sure will be attracting flack. I didn't do this merely to attract the flack, but because I honestly take issue with the literary judgements I changed. The real point, however, is that if there can be such widely divergent judgements as this, then the article is not NPOV. Somehow it must be possible to accommodate all these POVs without becoming merely anodyne.

Also, I think the article would be much improived by the addition of brief treatments of each of the major works - I've done a little of this for two or three novels in the very last section.

• I have edited EW's name to Arthur Evelyn St. John Waugh, which is how EW gives his christening name in _A Little Learning_. Presumably he was and is commonly called Evelyn to distinguish him from his father, Arthur Waugh.

The page currently seems to say "Evelyn Arthur", and because Brianboulton is working on a major upgrade I'm not going to mess with it right now. However, in the external links, two of the references (Evelyn Waugh Society and UT Austin) both give the name as "Arthur Evelyn". Doubting Hall has it "Evelyn Arthur", but the other two sites seem more authoritative to me, not to mention the reference above to Waugh's own work. It is also more common, when naming a child, to use the father's name as the first name and use the names of uncles and grandfathers for middle names, thus starting with Arthur seems more likely.Vanhorn (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and change the name back to Arthur Evelyn, as that is correct (vide the above cite from _A Little Learning_, which was actually my own change). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.243.154 (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

When the upgrade is complete I will add a footnote concerning the ordering of forenames. It is true that Waugh gives the "Arthur Evelyn" form in his autobiography, and one can therefore assume this to be authoritative. Of his biographers, only Douglas Lane Patey mentions the "Arthur Evelyn" format; the others are evasive. In later life Waugh often signed "Evelyn Arthur", and this form has acquired more general circulation. There is no doubt, however, that he was known universally as Evelyn. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton, you are incorrect about the biographers and his name, btw. Others have noted that EW's full name was Arthur Evelyn St. John Waugh, e.g.: David Wykes, _Evelyn Waugh: A Literary Life_; KW Crabbe, _Evelyn Waugh_; H. Carpenter, _The Brideshead Generation_; RM Davis, _Brideshead Revisited: The Past Redeemed; see also JF Carens, _Critical Essays on Evelyn Waugh_; _Encyclopedia of Catholic Literature_; etc. etc. All these sources (and others) agree. -Chip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.243.154 (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

POV

I've tagged the second part of the Thirties section as POV. It is full of gushing praise in defence of Waugh, and is not even handed or presents it in a manner that summarises the current consensus of literary criticism. It is not the place of Wikipedia to defend or promote pieces of fiction - if they're considered good, or if a particular argument is seen to be prevalent, then it should be made clear and sourced. JF Mephisto 13:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm going to be bold and delete it--Dmz5 07:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite

This article needs, in my opinion, a top-to-bottom rewrite which I have neither the expertise nor the interest to produce. Much of it reads like the introduction to a norton edition of his work rather than an encyclopedia article about him, and virtually nothing is sourced. --Dmz5 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A Banned Writer??

Just out of curiosity, why is he listed as a "Banned Writer" ?? Hugo999 12:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Literary Movement

I want to put in a writer infobox but not until I know what his Literary Movement is, does anybody know? 75pickup (talk · contribs) 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does every writer or painter or artist have to belong to a particular "movement"? Some do, some don't. Waugh simply wrote clean, unadorned prose in a relatively old-fashioned way and plotted his books similarly. Hayford Peirce 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether Waugh did or didn't, but I do know that -- especially posthumously -- artists may be deemed to belong to a given movement by virtue of the critics' judgement. BrainyBabe 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No movement, so no infobox. Thank God for that. Johnbod 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never considered any prose writer that I've read extensively to be part of any literary "movement". TheScotch (talk)

Later Years

Back in March, 201.246.161.141 inserted the following comment: {I would question if this is right. Auberon Waugh's autobiography "Will this do?" makes it clear that Combe Florey was owned by Laura Waugh (Evelyn's wife), and bought from her by Auberon's wife. Can this be checked please?}. I have no issue with its contents, but it needs to be here, not in the Wikticle. Does anyone know anything about this? Cheers, Lindsay 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Corrected & refed - p206 "The money enabled Teresa to buy CF from my mother..." The other cite tags are all wrong/unecessary, except regarding Helena as his best book should perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt - but he did write so. Johnbod 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of, or section on, his most famous novel 'Scoop'? scoop... a very antigiuous book written by Evelyn Waugh for more go to www.evelynwaughscoop.com--143.120.141.75 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)80.177.101.221 17:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Death

I understood that he died on the toilet, unless this is what is meant by 'at prayer'. Would have to check Stannard to confirm.

Then look it up. He died on the toilet. Waikatopakeha (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked it up and he died on the toilet I am sorry from Daniel your brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.177.248.120 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Absence of discussion of Waugh's character

Waugh was famous not just for his writing but also for his execrable character. After being told by and American fan how much she loved his work he told her that in that case the work could not be of any value. He was also highly insulting to the upper classes and they seem to have loved him for it (an experience similar to that of Rousseau's). Too little attention is given to his huge dependency on alcohol. By most standards today he would be considered an alcoholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.7.77 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't read about his military "career" without wondering how hard he was really trying, and whether he was receiving some form of special treatment. Can't ship out because of family affairs? Requested, and granted, leave to work on a novel? Promoted and demoted again? A biographer would have to deal with this somehow. SelectSplat (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cultural references

Removed this section from the article. These references are mildly interesting at best and do not rise above the threshold of importance necessary for inclusion here.

• 'Evelyn Waugh' is used as a pseudonym for an American actress staying at a hotel in Tokyo in the film Lost in Translation, 2003. (Kelly (Anna Faris): "I'm under Evelyn Waugh." Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson): "Evelyn Waugh was a man.")
• In one episode of the comic strip Pearls Before Swine, by Stephan Pastis, Pig is writing a love letter to an authoress who has captivated him. In the last panel, a letter beginning "Dear Evelyn Waugh" is shown.
• Whether either of the writers involved were aware that a London reviewer of Waugh's first book Dante Gabriel Rossetti had described him as "Miss Waugh" throughout his review is uncertain.
• In Alan Bennett's play, Kafka's Dick, Kafka's father looks at the bookcase and says "Vile Bodies, Evelyn Waugh. I bet she knew how to treat a man!"
• In Kingsley Amis' novel, Lucky Jim, one of Jim's "faces" is the Evelyn Waugh face.

Victorianist (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Waugh's influence on literature was such that there are surely greater "references" that can be made. I am sure there are many more vignettes and stories of his life than these mere mentions of his name.AleXd (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tone concerns

Besides a number of statements sorely needing citations (his men in the war wanted to frag him?), passages like this are just not encyclopedic by any stretch of the word:

Few can have been less suited to command troops. He lacked the common touch. Though personally brave, he did not suffer fools gladly. ... Brideshead Revisited (1945) is an evocation of a vanished pre-war England. It's an extraordinary work which in many ways has come to define Waugh and his view of his world. It not only painted a rich picture of life in England and at Oxford University at a time (before World War II) which Waugh himself loved and embellished in the novel, but it allowed him to share his feelings about his Catholic faith, principally through the actions of his characters. Amazingly, he was granted leave from the war to write it. The book was applauded by his friends, not just for an evocation of a time now — and then — long gone, but also for its examination of the manifold pressures within a traditional Catholic family.

This sounds like it's been lifted from somewhere else. Either cite it or get rid of it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I object to your arbitrary and capricious assessment of this passage (in bold). I wrote this. It was not lifted from anywhere. It is completely original. I'm a Waugh fan. What I wrote here is absolutely what Brideshead is about, and the actions of characters, within the fabric of a novel, is exactly what Waugh sought to explore. If you can find a better one paragraph description of Brideshead, insert it. If you can write a better one, be my guest. I look forward to your apology. Ian. Waikatopakeha (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am truly sorry and apologise from the bottom of my heart for my arbritrary and capricious assessment of this passage (in bold). From Daniel your brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.177.248.120 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories?

I think that the categories of this page should be revised and cleaned up. In order to enable the to gain information, this section of the article should also be readable. At the current state, this is not the case at all. I wouldn't be surprised if someone were to add [Category:People who have gone through alcohol hallucinosis] or something similar. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The RP pronunciation of the name "Waugh" is ˈwoː . The pronunciation ˈwɔː is the Standard US one. Waugh is a British writer, not an American one!

The opposite is true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RP_English_monophthongs_chart.svg. There's no such phoneme as o: in RP. --Miacek (t) 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's possible: and what about the name Somerset Maughan? It's not the ɔː of "law" or "caught" (open and long); it's the close one (long too). It appears on proper nouns with "augh". Listen to both here: http://forvo.com/word/evelyn_waugh/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.232.142 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet

What you refer to as o: might be allophone. See the article Received Pronunciation, it doesn't mention closed o: as a separate phoneme. --Miacek (t) 15:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's Somerset Maugham not Maughan. --Sylvia A (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Article expansion

During the next few weeks I shall be attempting a substantial expansion of this article, in the hope of bringing it to a prose standard and a comprehensiveness worthy of the subject. I shall be working from a large array of biographical and critical works. Contributions and suggestions are welcome, though for the sake of orderly development it would help if any issues of significance are raised here, on the talk page, first. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note: I shall be deleting the "List of Works" section, and replacing it with a more complete sub-article "List of Works by Evelyn Waugh". Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume this is some mistake. User:Accotink2 has not edited this article. I have indeed reverted the bot; I am very well aware of the need to avoid copyvios and I strenuously object to having months of work vandalised by a bot in this way. Someone better come up with an explanation, or apology, or both. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems this was indeed a false alarm. Not nice, though. Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Here are some suggestions I have while looking through the article for a FAC review::*Family background

" into a family with mixed ..." I think the word "mixed" unnecessary.

• Childhood

"on his own assertion" Is this a Britishism? We would say "By his own assertion".

"Waugh and neighbouring children" Children are not pieces of land, I think. Perhaps "Waugh and neighbourhood children"?

"arranged performances of dramatic works usually written by him.". This sounds to me that the kids arranged with other people to perform Waugh's works, which is surely not the case, they played in them themselves.

"and acted as an altar boy" Is a more correct term "served"?

No. These days they are "altar servers" of both sexes, which may be what you are thinking of. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

" offended the school to an extent which made it impossible for Evelyn to go there." Perhaps some cleanup.

"After overcoming his initial aversion to the school, Waugh quickly settled down. " Sentence is less informative than it looks, as it does not tell us when he overcame his initial aversion. Perhaps "Waugh soon overcame his initial aversion to the school and settled down there."

"Roxburgh later became the first headmaster of Stowe School; his biography by Noel Annan was the subject of Waugh's last literary review, in The Observer on 17 October 1965." I think this sentence is trying to do too much. I think it would flow more smoothly with a rephrase and perhaps delete the fact that the bio was by Noel Annan as too far removed. "A biography of Roxburgh (who went on to be first headmaster of Stowe School) was the last work given a literary review by Waugh, in the Observer on 17 October 1965."

• Early career

"His own account reveals how," Perhaps "By his own account, ..." I ain't going to study Waugh no more, but from what I recall, he was not a stranger to stretching the truth and telling fibs. I think that my way conveys "this is according to him, we don't vouch for it". better.

• Years of recognition

"Waugh soon resumed his life." Social life? Perhaps a bit more information here.

"in an open letter to Cardinal Francis Bourne, the Archbishop of Westminster." Perhaps strike the "the"?

"Gabriel Herbert, eldest daughter of the late explorer Aubrey Herbert, the son of the second marriage of the 4th Earl of Carnarvon and the half-brother of Lady Burghclere." If you don't have a family tree handy, this pedigree may be a bit confusing. Perhaps a rephrase or split off into its own sentence?

"Waugh was shocked by the disorder, loss of discipline ..." Perhaps "lack of discipline"? Depends what the source actually says of course.

It doesn't strike me that the military had much use for Waugh, and it is not everybody who could get a three month unpaid leave in wartime. Do the sources comment on this?

• Postwar years

"In September 1945, finally released by the army," Finally? Well, gee whiz, the war only ended that month. Admittedly the Brits were far more involved in the European theatre, but that is hardly a long time to wait for demobilisation.

• Character and opinions

" after his libel court victory over Nancy Spain he sent her a bottle of champagne" I assume there is some other reason to assume this was a generous gesture; it seems to me this is one that could be a mockery as well.

• Writing

"Waugh was widely regarded as a master of style." I don't mind the editorial present tense, but the fact that the first paragraph is entirely present tense makes me think as a reader that the regard of Waugh may have changed, based on the implication in this sentence.

"From the mid-1930s onwards his journalism and non-fiction writings were increasingly concerned with the themes of Catholicism and conservative politics,[191] before he reverted to his former manner with Scoop, published in 1939." I would get rid of the word "themes" in the first clause ("... concerned with Catholicism and conservative politics") unless you don't like all the Cs in a row, in which case you could add "Roman", and then substitute "themes" for "manner".

• Reception

" Brideshead's selection as the American Book of the Month swelled its US sales to an extent that dwarfed those in a Britain still hampered by paper shortages. I think this sentence needs a tweak.

Looks pretty good. I'll gladly support at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have dealt with nearly all the above points per your suggestions. On the champagne gift, this may well have included an element of mockery, though the sources don't pick this up. Waugh in his diary entry says that Spain behaved "like a gentleman". He may ave been a curmudgeon but I don't think he was mean-spirited. Thank you for the support - do I owe the Jets anything? Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible new pictures (free)

Madresfield Court has several on commons. You are probably wise to avoid most of the "character based on" stuff, but there is a nice Spy caricature of a younger Earl Beauchamp. Otherwise some of the places he visited must have period shots. The Cima St Helena is a nice work, but not really right for illustrating Waugh. The NG File:The Vision of Saint Helena veronese.jpg or Vatican File:The Vision of St Helena veronese2.jpg Veroneses, or the Gaddi File:Agnolo Gaddi True Cross Detail 1380.jpg seem more in keeping. Or this one is in keeping with the horsey theme. Or this very early one. There is a free shot of Randolph churchill, which could be cropped File:Levi Eshkol-Vera Weizmann-Randolph Churchil1955.jpg.

• Patrick Balfour old

Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding these. I think Beauchamp is too far removed from Waugh (did they even meet?). The only basis for including him would be the theory that he was the model for Lord Marchmain - and Brideshead is already represented by Castle Howard. For Helena, the first "vision" image is probably an improvement, but I'd like to talk to Ruhrfisch who did the FAC images review. I'll try and crop the Churchill, see what it looks like. Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

  I am fine with File:The Vision of Saint Helena veronese.jpg - it is clearly PD-old and the image file is nicely described and sourced. The CHurchill image also seems to be fine (I am not an expert in Israeli law by any means). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll get a view from Jappalang on whether the Israeli picture satisfies US PD before I act. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

  Per my talkpage, Jappalang's view is that the Israeli picture is not PD-US. Brianboulton (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrograde progress?

This edit seems to have restored some problematic writing to the article. We do not use seasons to denote time, as seasons are relative to where on the planet Earth you are standing. "The winter of 1932-33 in Guyana" sounds particularly jarring to the clued-up reader, as Guyana lies in the tropical zone and thus does not have seasons of the type the temperate north experiences. The word however means "notwithstanding" or "nevertheless". It should not be used as if it meant "moreover" or "and". In most instances it is padding and can be removed without altering the meaning. Good editors therefore do so. I am not therefore in agreement with this restoration. --John (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the sequence of seasons varies depending on whether you're living in the northern or southern hemisphere, or that any competent speaker of English would be ignorant of the fact that winter occurs at the back end of the year for instance, regardless of whether it tends to be hot or cold at that time of year where they live? The particular phrase you highlight (the winter of 1932-33 in Guyana) seems perfectly OK to me, as it's saying nothing about Guyana's winter, but the UK's winter. Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

More at User talk:Laser brain#Evelyn Waugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Winter and summer are relative to where you are; if Waugh was in tropical South America in December it would not be winter there. Of course we can figure it out that the writer must have meant the northern winter, but it looks parochial to me, maybe because I have lived in the Southern Hemisphere and in the tropics. More to the point, here on Wikipedia we have MoS guidance for a reason, and we should not diverge from this guidance unless there is a pressing need to. What is the pressing need in this article? I am not seeing it. --John (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The context is that Waugh was living in England, and chose to spend the English winter in Guyana; it's saying nothing about winter in Guyana, whenever that might be. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise solution, what about sticking the word "English" in front of "winter", as in "The English winter of 1932-33 in Guyana"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be a little parochial in my opinion. The standard way to clarify would be to call it the "northern winter". Is it important that it was the winter in his home country? Do the sources say it was important? If we can show that the local season was important, that would be a good reason to disregard the MoS guidance. --John (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Important? What's important? That he left the cold English winter for the warmth of Guyana seems significant to me, but I can't speak for "important". The phrase "northern winter" just makes me shudder though. Are you really suggesting that any competent speaker of English doesn't know where England is? Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the MoS on the seasons issue, but I do agree that at least one of the seasons would be better removed. We say he sat/passed his finals in the summer of 1924. He sat them in June, according to the footnote. To say the summer implies that he went back up to Oxford to sit them during the summer term, i.e. that he didn't sit the exam along with everyone else. If that's what he did, then fine, but is it? Or do we mean that he got the results in June, but sat the exam earlier?

Also, enrolling for the autumn at a London art school: autumn is valid if he really did only register for the autumn term. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the Mos on the seasons isue either, but like you I think that maybe one or two of the seasonal references don't add too much. I see nothing wrong with the Guyana reference discussed above, but your example of Waugh taking his finals is certainly one where I think nothing is added by saying "summer", and to say "June" instead would arguably add some precision. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If the month is known obviously it would be better than the ambiguous and parochial use of seasons. By important I meant do the sources say "He left the cold British winter to bask in the Guyana sunshine" or words to that effect? If they did we could definitely say that. --John (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation II

The pronunciation was removed in this edit, apparently per a commment in the FAC. While I'm not one to step on FA reviewers' toes, I think that was a terrible idea. The pronunciation of neither "Evelyn" nor "Waugh" is obvious and so I think it most certainly belongs in the article. 68.35.40.154 (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

[Evvalin Woff]]? :D Bmcln1 (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

More pictures

I think it'd be a good idea to have another picture or two of Waugh himself in this article. Perhaps from his younger days? I'd never heard of this guy before, and have read most of this article. Somehow -- probably from the lack of pictures of Waugh himself -- I got it my mind that the Emperor Haile Selassie was Waugh! And I still can't shake the impression entirely. So... how 'bout it? Bobnorwal (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Finding pics of Waugh that are in the public domain is very difficult. Pretty well all the published images of him are copyrighted in the US and so can't be used - much as I would liked to have done so. The lead image is just about the only one that is free for use. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Biography

I want to read a biography on EW. The article mentions Sykes, Christopher (1975). Evelyn Waugh: A biography. London: Collins. ISBN 0-00-211202-7 - Is this the best one? What is another good biography - the Martin Stannard? Please email me at kinsmanivan@gmail.com Ivankinsman (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cruttwell

I have removed a lengthy section that was awkwardly posted into this article from the C. R. M. F. Cruttwell article, verbatim, in October 2011. The essence of Waugh's relationship with Cruttwell is covered in the "Oxford" section. This was a major factor in Cruttwell's restricted life, but relatively inconsequential in Waugh's. It is in no way worthy of a whole main section, which completely unbalances the article. Those interested in this particular aspect of Waugh's life will use the link and readv the Crutwell article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I have moved the short paragraph about Waugh's antisemitism from the Second World War section, where it was misplaced, to "Character and opinions". Wording such as "This is later understood as deriving from his upper-class British snobbery..." tends to generalise the opinion of one particular source, so I have rephrased this. The source in question appears to be a student thesis, though the present link is unhelpful; this is better. The question of Waugh's antisemitism (and racism) is valid, and should be mentioned. There are plenty of higher-quality sources than a student thesis to confirm this, and I am working on a revision that will incorporate such sources. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. See also my talk page. -- Honorsteem (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised to find little overt racism in A Tourist in Africa, his late-1950s travel book. He was actually quite disgusted by apartheid.24.69.174.26 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Evelyn Waugh signature.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Evelyn Waugh signature.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ETHNICITY

Waugh was essentially Anglo-Scots - hence the Scottish surname. Now he appears to have suddenly acquired Irish ancestry and, quelle surprise, no evidence is given to validate this claim. Unless such evidence is provided and sourced, I shall be removing all references to Irish ancestry in this article. And the definition for Irish ethnicity should NOT be extended to include Ulster-Scots which is a separate ethnic group and those belonging to this group are no more Irish than the English are German. It is also unacceptable to use tenuous links, such as distant ancestry, to define an individual's ethnic make-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.255.154 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

References for WWII career

Evelyn Waugh's military career is partially recorded in the London Gazette, which is an official and authoritative source of information on promotions, transfers, etc. Would including those dates in this article contribute to it?Aumnamahashiva (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it would. The London Gazette is a definitive and reliable source, widely used for British military biographies on Wikipedia. If there is any discrepancy between the information in the Gazette and that in the biographies (as Cassianto claims here), the biographies have got it wrong and should be corrected. GrindtXX (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you assume the biographies have got it wrong? Isn't the Gazette also written by humans, thus open to human error? Cassianto^Talk 12:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Gazette is a journal of record of the British government, and contains the official public notices of military commissions and promotions: it provides the definitive statement that such an appointment has been made. In the highly unlikely event of an error creeping in, it would certainly be corrected in a subsequent edition. The likelihood of an error being made by a literary biographer, writing decades later and in a technical area outside his/her area of expertise, is astronomically higher. However, this is all a bit academic, as you haven't identified any specifics on which the sources contradict one another. All I see is that the Gazette references supplement and slightly elaborate on the details taken from the biographies. If you wanted to argue against this edit on the grounds of "too much information" you might have more of a case (though I'd still disagree), but from the point of view of factual accuracy the Gazette is as reliable a source as you can get. GrindtXX (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I remain impartial to either side in this discussion as I haven't checked any of the sources. Maybe Brian can chip in as it was he who read and cited the biographies in the first place. He also took it through PR and FAC. IMO, I would think it conflicting in terms of quoting both sources when we clearly have on source saying one thing, and another saying something different. I feel the Gazette should either be "instead of" the biography references, or "as well as" in terms of the dates; i.e, cited immediately after the dates. I feel it is simply wrong to just add them onto the end of the sentence as the two, in some cases, clearly contradict. Cassianto^Talk 14:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, they do not "clearly contradict". Here they are (based on the information previously in the article, and Aumnamahashiva's edit):

• Waugh "was commissioned into the Royal Marines in December" 1939 (from Hastings); amended to Waugh "received a temporary commission in the Royal Marines on 1 December as a second lieutenant".
• Waugh was temporarily promoted to captain in April 1940 (from Stannard); amended to his being temporarily promoted to acting lieutenant on 1 March, and promoted to the acting rank of captain on 2 April.
• Waugh joined "Layforce" in November 1940 (from Stannard); the supplementary information added that this involved his being seconded to the British Army from 11 November.

There are no "contradictions" there: merely additional details. Which is how Wikipedia works. GrindtXX (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this is TMI - most of this was no doubt in the biographies (they will surely have consulted the London Gazette too), & Brian or other editors have chosen not to go into that much detail, probably correctly. Raw archival sources on one aspect or period of a subject can be something of a menace for a balanced account. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the above for their interest in this article over which I sweated much blood a few years ago. For what it's worth, I see no necessity to clutter the text with extra details about the exact dates and particulars of Waugh's various wartime promotions. If there is a specific error it should be corrected, but the suggested amendments add almost zero information of interest to likely readers. The article is long enough (over 400 words of text have already been added since its promotion in December 2010) and I suggest leaving well alone. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; I'm a "likely reader" myself (who first came here after watching Brideshead Revisited) and given that Waugh is not primarily notable for his military service, the specific dates of promotion don't provide any value to the article. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed also. Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evelyn Waugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140820151307/http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discover/blue-plaques/search/waugh-evelyn-1903-1966 to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discover/blue-plaques/search/waugh-evelyn-1903-1966

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evelyn Waugh. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610021305/http://www.abbotshill.freeserve.co.uk/EWN5-1.htm to http://www.abbotshill.freeserve.co.uk/EWN5-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040407111756/http://www.abbotshill.freeserve.co.uk/home2.htm to http://www.abbotshill.freeserve.co.uk/home2.htm

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) 04:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evelyn Waugh. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915021346/http://www.evelynwaughsociety.org/index.php to http://www.evelynwaughsociety.org/index.php

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) 17:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Film

...worked with some of his fellow Hypocrites on a film, The Scarlet Woman, which was shot partly in the gardens at Underhill

Did this feature Waugh and his friends? Was it the same one that showed them walking in The Parks, and hosting a silly tea-party tea in their college? Does this footage still exist? Valetude (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

All 43 minutes here. Elsa Lanchester first appears, guzzling cocaine, around 12:45. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Vatican II contributed to Evelyn Waugh's death?

Hello there, this is Allenjambalaya an amateur Wikipedian. I read the lede and the last paragraph is like telling that Vatican II contributed to Evelyn Waugh's death. Well, I don't know if this quote from him will help but he once wrote a letter to archbishop of Westminster about the liturgical reform: "Every attendance at Mass leaves me without comfort or edification. I shall never, pray God, apostatize but church-going is now a bitter trial." (Source: A Bitter Trial)

--Allenjambalaya (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, this quote: "Easter used to mean so much to me. Before Pope John and his council - they destroyed the beauty of the liturgy. I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the faith doggedly without joy. Churchgoing is a pure duty parade. I shall not live to see it destroyed. It is worse in many countries..." (Source: No Way Home: the Odd Pilgrimage of Evelyn Waugh)

--Allenjambalaya (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Quill pen

The original referenced Waugh writing with a quill pen, based on the character description from Charles J. Rolo's piece in the Atlantic. However, Rolo only mentions that "He writes with a pen which has to be continually dipped in the inkwell." This is much more likely to be a nib pen than a quill pen - I have amended it accordingly to match the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.114.133.210 (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think it could be simplified further with a link to dip pen, which I will now do. It would also be good if you could let us have (either in the article or here) a full reference to Rolo's article. GrindtXX (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

verification fail

I wrote in my original comment:

Claims may be true, but sources are trash. The "Pritchett" quote is not from Pritchett but Nora Sayre, and it's not clear what it's based on. The Wykes quotes do not appear on p. 82-83; in fact on those pages Wykes says that anti-semitism is less apparent in his novels than other racism. The Orwell quote is miscopied from a note made for an essay he didn't finish because he died, not finished work.

To expand, in the Sayre essay she just says the thing about his anti-semitism out of the blue. It's not like "As we see from Vile Bodies and Men At Arms, Waugh's anti-semitism is like..." I have no idea why she thinks that.

I also just think it isn't true ("Implies possession of" rather than "Freely expresses" seems more accurate to me, but this seems like original research), although maybe the few books of his I haven't read are the ones where he really lays into the blacks and jews.

I originally wanted to just delete the whole section, and let somebody else write a better version. Somebody else didn't like this so I hope this is a reasonable compromise. Dingsuntil (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: Kinda thinking the appropriate action is: delete the Sayre quote too, since it's just not a good source aside from being misattributed. Wykes is a good source; you can look through his book & see that his opinions on Waugh are a synthesis of this or that. It's not just "I'm a published critic and I say Waugh was an anti-semite." This leaves no sources for Waugh being an anti-semite, so maybe delete that for the time being, although Wykes might have something to say about that (just not on pages 82-83). Dingsuntil (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If you doubt the current source, check it. If you require an additional source, find it. If you can't find an additional source, and don't, for what ever reason, check the current source, it stays. Don't delete it or lazily tag it for someone else to do and think that's job done, because it isn't. Featured Articles should be shown more respect. Cassianto^Talk 05:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cassianto. Some, or even all, of what Dingsunt says may be true, but if proposing to hack chunks out of a Featured Article the onus is on him or her to substantiate and adequately cite any claims in a rewrite, propose new wording here, and seek a consensus. There are plenty of editors who keep an eye on the late and painfully missed BB's 100+ featured articles, and it shouldn't be difficult to find a quorum. Tim riley talk 18:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This paragraph has been made more of a mess than ever. The first quote has been erroneously given a "failed verification" tag: the quote is unequivocably present in the cited source (albeit very slightly misquoted) – the problem, as Dingsuntil points out, is that we inexplicably misattribute it to V. S. Pritchett when it's actually by the piece's author, Nora Sayre. I'm therefore correcting the attribution and removing the tag. The next pair of quotes are attributed to Wykes 1999. This is a print source, but readily accessible via the Internet Archive: both quotes are at the location cited (again with some minor transcription errors, and the discussion is wholly on p. 82 rather than spanning pp. 82–3). I will make the necessary adjustments. The final quote, from Orwell, is at the source cited (yet again, slightly misquoted), but as Dingsuntil says is from some rough notes for an unfinished essay, and is more of a "note to self" than a properly argued conclusion. Nevertheless, I think it just about scrapes under the wire as an acceptable source, particularly when used to complement the other two. None of these writers say anything about Waugh's prejudices being more apparent in his pre-war than post-war works: that may well be true (racism was generally much more acceptable pre-war, before the Nazis had shown where it could lead), but as we don't have a source I'm deleting that bit of the first sentence, which looks like OR. As all these edits are fairly minor in themselves and based firmly on the sources already cited, I'm being bold and going ahead with them. FA status doesn't make a text untouchable.

Further sources that might be pursued include:

• David J. Bittner, "Evelyn Waugh and the Jews", MA thesis (1989), accessible here
• David Bittner, "Evelyn Waugh and the Jews", Midstream (Dec. 1997), pp. 30–32
• Ton Heuvelmans, "Afterword", in Waugh, The Loved One (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1995. ISBN 978-90-01-54875-9)

Eric Pode lives (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Eric. That's helpful. Tim riley talk 11:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason I gave the Sayre quote "failed verification" is partly on the theory that it was only worth including as support for the claim on the theory that it was from Pritchett, who is extremely notable, rather than from Sayre, who is some random journalist. Since it's not Pritchett, verification fails, and it should be maybe be taken out. I looked up Wykes and didn't see those quotes, but I'll take another look tomorrow. Another reason I don't like the Orwell quote is there's no indication of which opinions of Waugh's that Orwell regards as untenable. From the context of the (wikipedia) paragraph, the reader is led to believe that this refers to Waugh's opinions on blacks and jews, but they could just as easily be his opinions on religion or socialism. Unless I missed something where the type of opinions are specified, the quote is just pure, distilled misleading and ought to be removed. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the way forward is clear: if Dingsuntil will kindly provide the text of a proposed redraft here, we can consider it and seek to arrive at a consensus. Tim riley talk 12:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I do rather agree with Dingsuntil that the Sayre quote is a throwaway and unsupported remark by a not-terribly-noteworthy journalist, and could happily be dispensed with. The Orwell quote is more interesting (because of Orwell's own eminence); but, as Dingsuntil suggests, seems to be a broad reference to Waugh's generally conservative and reactionary attitudes, not specifically to racism or antisemitism. It would actually be a much better fit at the end of the preceding paragraph, where Orwell and the two men's differing politics have just been mentioned. That would leave a very short paragraph based solely on Wykes, but that seems acceptable to me. Wykes does discuss these matters, though his discussion occupies less than a page in a 200-odd page book, and shouldn't be given undue prominence. Waugh was undoubtedly a reactionary (something widely discussed by critics), many of whose attitudes are now outdated; but I've certainly never been particularly conscious of racism in his work: even in the two novels set in Africa (Black Mischief and Scoop), his targets are far more often incompetent and self-serving Europeans rather than the natives. I've just been skimming through The Loved One in search of antisemitism (which my Ton Heuvelmans reference above suggests may exist), but I can't see anything worse than one or two cynically materialistic Californians with Germanic surnames. Eric Pode lives (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

As Dingsuntil seems to have disappeared from the scene, I'm now proposing to edit this paragraph in line with my comments immediately above: namely, delete the Sayre quote entirely; move the Orwell quote to the end of the preceding paragraph; and to open the surviving paragraph: "Waugh has been criticised for expressing racial and anti-semitic prejudices. Wykes describes ... " (continuing with the current quotes). I'll delay for 24 hrs to allow further comment here. Eric Pode lives (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"That seems a reasonable proposition" (to quote an author Waugh loathed), but I'd leave it a few days before taking action, to allow time for people who don't check out this page every day. Tim riley talk 16:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd say an appropriate interval has now elapsed... Tim riley talk 10:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've now made those changes. Thank you for your support. Eric Pode lives (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm coming back to this. It's definitely improved. But it's still suboptimal. The statement makes it sound like Waugh expressed antisemitism in his literary output, but what Wykes is actually saying is that while Waugh expressed antisemitism in person or in his correspondence, he did NOT express it very much in his writing. Or at least, not compared to his expressions of other prejudices. As I can't think of any expression of antisemitism in his novels (the one jewish major character, Frank in sword of honor, is presented very favorably), this sounds about right. I'm also not sure if the statement about his racial views being "an illogical extension of his views on hierarchy" is really relevant here. The relevant point was that he has "assumptions concerning the superiority of whites over blacks." How those relate to his general thinking is a whole topic in itself, not really related to the point being made (that Waugh was a bit of a racist). And in any case, Wykes doesn't really justify this point. It could just as well be that like many people of his era, he assumed whites were superior to blacks, and that this fitted into his views about hierarchy, but his assumptions weren't really an extension of his views about hierarchy, since those views would have been shared by people who didn't share his views on hierarchy. Dingsuntil (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Waugh and conservatism

A visiting editor has just made the good faith addition of the template (see right) to the Waugh article. I have reverted it for the moment, pending consensus here. Waugh was not, unless I misread the article, a member of the Conservative Party (and indeed seemed to have disliked it) and played no part in conservative politics or philosophy, and though we know he was right-wing in his outlook, I'm not persuaded that the template is appropriate here. Thoughts from others who watch this page are earnestly invited. Tim riley talk 16:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Waugh was a (small-c) conservative in outlook, but he was a journalist and novelist: he was in no sense a "philosopher", and in no sense an architect, or even a major proponent, of conservative values. His name was in fact only added to the sidebar yesterday (here), by the same editor (Trakking), apparently as a replacement for Auberon Waugh (who wasn't a philosopher either, but was more overtly right-wing in his journalism than his father). Trakking writes in his edit summary, "If you have written serious works of philosophy, ... you are, almost per definition, a philosopher": fine, but I don't think either Evelyn or Auberon can be said to have written any "serious works of philosophy" (titles, please). The sidebar doesn't belong in this article; and Waugh's name should be removed from the sidebar. GrindtXX (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Gosh! I hadn't spotted that Waugh had been added to the template as – if you please – a 'philosopher' of conservatism. That seems to me plainly wrong, and I will support any proposal to remove him from the template, if User:GrindtXX likes to set that in motion on the appropriate page. Tim riley talk 17:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with all above. I think both Waughs were pretty uninterested in philosophy. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit; it was a mistake on my part. Evelyn's son had been included on the list for quite some time, and then he was excluded among a few others (who definitely were conservative philosophers.) I thought they might have added/deleted the wrong Waugh, but like GrindtXX suggested, maybe none of them truly qualify as a Philosopher, although they both embraced conservative stances and opinions. Let's keep them both off the list, though it surprises me that Auberon was on the list for so long without being taken down. - Trakking (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Trakking. That clarifies matters nicely. Tim riley talk 21:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Welsh

Re recent quibbling over the introduction of the word "Welsh", and DoctorJoeE's query (here) "Cockburn's nationality is relevant, but Morgan's is not?", the answer is "Yes, that's correct". Lord Cockburn was a prominent advocate and judge in the Scottish law courts, spent most of his life in Edinburgh, and became Solicitor General for Scotland: calling him "a leading Scottish advocate and judge" is a reflection of his professional standing within the Scottish establishment (not of his personal ethnicity), and is defining and "relevant". William Morgan was Welsh-born, but spent much of his life and career in London, and is not particularly associated with Wales: insisting on defining him as "Welsh" at what is necessarily only a passing mention is tendentious and irrelevant. Anyone interested can click though to his article. GrindtXX (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, now that you have explained it, I understand. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

A Handful of Dust

The following was posted to my talk page, when here is obviously the more appropriate venue:

The reason that I don't think that mentioning this in A Handful of Dust is adequate is that some readers may know "The Man Who Liked Dickens" but not know that Waugh used it again in A Handful of Dust. That was the case with me. I read "The Man Who Liked Dickens" and then googled to find commentary on it, and that's how I learned of its re-use in A Handful of Dust. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, this isn’t the right page to put the information. Put it on the A Handful of Dust page. If that’s not good enough, create a redirect page that goes to that page. SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat. This is an article about Waugh's entire life, career, reception of his works, etc. Details about a particular work should go in the article(s) about the work(s). Unless Waugh routinely re-used/re-published material, or unless this has been focused upon by the sources in their discussion of the reception of his works throughout his career, this is not important enough to mention in his bio article. See WP:DUE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Spanish civil war

I have deleted a recent addition to the article as I think it quotes Waugh selectively and out of context. He was asked the highly tendentious question: "Are you for, or against, the legal government and the People of Republican Spain? Are you for, or against, Franco and Fascism? For it is impossible any longer to take no side." His answer in full was: "I know Spain only as a tourist and a reader of the newspapers. I am no more impressed by the 'legality' of the Valencia Government than are English Communists by the legality of the Crown, Lords and Commons. I believe it was a bad government, rapidly deteriorating. If I were a Spaniard, I should be fighting for General Franco. As an Englishman I am not in the predicament of choosing between two evils. I am not a Fascist nor shall I become one unless it were the only alternative to Marxism. It is mischievous to suggest that such a choice is imminent." As a Roman Catholic, Waugh deplored the brutal anti-Catholic atheism on the Republican side: more than 4,000 priests were murdered during the civil war, and Waugh's feeling that Franco was the the lesser of Spain's two evils was shared by other British RC writers including Christopher Dawson, Christopher Hollis, Ronald Knox, Arnold Lunn, Alfred Noyes and J. R. R. Tolkien. (See here and here.) I think that quoting the full question and answer would give the matter undue prominence: the Spanish civil war did not loom large in Waugh's life. What do other editors think? Tim riley talk 08:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

On balance I think it is probably best left out. As he says, "I know Spain only as a tourist”, which is telling. He was a writer (albeit one on a wide scale of subjects), not a politician or political influencer, so his views on the politics of a foreign country are only of very limited import, and would fall outside the purview of an encyclopaedia article. Definitely a topic left to the full-length biographies. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is what I added:

In 1937, W. H. Auden, Stephen Spender, and Nancy Cunard distributed a questionnaire to writers about the Spanish Civil War, the results being published by the Left Review as "Authors Take Sides on the Spanish War". Waugh replied "If I were a Spaniard, I would be fighting for General Franco. As an Englishman I am not in the predicament of choosing between two evils. I am not a Fascist, nor shall I become one unless it were the only alternative to Marxism."

Sources

Yes, it is hard to get the nitty gritty of this right. And yet, unless I am missing something, the article does seem to lack any coverage of what can be called Waugh's "reactionary" views on the world, in an age that was highly politicized by the clashes between Marxism, fascism, and liberal democracy. Many years ago I created a page for Scott-King's Modern Europe, mostly because it deserved a page, in a lesser way to try to fill the gap. I think perhaps that is a good place for this material to go, but it does still seem to leave the Evelyn Waugh page silent on where Waugh stood on the great political divides – which is a wider issue than whether to include this particular paragraph. Moonraker (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the third to sixth paragraphs of the "Character and opinions" section cover Waugh's reactionary views satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 08:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)