Talk:The Day of the Locust

Discussions about edits to this article

Who wrote this article? It's extremely biased and interpretative and at times in its (mis)interpretation seems to be undervaluing or simply bashing the novel. Calling all the character stereotypes is true up to a point, but the article goes too far in trying to include Homer Simpson, a character altogether outside the scheme, as a stereotype. The article misses completely the religious/mystic/apocalyptic/revelatory elements in the novel- that's what the entire book is actually about. It isn't a satire on Hollywood. The very title, The Day of the Locust, gives the book a biblical connection, and considering West's preoccupations it's fair to say this is the book's proper context. It's about revelations and apocalypse. Simpson is the Christ figure throughout and unsurprisingly he inadvertently starts the riot/apocalypse. West can't buy a break; considering how shabbily he's been treated in life and after death, how overlooked, how misunderstood, how undervalued, one would hope at least this all-important site would give him his due and proper. But whatever. Really, Americans don't deserve prophets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.17.132 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried to fix up the somewhat skewed tone of the article, but I haven't read the book, so I just removed whatever seemed more opinion than plot summarry, which is all this article is in it's current form. What this article needs is more reliable sources so it can be fleshed out into an article showing printed criticism of the book as well as material regarding it's cultural impact. As for whatever. Really, Americans don't deserve prophets., I don't really know what to make of that remark, but I know it does not belong on a talk page for discussing article content. Beeblbrox (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• I wrote the article, and I'm sorry that I have no access to your revealed knowledge of West and his work. All I have is my own interpretation, a genuine admiration for West (I'm sorry if that didn't come through in my tone), and a desire to publicize his work so others might read it and add their own interpretations to the page. So, if you think I'm doing violence to West's work, why don't you sign in and edit the page? As for your comment about Americans and prophets: Beeblbrox is right-- it's spiteful and insulting, and it doesn't belong here. Especially when it comes from someone who hides behind a generic IP address. Shame on you.--Markwalters79 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: "All I have is my own interpretation, a genuine admiration for West...and a desire to publicize his work...."

All of these are entirely irrelevant. One's "own interpretation" is called "original research" on Wikipedia and is forbidden. Wikipedia articles should be neutral in tone and express neither "admiration" nor dislike of the subject. Wikipedia editing should be motivated by a desire to make what is notable available, not to "publicize" or promote individuals or their work. Presumably the article has been edited since the remarks above, and most of the interpretation is now attributed, but there is still too much suggestion that the interpretation of a particular critic or commentator is the only one possible. (Yes, the prophet remark was veering off a bit, but Markwalters79's condemnation of it is over-the-top and ridiculous. It's not "spiteful and insulting", and its author need feel no "shame". It's also ridiculous to accuse editors of "hiding behind a generic IP address". Does this Markwalters79 think "Beeblbrox", for example, is actually someone's name? Even if Markwalters79 really is named Mark Walters there are still at least seventy-eight others of him editing Wikipedia--or so it would appear.) TheScotch (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• So maybe I should clarify: All I have is my own interpretation, backed up by my interpretations of Barnard, Light and Simon-- all of whom are published in peer-reviewed, academic journals-- and the rest of it. Maybe the fact that I used extensive research and citation didn't come through, but it should be evident from the drafts.

If I weren't interested in West and interested in publicizing his work, I wouldn't be here-- and I'm guessing neither would you. But whatever. Clearly I'm the one in the wrong here, and not the person who wrote the following (which is not "over the top" or "spiteful and insulting" at all):

West can't buy a break; considering how shabbily he's been treated in life and after death, how overlooked, how misunderstood, how undervalued, one would hope at least this all-important site would give him his due and proper. But whatever. Really, Americans don't deserve prophets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.42.78 (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I added a link to an article that discusses twentieth century theories of mob rule and their connection to fascism. The note on fascism is already cited in this text. French theorist Gustave Le Bon called masses “irrational conformists,” and Freud expressed fear that “individuals in groups resort to ‘the primal horde.’” Usfmicah (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a sub heading under themes that begins to place the novel in historical context to the period. I linked this novel to The Hollywood Novel. That article on WP that cites the author and this novel already. Additionally, I cited an article on regionalism and nationalism in The Day of the Locust written my Geneva Gano. The purpose for creating the additional links to WP articles demonstrates what regionalism is, how it was popular during the period, and how regionalism was employed in federal relief programs that employed writers as part of New Deal politics following the Great Depression.

Additionally, I plan to expand the article as part of my graduate research project in my current literature class. My goal is to increase the content of the article in line with other twentieth century canonical texts listed on WP. I look forward to a revived interest in this article and the opportunity to collaborate with anyone interested in improving the current content. Usfmicah (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Usfmicah (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Day of the Locust reference list 2015

This is my preliminary bibliography for working on this article. This is not the same as the current article reference list. I look forward to any additional recommendations.

1. Alter, Jonathan. The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006.
2. Blyn, Robin. “Imitating the Siren: West’s The Day of the Locust and the Subject of Sound.” Literature-Film Quarterly 32, no. 1 (2004): 51-59.
3. Bordo, Michael D., Claudia Goldin, and Eugene N. White, ed. The Defining Moment: The Great Depression and the American Economy in the Twentieth Century, Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1998.
4. Doss, Erika. “Artists in Hollywood: Thomas Hart Benton and Nathaniel West Picture America’s Dream Dump.” Space Between: Literature and Culture, 1914-1945 7, no. 1 (2011):
5. Edington, K. “The Hollywood Novel: American Dream, Apocalyptic Vision.” Literature-Film Quarterly 23, no. 1 (1995): 63-67.
6. Gano, Geneva M. “Nationalist Ideologies and New Deal Regionalism in The Day of the Locust.” MFS 55, no. 1 (2009): 42-67.
7. Hemingway, Andrew. Artists on the Left: American Artists and the Communist Movement, 1926-1956. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2002.
8. Lukes, H. N. “Portrait of the Artist as Social Symptom: Viral Affect and Mass Culture in The Day of the Locust.” WSQ 40, no. 1 & 2 (2012): 187-200.
9. Meyers, Jeffrey. “The paintings in The Day of the Locust.” ANQ 22, no. 1 (2009): 50-55.
10. Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan, ed., Literary Theory: An Anthology, 2d ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.
11. Roberts, Matthew. “Bonfire of the Avante-Garde: Cultural Rage and Readerly Complicity in The Day of the Locust.” MFS 42, no. 1 (1996):61-90.
12. Rogers, Martin. “Monstrous Modernism and The Day of the Locust.” The Journal of Popular Culture 44, no. 2 (2011): 367-384.
13. Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, New York: Harper Collins, 2007.
14. Springer, John. “’This is a riot you’re in’: Hollywood and American Mass Culture in Nathanael West’s The Day of the Locust.” Literature-Film Quarterly 24, no. 4 (1999): 439-444.
15. West, Nathanael. The Day of the Locust, Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer, 1939.

  Other references:

1. Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. Literature and Art, New York: International Publishers, 1947.
2. Bold, Christine. Writers, Plumbers, and Anarchists: The WPA Writer’s Project in Massachusetts, Amherst, MA: U of Mass P, 2006.
3. Levitan, Sar A., and Gregory K. Wurzburg. Evaluating Social Programs: An Uncertain Art. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute, 1979.
4. Groys, Boris. Art Power, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.
5. Adams, Laurie Schneider. Art and Psychoanalysis, New York: Harper Collins, 1993.
6. Klepper, Martin and Joseph C. Schöpp. Transatlantic Modernism, Germany: Universitätsverlag C. Winter Heidelberg, 2001.

Usfmicah (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

References in Mulholland Drive

I'm surprised nobody has touched on the similarities

If the editor who wrote the above thinks the movie Mulholland Drive was derived from the novel Day of the Locust and has appropriate sources, he can edit the Mulholland Drive article to mention this deriviation, but nothing about Mulholland Drive belongs in the Day of the Locust article. TheScotch (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Coincidence of character names

The character Homer Simpson in this novel has no connection to the character of the same name in the Matt Groenig animated television series, so I'm going to remove that link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revanneosl (talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Read this interview published by the Smithsonian Magazine. Eatmorepies (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Hi User:Usfmicah, per read WP:LEAD which states "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I see you're still working on the article. I usually write the lead last since it is meant to be an overview of what's contained in the rest of the article. -- GreenC 21:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

user:Green Cardamom This is useful advice. Thank you. I will ensure I implement this format into the lead or move the unnecessary portions to a different heading or subheading.Usfmicah (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Lead has been revised to read: Paragraph one is a synopsis of the novel. Paragraph two is a brief description of the novel's production and reception. Paragraph three is a statement of where the novel ranks among publications about 20th Century American novels.

The plot summary has been revised to describe a general trajectory of the novel from start to finish without going into great detail. I have attempted to link what appears in the lead to further explanations in the Plot Summary, and items expanded under Themes. The article has improved, but will benefit from future contributors who collaborate to improve interest in the article, but more importantly, an interest in reading the novel itself. It is truly an enjoyable work, and ripe for further interpretation. I will return to this work in the future, but do not plan to contribute anything further to this article at this time. Thank you Green Cardamom for your advice. user: Green Cardamom Usfmicah (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)