Talk:Norman Mailer/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Norman Mailer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

August 2017: Potential Major Revisions

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments1 person in discussion

This article has not really been updated to reflect the publication of J. Michael Lennon's official biography of Mailer: Norman Mailer: A Double Life. I'm going to begin correcting some errors and inconsistencies and include Lennon's bio as an integral source. Full disclosure (to avoid any COI): I know Mike Lennon, I am an editor of The Mailer Review, and I have published on Mailer. That said, I believe I can remain impartial, and I seek in no way to mitigate many of the more controversial aspects of Mailer's life. Mailer himself would not approve. Therefore, I'll be making some revisions over the next few weeks and maybe months. -Grlucas (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole section on "The White Negro" should be removed, or moved to "The White Negro" if appropriate sources are added. As is, it reads like a book report with few (I count 2) citations of the primary text. -Grlucas (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Warjs (talk · contribs), you made this addition. What do you think? -Grlucas (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the WN section for the reasons I stated above. -Grlucas (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, the sections "Style and views on the body and sex," "Race in Mailer's writing," and "Mailer's personal encounters with race" bring up some excellent points, but none is very well sourced and they read like undergraduate essays. Again, nothing wrong with this, but they seem inappropriate for Wikipedia. That said, these are important issues and relevant to Mailer's life; however, they should be better integrated and supported. Maybe we need a section called "Public persona" or "Public intellectual" where some of his most famous public "performances" can be detailed, like his participation in Town Bloody Hall, his appearance with Gore Vidal on The Dick Cavett Show (and some of his other contentious relationships, with people like Michiko Kakutani, William Buckley, Rip Torn, and others). -Grlucas (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I reorganized and made some additions to the Works section. I'm wondering if this shouldn't be a separate page, like Hemingway's or Fitzgerald's. -Grlucas (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this web site today that seems to have a verbatim copy of the entry here — at least an older one. Maybe another reason for a dramatic rewrite? -Grlucas (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And archive seems to either be a source or a copy. Maybe since this is an archive, we needn't worry? Still it triggered copyvio detector. Another reason to totally rewrite? -Grlucas (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed the ¶ about Elmo Henderson as it seemed out of place. Many writers get sued, and this lawsuit didn't seem to be as important as Mailer's accomplishments in new journalism. In the rush to publish, Mailer and the fact-checkers at Playboy screwed up. Mailer had a dozen or more lawsuits over the years. The settlement was reduced to $40,000. While I have no problem with including it, it should not be in the new journalism section of the article. Maybe it's own "Legal battles" section, if anyone really thinks it's notable. -Grlucas (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved the section on biographical subjects (which currently only has Monroe) up under the broader heading "Literary career" (maybe there's a better name for this?) and renamed it to fit, simply "Biography." I added a bit more detail and filled in the refs. Yes, they are heavy on Lennon, but we can add more diverse sources later if necessary or when needed. -Grlucas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Norman Mailer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Tone, original research

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've tagged the article for tone - this is written in a very praising, positive tone and contains original research. Some of this looks like it was drawn from source material but never attributed within the sentence himself, as in the case of this sentence:

It is still considered to be one of the finest depictions of Americans in combat during World War II, though many contemporary readers might find it a difficult read today.

Basically, who thinks this? Also, the claim that contemporary readers would find this book a hard read is based solely on an obituary - that's something that at best should be attributed to the writer of the obituary and may need to be outright left out of the article unless there are additional sources that state this.

Also, portions in the themes section are completely unsourced and there are OR puff pieces like this:

Mailer is strikingly adept at identifying social and political phenomena still in their cradle. Yet even at the height of his powers, efforts to describe the experiences of women, African Americans, and other groups without typecasting from his own experiences seems outside of Mailer's consideration. Interrogation of the meaning of this exclusionary discourse leads the reader and critic to an eventual response to Mailer.

I'm not saying that he wasn't a brilliant writer, just that this needs a lot of cleanup and I wanted to explain my tags. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree; see my comments above. I'm planning on rewriting the themes section (I was taking notes on it just this morning!) — hopefully with the assistance of my students this semester. I just haven't had the time, and instead of deleting the section, I figured I'd let it remain until I could replace it with something better. As it stands currently, it does seem like original research that is mostly unsupported. I've already done much work on this article, but (much) more needs to be done. Thanks for your encouragement. Grlucas (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

External link to fight with Vidal

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The argument with Gore Vidal (and everyone else) on the Dick Cavett Show has just appeared on that show's YouTube channel: youtu dot be slash Nb1w_qoioOk (the most unhelpful errors occur when I try to post this properly) —Toby Bartels (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)