Talk:George Moore (novelist)

Untitled

• This article is part of WikiProject Irish literature. See that page for further information.

older entries

an early collection of short stories, Celibates. In what sense is this collection early? It doesn't seem to be early in his career (almost 20 years in). Markalexander100 01:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changed this: by the way, your edit was a non-sentence, Filiocht 07:57, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry- I'm still confused by the difference between cut and paste and copy and paste. ;) Markalexander100 08:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I dread to think what you'd see if you looked at my edit history to the article!. Filiocht 09:11, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Successful FAC nomination

Self nomination: another late 19th/early 20th century Irish writer with links to the Celtic Revival. Filiocht 11:13, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

• I rather like it, although Moore was as despised a figure as a lauded one. He seems to have been more influential as a guy who was there than as a novelist. (His memoirs, though, are very much of note.) Geogre 14:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Good article, but I find it a bit short. I miss a more detailed description of (some of) his works and a discussion of his legacy (who did he influence (Joyce is briefly mentioned in the lead section). As a minor point, I would include "Online books" section with the "Works" section. Also, you might want to add dates to the paintings of Moore, so we can be sure they are in the PD. Jeronimo 11:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. Here are some responses/queries 1) Joyce is mentioned again in the Dublin and the Celtic Revival section specifying that Dubliners was influenced by The Untilled Field. Other than Joyce, it is hard to think of anyone who Moore influenced. See Geogre's comment above. 2) Manet died in 1883, so his works are by definition PD. 3) I see no reason for including the online books with the works. For readers not familiar with how wiki linking works, I think the arrangement I use makes it clear that the online works are just that. 4)Which works would you suggest I expand on? I have given limited information about The Untilled Field, Hail and Farewell and The Brook Kerith and the article is currently the best part of 2,000 words long if you include the lists. Filiocht 11:28, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

1) If little people were influenced by him, perhaps you should mention that. Also, it may be interesting to note his popularity among readers (then and now), but that may be difficult. 2) I realise that, but if you mention this on the image page, there's no need to look up Manet's DOD. 3) OK, it was just a suggestion. 4) I usually don't count lists in article length, but there's no requirement for a minimum length anyway. I don't know Moore's work, so I couldn't recommend any particular works. I would just like to know more than just the titles of his works. This could be a work-by-work discussion, more extensive discussion of his most important works, or a classification of his works by category ("many of his poems deal with..." or so). I think you may be able to find the best form for Moore. Let me know if you have more questions. Jeronimo 11:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to address points 1, 2 and 4. Please review. Filiocht 12:33, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Support now. A little more on his works would still be nice, but then again, they should get their own articles anyway if they're important enough. Jeronimo 19:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- user:aurang
• Support. Markalexander100 08:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The list of his works is quite extensive, his life biography is well written and informative - and I really like the painting of George Moore by Édouard Manet, unlike the black and white images that are so often used for deceased writers, this colourful image really brings the article to life. CGorman 10:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I don't know why people feel obliged to vandalize wikipedia, I clicked on this article and got a page full of pornographic pictures. Hopefully this isn't going to be a trend for wikipedia, although, seems like everything is going in that direction

• Émile Zotrutla? Not very subtil since it doesn't link anywhere.

Spring Days

Have added Spring Days to the list of novels. Have previously owned a copy published by Henry Vizetelly, currently have one published by Brentano's, New York. In his preface, the author says "When Henry Vizetelly....was sent to prison for publishing Zola's novels, mine were taken over by Walter Scott, and all were reprinted except "Spring Days"". Titles 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The Passing of the Essenes

Have added "The Passing of the Essenes" to the list of plays. This was first published in a limited edition in 1930, followed by a new and revised edition in 1931. Titles 02:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Any discussion of George Moore that doesn't include G. K. Chesterton's criticism is incomplete. The following is Chapter 9 of Heretics, published in 1905.

IX. The Moods of Mr. George Moore Mr. George Moore began his literary career by writing his personal confessions; nor is there any harm in this if he had not continued them for the remainder of his life. He is a man of genuinely forcible mind and of great command over a kind of rhetorical and fugitive conviction which excites and pleases. He is in a perpetual state of temporary honesty. He has admired all the most admirable modern eccentrics until they could stand it no longer. Everything he writes, it is to be fully admitted, has a genuine mental power. His account of his reason for leaving the Roman Catholic Church is possibly the most admirable tribute to that communion which has been written of late years. For the fact of the matter is, that the weakness which has rendered barren the many brilliancies of Mr. Moore is actually that weakness which the Roman Catholic Church is at its best in combating. Mr. Moore hates Catholicism because it breaks up the house of looking−glasses in which he lives. Mr. Moore does not dislike so much being asked to believe in the spiritual existence of miracles or sacraments, but he does fundamentally dislike being asked to believe in the actual existence of other people. Like his master Pater and all the aesthetes, his real quarrel with life is that it is not a dream that can be moulded by the dreamer. It is not the dogma of the reality of the other world that troubles him, but the dogma of the reality of this world. The truth is that the tradition of Christianity (which is still the only coherent ethic of Europe) rests on two or three paradoxes or mysteries which can easily be impugned in argument and as easily justified in life. One of them, for instance, is the paradox of hope or faith−− that the more hopeless is the situation the more hopeful must be the man. Stevenson understood this, and consequently Mr. Moore cannot understand Stevenson. Another is the paradox of charity or chivalry that the weaker a thing is the more it should be respected, that the more indefensible a thing is the more it should appeal to us for a certain kind of defence. Thackeray understood this, and therefore Mr. Moore does not understand Thackeray. Now, one of these very practical and working mysteries in the Christian tradition, and one which the Roman Catholic Church, as I say, has done her best work in singling out, is the conception of the sinfulness of pride. Pride is a weakness in the character; it dries up laughter, it dries up wonder, it dries up chivalry and energy. The Christian tradition understands this; therefore Mr. Moore does not understand the Christian tradition. For the truth is much stranger even than it appears in the formal doctrine of the sin of pride. It is not only true that humility is a much wiser and more vigorous thing than pride. It is also true that vanity is a much wiser and more vigorous thing than pride. Vanity is social−−it is almost a kind of comradeship; pride is solitary and uncivilized. Vanity is active; it desires the applause of infinite multitudes; pride is passive, desiring only the applause of one person, which it already has. Vanity is humorous, and can enjoy the joke even of itself; pride is dull, and cannot even smile. And the whole of this difference is the difference between Stevenson and Mr. George Moore, who, as he informs us, has "brushed Stevenson aside." I do not know where he has been brushed to, but wherever it is I fancy he is having a good time, because he had the wisdom to be vain, and not proud. Stevenson had a windy vanity; Mr. Moore has a dusty egoism. Hence Stevenson could amuse himself as well as us with his vanity; while the richest effects of Mr. Moore's absurdity are hidden from his eyes. If we compare this solemn folly with the happy folly with which Stevenson belauds his own books and berates his own critics, we shall not find it difficult to guess why it is that Stevenson at least found a final philosophy of some sort to live by, while Mr. Moore is always walking the world looking for a new one. Stevenson had found that the secret of life lies in laughter and humility. Self is the gorgon. Vanity sees it in the mirror of other men and lives. Pride studies it for itself and is turned to stone. It is necessary to dwell on this defect in Mr. Moore, because it is really the weakness of work which is not without its strength. Mr. Moore's egoism is not merely a moral weakness, it is a very constant and influential aesthetic weakness as well. We should really be much more interested in Mr. Moore if he were not quite so interested in himself. We feel as if we were being shown through a gallery of really fine pictures, into each of which, by some useless and discordant convention, the artist had represented the same figure in the same attitude. "The Grand Canal with a distant view of Mr. Moore," "Effect of Mr. Moore through a Scotch Mist," "Mr. Moore by Firelight," "Ruins of Mr. Moore by Moonlight," and so on, seems to be the endless series. He would no doubt reply that in such a book as this he intended to reveal himself. But the answer is that in such a book as this he does not succeed. One of the thousand objections to the sin of pride lies precisely in this, that self−consciousness of necessity destroys self−revelation. A man who thinks a great deal about himself will try to be many−sided, attempt a theatrical excellence at all points, will try to be an encyclopaedia of culture, and his own real personality will be lost in that false universalism. Thinking about himself will lead to trying to be the universe; trying to be the universe will lead to ceasing to be anything. If, on the other hand, a man is sensible enough to think only about the universe; he will think about it in his own individual way. He will keep virgin the secret of God; he will see the grass as no other man can see it, and look at a sun that no man has ever known. This fact is very practically brought out in Mr. Moore's "Confessions." In reading them we do not feel the presence of a clean−cut personality like that of Thackeray and Matthew Arnold. We only read a number of quite clever and largely conflicting opinions which might be uttered by any clever person, but which we are called upon to admire specifically, because they are uttered by Mr. Moore. He is the only thread that connects Catholicism and Protestantism, realism and mysticism−−he or rather his name. He is profoundly absorbed even in views he no longer holds, and he expects us to be. And he intrudes the capital "I" even where it need not be intruded−− even where it weakens the force of a plain statement. Where another man would say, "It is a fine day," Mr. Moore says, "Seen through my temperament, the day appeared fine." Where another man would say "Milton has obviously a fine style," Mr. Moore would say, "As a stylist Milton had always impressed me." The Nemesis of this self−centred spirit is that of being totally ineffectual. Mr. Moore has started many interesting crusades, but he has abandoned them before his disciples could begin. Even when he is on the side of the truth he is as fickle as the children of falsehood. Even when he has found reality he cannot find rest. One Irish quality he has which no Irishman was ever without−−pugnacity; and that is certainly a great virtue, especially in the present age. But he has not the tenacity of conviction which goes with the fighting spirit in a man like Bernard Shaw. His weakness of introspection and selfishness in all their glory cannot prevent him fighting; but they will always prevent him winning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.238.223.115 (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Surely the claim that Moore infulenced Joyce requires a citation? I've searched on Google and found nowhere else that makes that claim. Their styles are similar but it can't be presumed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.85 (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

first realist novel?

His next book, A Mummers Wife (1885) is widely recognised as the first major English language novel in the realist style.

Is this really true? Maybe Zola-type Naturalism, but my sense was that writers like Eliot, Hardy, Meredith, and even Trollope were considered more or less realists. john k (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Category LGBT

Why ? There's nothing in the article to support this category. Nor in anything else I've read about Moore ? --Xuxl (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I requested more information from the user who originally added the category. In response to another editor, the user (User:Danvera) added a book title to the article in lieu of an actual citation. Since I don't have the book, I don't know what it says about Moore. I also don't know if the book is a reliable source or if including it would violate undue weight policy. Danvera hasn't responded to my query (in fact, hasn't edited an article in some months), so I'm removing the category. If anyone objects, please consider adding information supporting the category to the article. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 18:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mummers Wife or Mummer's?

The article renders the title both ways. 99.247.1.157 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:George Moore (novelist)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations --plange 21:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 16:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 review

I am looking at this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to evaluate older featured articles to ensure that they still meet the featured article criteria. I have some concerns about this article:

• The article has numerous unreferenced passages, including two paragraphs in the "Controversy in England" section
• I am surprised that there isn't a section that explains the themes or writing style of Moore's written work. Shouldn't this be included?
• Many of the sources are not used as inline citations. Can they be included, or should they be removed?

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should it be listed at WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Evictions

There is a line which states During his time back in Mayo, he gained a reputation as a fair landlord, continuing the family tradition of not evicting tenants

There is evidence to the contrary. Some are documented in United Irishman, New York, May 1882, noting a number of evictions in his name in Mayo. 2A00:23C6:3E1F:FC01:1959:6D62:DF54:60C3 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)