Talk:The Adventures of the Black Girl in Her Search for God

Racist overtones?

How can the mere title of the book, which contains no pejorative term, be said to have "racist overtones"? I suggest that this paragraph be reworked. Jmc29

My (illustrated) version of the story is headed, precisely, "The Adventures of the Black Girl in Here Search for God". (Published by Dodd, Mead & Company [USA].) Shaw's Essay appears as an epilogue here. About the above: Somehow, I unconsciously think of the book as "The Adventures of the Little Black Girl..."--- The reference to the girl's color made me think at first that the author was underestimating here, with something as grand as a pursuit of God serving as a contrast. I see no reason to rework the paragraph. [unregistered, 08/03/2005]

If it makes you think this or that, that opinion is POV and not encyclopedic. You are talking about your own, personal unconscious racism. When I see the title, I think merely that it is about what it says it is about. I think that the paragraph is misleading, causing the casual reader to assume that there has at some time been a PC controversy over the title of this book. There never has, and there never will be. Jmc29

Our disagreement is about a small and insignificant side remark that could just as well not have been inserted, but your argument is interesting all the same... If, when writing an encyclopedic entry of an artwork, we were to stick only to the dry facts concerning it, we would write: where and when it was written and by whom, publishing facts, how successful it was financially, etc. These are useful and perhaps interesting, but are far from being the focus of people who read art. Now, when writing about Sophocles's Antigone, for instance, it is essential that it be stated that it is a tragedy. But we cannot say that without being willing to say that it is "sad", that the comic parts in it are not the main point -- but merely comic relief (the "emotional intensity" being elsewhere), and that it gives a feeling of "Catharsis". Either we let the reader assume that when things like this are said than they must be someone’s opinion (it can't be anything else), or that we state in a fact format: "most drama critics see it as...", "it is generally understood that..." etc. Do it this way or that, avoiding reference to this subject is silly [in my opinion :)]. [unregistered, 08/04/2005] p.s.: Do you agree? I'd like to hear what you've got to say.

I do agree that there is a certain amount of POV anything which is not a completely bland and journalistic statement about a work of art (or anything else, for that matter). However, your example with reguard to Antigone is irrelevent to this debate. It would be fair to describe Antigone as "sad" or "cathartic" as there is a huge history of people finding the play so, and Sophocles no doubt intended the play to be so. It is not one person's idiosyncratic opinion. However, in the case of Shaw's novel, there is NO HISTORY AT ALL of people finding racist implications in the book's title. There has never been any public controversy about the book's title. If someone were to say that the title of Antigone always reminded them of their wife's elder sister, that would be analogous to one individual saying "I always think racist thoughts when I hear Shaw's title". It is likely to confuse anyone using this entry, implying something which has nothing to do with the history and reception of this book. Can you some up with one single justification (ouside idiosyncratic reaction) which says that the comment is a useful contribution to someone's knowledge of this work? Jmc29

Yes, I now agree. You have convinced me... :) [unregistered, 08/14/2005]

I have removed the confusing material, including the "even" in reference to "Shaw even parodies..." etc. Knowing Shaw, it would have been surprising if he hadn't parodied these attitudes! Jmc29

Synopsis

This has gone through several incarnations - it is important that it be NPOV - as you can see from the earlier arguments on this page, hinting that at least some readers were not prepared to go past the title, and assume it must be racist(!) and that it be (so far as it goes) accurate. While the original work is in fact very short it is far from simple, and is not easy to summarise accurately and fairly.

A recent very well-meant and literate set of changes, evidently aiming to make the synopsis more detailed, (refreshingly, by someone who had obviously read the original!) somehow managed to get the wrong end of the stick in places (IMHO) and I have made yet another attempt to get it right. It is, for instance, the "old man" (probably meant to be Shaw himself - although this is too OR for the article) who marries the Girl and the Red-Haired Irishman off. His "resemblance" to Voltaire is simply his espousal of the "let's just work in our garden" ending from Candide. I'm not sure that the reference to the colour of the children is even relevant in a short synopsis - Shaw himself plainly thinks it a barely relevant detail, although I have left it in for the nonce. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarify, expand

The "Publication history" is a disaster.

• Titles and publishers of these three books (1932, December 1932, 1934) and one serialization (1932) must be identified.
• Probably that December 1932 edition is the "original" featured in the article infobox.

There may be a fundamental confusion thruout the article, if it does fail to distinguish between a collection of short stories and one story that later became the title story. And perhaps also a specific publication of the one or the other with design and illustration/engraving by John Farleigh (whose linked biography article features this work in the lead). --P64 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)