Talk:Bruce Chatwin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Place of Birth

Does anyone have a definitive source for Chatwin's place of birth? Also how long did he live in Birmingham? Info on the web is mixed. Reviews of Nicholas Shakespeare's biography here and here state Chatwin was born in Birmingham, here it states Sheffield. All agree he was from a middle-class Birmingham family and that he spent some of his childhood here. The Salon.com review quotes Nicholas Shakespeare: - For Bruce, Birmingham was always a place to leave. See also Talk:List of famous residents of Birmingham, England#Bruce Chatwin. Valiantis 13:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you read Nick Sh.'s biography, as distinct from reviews on the web? It says Chatwin was born on 13 May 1940 at 8.30pm "in the Shearwood Road nursong home," Sheffield (page 22 of the Viking paperback edition). For the next 5 years he was "passed around like a tea-urn" from one relation to another, while his father served in the Royal Navy. On his father's return from the war the family finally settled in a sort of farm near Birmingham, where he spent his childhood. Shakespeare spent 7 years doing his research, so I guess this about as definitive as it gets.

Thanks for clarifying. I haven't read the biography - my interest in Chatwin was primarily linked to whether he belonged in the Birmingham famous residents list. I was hoping however that someone here had read the biography and could save us all from the laziness of web reviewers and second-hand net info :) Valiantis 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Visual Acuity

The article states that Chatwin became an expert on Impressionist art at Sotheby's "thanks to his sharp visual acuity". Does anybody know of a source for this strange claim? I don't understand why anyone would need anything better than normal eyesight in order to become an expert on Impressionist art -- I would have thought that a deep understanding of the history and culture around the Impressionist painters and perhaps some expertise regarding the specific techniques of the Impressionist school would be more important. I decided not to change the text because, perhaps there is some specific reason for the inclusion of this statement. Any ideas? 123.243.81.120 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Moleskine

Is Bruce Chatwin notable for his use of Moleskine notebooks? My first impression from the article is that the reference is advertising. RobC (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, his piece about them in What Am I Doing Here certainly contributed strongly to the cult thing around the brand and its association with the idea of "hip budding writers" (published or not yet published). And he wasn't paid for writing that one. It's fairly sure I think that he did actually have a "Moleskine habit" and he is strongly associated with those notebooks. The accuracy of his statement that the "real" Moleskine notebooks were about to completely disappear off the market is questionable though. Strausszek (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Literary influence

The article needs more on Chatwin's work, as he was considered an important and influential writer. It seems more concerned with personal details.--Parkwells (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I think outside of the UK he's not seen as primarily a gifted travel writer or an exoticizing anecdote master (though he did have a really good eye for the weird anecdote). His powerful skills as a prose writer and his interest in the relationship between man, the local place and being on the move (especially in The Songlines) have been more appreciated. There's also a fairly obvious link to magical realism in his work, even though he rarely brings the absolutely impossible or supernatural into his stories. Strausszek (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bruce Chatwin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Notachatterbox (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• Several sections have titles like Chatwin's books. Why not provide a Further link to the book article(s) at the start of each such section?

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• There is an unusually large number of references in the lead. The minimum for a lead section is zero, if the article is fully cited and topics are not specially controversial. I wouldn't have thought many of the lead's claims needed citing in situ, given they are also in the article, though perhaps one or two of the Aids claims do need to have their refs repeated in the lead. I suspect instead, given that the lead is cited differently from the rest of the article, that it grew in the telling rather than being written from and as a summary of the article's body. Perhaps therefore the whole lead needs to be revisited, with all the refs candidates for moving to the article body? For example, while the Harvey quote is fine, why does it not form a part of the Influence section? I suspect it would be best to reconsider the whole thing, with the default position being that every link belongs in the article body, to be repeated if and only if essential in the lead; and much the same applies to the text that accompanies those links: otherwise, the lead is just a plain-text summary, in 3 or 4 paragraphs.

I've removed the references and re-written the lead. I moved some information, such as the Harvey quote. I know some of the information I have left in the lead also needs to be incorporated in the rest of the article, but any feedback on the revision to the lead thus far is welcome.Notachatterbox (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's already much better.

• The most obvious thing that the lead doesn't say is that he was hugely admired both by the public and by other writers for the quality of his prose; this is mentioned in the body of the article. Similarly, his influence on other writers ought to be mentioned.

• The article relies heavily on Nicholas Shakespeare's biography, with only a few uses of Nicholas Murray and Susannah Clapp. Shakespeare obviously did an excellent job, but it seems surprising that Murray isn't cited a little more.

I've added another citation from Murray and will try to incorporate more if I can. Notachatterbox (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there's probably room for more, and for some more evidence of his importance and influence.

• Perhaps Under the Sun should be marked as edited by Elizabeth Chatwin in the references.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't! But I've done it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's odd--I did make the edits and they were showing up as changed, but thank you for following up! Notachatterbox (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I found the formatting of the External links confusing. They could either be like the References with Surname, Forename - only not all have named authors; or they could (preferably) be "Topic", description as is fairly common for External links, with "by X.Y." if need be. As it stands, the initial name is sometimes the topic and sometimes the author.

I've made some revisions to the links. Notachatterbox (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Specific comments

• "Following his death, Chatwin was criticised ... and caused some critics ..." Maybe this could be better expressed.

 Done Lead re-written.Notachatterbox (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, I wonder if this whole paragraph on Aids, complete with quotations and refs, is correctly placed in the lead. Maybe it should go into the Illness section, with a short summary of that section in the lead.

 Done Lead re-written. Notachatterbox (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• I fixed the URL in ref 215.

• "While The Times did not accept those photographs for publication, it offered Chatwin a job." Perhaps "it did offer ..." would be better.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Chatwin experienced a tension between the desire to own beautiful items but also had a strong need ..." might be better worded.

I've re-written this sentence. Notachatterbox (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Francisco Felix de Sousa" should be "Francisco Félix de Sousa". Or Souza.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Illness and final works: too many sentences begin "Chatwin". Perhaps some "He"s might alternate with the surname.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Influence: I wonder whether there should not be two subsections here, one on Influence during his life, and one on Posthumous influence (or Legacy; things like the clothing label might be Legacy, while literary discussions of his personal life might be Posthumous influence). The two were and perhaps remain very different. If so, and perhaps in any case, more is needed on how he was regarded during his life.

Started to re-work this section, with more work to do. Any feedback is welcome. Notachatterbox (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Already better.

I suggest you look at Rory Stewart's Walking with Chatwin in the NY Review of Books; Stewart is another very personal and unusual writer (a diplomat and politician as well as a travel writer), so anything he says is rather relevant.

I think, too, you ought to read Chatwin's introduction to Robert Byron's The Road to Oxiana as that book was certainly a powerful influence on Chatwin (either for this section or elsewhere). ((http://)fivebooks.com/interview/nicholas-shakespeare-on-bruce-chatwin/ Nick S. thinks so too, and suggests how 4 other books were also influential.])

For Chatwin's importance, David Taylor's Connoisseur of Exile, Exile as Connoisseur is as tendentious as the title sounds, but you might get one or two points from it - he's no Flaubert, but "an impressive development of the formal possibilities of post-imperial travelogue" (!) is a remark with some sort of heft.

Did you see Jonathan Chatwin's* Anywhere out of the world: The work of Bruce Chatwin? Surely worth a look. Press the "+" on the page to get a description. *No relation.

Thank you for these suggestions! I will take a look at them. Notachatterbox (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Influence: the coverage of In Patagonia is split between 2 paragraphs; that of Songlines over 3 or perhaps 4. This comes across as a bit staccato; please read it through and consider whether the flow could be smoothed. In particular, "Chatwin had failed to disclose to these individuals his intentions.[204] /// The Songlines is a controversial book." feels rather sudden to me.

• Works: the last 3 books might usefully be shown as posthumous, perhaps using a subsection.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Aboriginal walkabout: these are quite problematic terms. I think walkabout should at least be linked, and it almost needs scare quotes ("...") as it can be a term of abuse. Something similar applies to Aboriginal: perhaps "indigenous Australians" would be safer, but I recognise that we don't want to be anachronistic here.

 Done I linked walkabout and added Australian. I did a little reading and it seems as though Aboriginal is preferred to indigenous. Notachatterbox (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• "those individuals on whom Chatwin had based his characters" -- does feel a little forced. Perhaps we might be allowed "the people Chatwin had based his characters on".

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• "he was viewed as a liar and his work dismissed by some critics" should perhaps be "some critics viewed him as a liar and dismissed his work", avoiding both the passive and the awkward jump between the verb phrases.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Moleskine books: is it implied that the company was founded with that name because of Chatwin? At the moment it's ambiguous.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Overall

This is a likeable, readable, and informative article with excellent citations and a clear structure. I'm sure the mainly small comments here can quickly be addressed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that the comments have been addressed, and the discussion of influence has been extended, I think the article is clearly up to GA standard. There is certainly room for more, but since "the main points" have been covered and are properly cited, I'm awarding a pass now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review this article! I have appreciated your comments; they have been quite helpful and have made this experience a positive one. Notachatterbox (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Change to the lead; proper citations needed in Illness & Death section

In the section on illness and death, it's reported that members of the gay community criticized Chatwin for not telling the truth about his illness. In the lead, however, it's the "gay community" as a whole that criticize. Since it seems unlikely that any community would reach unanimity on such a subject, I would propose to change the lead to reflect more closely the I&D section. Unfortunately, I'm not skilled in Wikipedia-ness, and cannot find a way to edit the lead, so I'm hoping somebody else will take this up. I might add too, that the referencing in the I&D section is ambiguous. Two facts are mentioned, first, the reports of a fungal infection in many obituaries, and second, criticism from some in the gay community. It's not clear which of these two facts are the subject of the Murray and Shakespeare citations, so this too needs to be cleaned up. Theonemacduff (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added "some members of" to the lead. Reffing by paragraph is normal practice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Chatwin. 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/20080206101145/http://www.brucechatwin.co.uk/ to http://www.brucechatwin.co.uk/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Chatwin. 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/20151208121230/http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/style/articles/2015-05/09/burberry-bruce-chatwin-book-release-christopher-bailey to http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/style/articles/2015-05/09/burberry-bruce-chatwin-book-release-christopher-bailey

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)