Talk:Damon Runyon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Damon Runyon article.

Contents

[edit] Method of burial

This article says that Runyon was interred in the Woodlawn Cemetery in The Bronx, New York. But weren't his ashes scattered over Broadway by his son, from a plane flown by Eddie Rickenbacker? RickK 05:26, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that his ashes were scattered. Perhaps he has a headstone? Kgwo1972 19:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Damon Runyon, Jr.'s memoir, Father's Footsteps (New York: Random House, 1954; London, Constable, 1955), his father was indeed cremated and his ashes were scattered over Manhattan Island on December 18, 1946. Captain Eddie Rickenbacker did not fly the plane; the pilot was John F. Gill, and the co-pilot was Captain Eddie Barber. Damon Jr. sat in the back with his wife and Eddie Rickenbacker. It was Eddie Rickenbacker who tipped the ashes out of the cockpit window as the plane flew over Times Square. This was all in accordance with the author's wishes, as expressed in a letter to his son dated November 17, 1946, three and a half weeks before he died. The letter goes on to say: "If you like you may have my name added to the stone over your mother's grave in the family plot at Woodlawn." (Father's Footsteps, p. 146.) Damon Jr. does not say whether or not this was done, but it is clear that he went to some trouble to carry out his father's other dying wishes to the letter. I have changed the paragraph alluding to Runyon's burial to accord with the account given in his son's memoir.Paulannis 14:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Boxing Hall of Fame

He was also inducted into the WBHOF: http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/Damon_Runyon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.101.199.72 (talk • contribs). 21 July 2005

Somebody has since added this to the article. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.—mjb 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year of death; present tense

At the age of 59 I have finally got around to reading Runyon! Pity I did not do this years ago. Right off I note two errors in the article. (1) The text says he died in 1946 but at bottom in the categories we have 1947. (2) Text says he wrote always in the present tense. Not true. He occasionally used the future indicative, especially in situations that would normally require subjunctive. Example: "Now most any doll on Broadway will be very glad indeed to have Handsome Jack Madigan give her a tumble ..." (Guys and dolls, "Social error", second paragraph) Jm546 01:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point about the "future indicative"... I'll have to think about working that in somewhere. Maybe we need a section with a detailed analysis of his style, seperate from the introduction... -- Doom 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

I used to live in Pueblo and might live there again. Ralph Stevenson (The Last Bohemian) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.179.72.164 (talk • contribs). 18 November 2005

[edit] Runyon's early formation

I have almost finished reading the Damon Runyon omnibus, comprising the collections "Guys and dolls", "Money from home", and "Blue plate special", this being the first Runyon I have read. Every story turns on moral points and reads like something I would expect from a writer with a strong Roman Catholic background. A wronged man or woman must have compensation or revenge. Acts of kindness can soften hard hearts. No one is all good or all bad. Truth will out.

This raises for me the question, did Runyon have some sort of Roman Catholic formation in his youth, such as attending a parochial school, or being instructed by a strong-minded priest?

A couple of hours of poking around the net indicates that as an adult and writer he did not maintain any religious practice or profession, or if he did he must have kept it secret. But what about his childhood and youth? I can find no material at all that addresses my question one way or the other.

Can any Wikipedian make any informed comment on this?

Jm546 01:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Re CATHOLICISM. First let me say that it fills me with great happiness, that Mr Runyon has been given such a fine page here and also an interesting discussion. I am quite convinced that he would have been proud to see such a beautiful hommage to his art. We Swiss know and appreciate his writing of course, but we have no own WP yet to honour him in.
Now to the question of his Catholicism: I am very surprised to learn this. In Switzerland we rather tend to see him influenced by Eastern Religion. The classic example quoted is his relation to TIME as exemplified, if I may go into detail, by the Clock in the wonderful story "The old doll's house". This clock which has been stopped like all other (!) clocks in Miss Ardley's house to show always the SAME time, will ultimately save Lance McGowan first from the vengeful Louse Kid and his executioners with their burlap bag, and again from the vengeful State and his executioners with their chair. All these interlocking ideas of non-existent time and eternal return point rather to a hinduistic or buddhistic mind frame. But if you see parallels to Catholicism, I would be interested to hear your analysis.
--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Mr Zollinger ---

Virtue is rewarded, sin punished (I’m expanding a bit on what I said to start with). This essentially catholic theme runs all through the Runyon collection in point (the only Runyon I have read). Catholicism posits that one always receives justice, perhaps in this world but more likely in the next. Justice received in this world makes a better short story. One would not be surprised that a catholic writer of short stories would dwell on justice received in this life, leaving justice in the next for the treatises of theologians. But even if justice deferred for heaven or hell is not explicitly treated, it still lurks in the background. As does the tenet that one may suffer for the sins of another, and be blessed by the virtue of another. And there’s always grace acting as something of a wild card.

Some catholic points in “The old doll’s house”: Lance begins with a modicum of virtue (he has a superior product and is winning Angie’s trade). Angie, an evil man (an extortionist, among other things) seeks to destroy him. Meanwhile the innocent Abigail has lost her lover and lived a life of suffering due to the sin of her father. Her suffering is redemptive, for Lance is saved from Angie through her kindness. This virtuous kindness brings out the best in Lance, who moves from considering robbing her (“send some of the lads around”) to seeking to comfort her in her sorrow. From the warmth and safety of Abigail’s living room (oratory?), Lancelot goes out into the night (sinful world). In his practical act of liquidating Angie before Angie liquidates him we may see him at a deeper level as the virtuous knight attacking evil. He prevails despite the superior worldly strength of Angie, who has two men with him. Called to answer before a court which judges as the world judges, he is saved again by the virtue of Abigail, who has seen his better qualities, perhaps even his heart. As the story ends, we are given every reason to hope that Abigail and Lance will find new and better lives together. All of this happens in this present world, and happens openly in the story. Runyon leaves uncommented the fact that Abigail has not had sufficient compensation for all her suffering, whereas Lance is blessed beyond his merits. Likewise there is no explicit mention of the harsh judgment due Abigail’s father, nor the compensation due her lover whose very life was lost due to the sin of the father. Among the possible entrances of grace into the story are Lance’s stumbling into Abigail’s garden and house, of all the gardens he could have jumped into, and his leaving at just the moment he did, of all the moments when he could have left.

My exposure to eastern religions was little if any more than a one-semester high school course in comparative religion and an occasional attendance at temple when I lived in a buddhist country, all this well over thirty years ago. Anything I knew about it is by now lost or rusted beyond use. I can’t comment one way or the other about eastern themes in this story. But even without fluency in eastern religion, I would ask, Does seeing Runyon in a catholic light rule out seeing him also in an eastern way, and vice versa? Did you mean by “rather” to say it has to be either/or, as opposed to both/and?

You also raise a question parallel to mine when you say, “In Switzerland we rather tend to see him influenced by Eastern Religion.” That is, you go beyond seeing hindu or buddhist themes in Runyon’s work and suggest that he might have had actual exposure to eastern religion. Parenthetically, I would think it at least 11 to 3 against, considering the times and places where he grew up and flourished.

But guesswork is unimportant. My original question remains: Did Runyon have exposure to catholic influence or indoctrination? To this we may add another: Did he have exposure to eastern religion? In either case, when, where, with whom? What sort of content did it involve? Jm546 23:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Re INFLUENCE. Influence, be it eastern or western, does not necessarily have to be direct, nor does the person who is being influenced have to be necessarily aware of what is taking place. Furthermore, even if a potential influencer (strong Catholic Priest or Eastern Guru) could be found in Mr Runyon's biography this by itself would not constitute a proof of any influencing having actually occurred, just as the apparent absence of such a potential influencer is no proof or even indication that Mr Runyon's writing is NOT influenced by certain religious or philosophical ideas. I think it is a safer course to concentrate on what can be found in the text itself.
Re CATHOLIC POINTS. Unfortunately, your analysis, while being a brilliant piece of work (my sincerest compliments!), does not succeed to do what it set out to do. Your main points remain not only unproven but undemonstrated. The only virtue rewarded in our story is the virtue of quick-wittedness (Lance McGowan, Miss Ardsley, "Judge" Goldstein), something that is not expressly seen as a virtue as such in Catholic doctrine, and the only sin that is punished is the sin of dimwittedness (Angie the Ox, Mockie Max). Nor is everyone in the text a mixture of good and evil. Mr Ardsley certainly isn't. A man who can tell the lover of his daughter never to darken his door again, and add the sneer especially the side-door is certainly 100% evil. And so, of course, is The Louse Kid. Not one redeeming feature can be found in this character. And this villain (as his name indicates:in every sense NOT a man) who wants to murder AND ridicule his victim but cannot take a slug in the leg without making a terrible fuss about it, does in no way get the punishment that he would deserve.
The last point brings us to a possible source of influence that we have both neglected to examine so far: the Stoa. This might be well worth looking into.
--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is curious that you call my analysis brilliant, yet say it fails of its objective. I don't see how both points can be true. I suspect you grant me simultaneously too much and too little. In any case, without denying that the matter is worth controverting, I have no interest in controverting it myself. I began this thread with a frankly subjective statement, "Every story turns on moral points and reads like something I would expect from a writer with a strong Roman Catholic background." I will stick with that.

I do, of course, acknowledge that establishing that Runyon was or was not exposed to some teaching does not in itself prove that he was or was not influenced by the same. I never said otherwise.

What I started the thread for was to ask a simple question: What exposure, if any, did Runyon have to Roman Catholic formative influences. And I should still like to have the answer to that question.

Apparently there's no Runyon fan out there who knows. Or if one does, he's not telling.

Jm546 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re BRILLIANCE. Napoleon is said to have conducted some very brilliant campaigns, especially after his return from Elba. But he did not achieve his objectives. Also, brilliant writers very often fail to achieve their objectives. Some, as a matter of fact, even fail to finish their brilliantly written novels.
As Mr Runyon might have said: So I notice this guy is doing some very fancy footwork indeed, and I'm greatly impressed with him. But in Mr Runyon's tales, as everyone knows, the guy doing the fancy footwork will never leave the ring a winner. Now this may not be proof enough that I am right, but to see Mr Runyon taking my side is always a source of great comfort to me in any argument.
Re EARLY FORMATION. I am sorry that my remarks have not been of any help to you, but there was of course never a real chance in the first place that with my limited Swiss knowledge on the subject I could ever hope to compete with the experts in the field on their home territory, so to say. This is all the more regrettable as you cannot expect to get any help from the author of the article, who seems to believe in absentee creatorship, or - as Mr Runyon would have said - must be such a guy as will never be moved by anything short of an earthquake.
It would serve no purpose were I to repeat my advice to you that the text itself is the place to go to for all the answers. So let me at least give you a tip on how to proceed in the course that YOU have chosen: As you will no doubt know, Mr Runyon joined the Army at age 14 (!) and served two years in the Philippines with the 13th Minnesota Volunteers. So it is safe to assume that any formative religious influence must - if at all - have occurred at yet an earlier age. Your best bet would be to take it from there. Lots of luck!
--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re CATHOLICISM. The author's son, Damon Runyon, Jr., alludes to this subject at several points in his memoir, Father's Footsteps (New York: Random House, 1954; London, Constable, 1955). On page 41 he says: "My father had no religion. My mother had a religion, but she was not religious." On page 13, Damon Jr. says of his parents: "They were duly married with the ceremony, but not the pomp, of the Roman Catholic Church. They had to be wed in the rectory since my father wasn't a Catholic." Damon Jr. was baptised in a Roman Catholic Church (p. 42). On page 43 he says: "Although not a follower of any particular line of religion my father now and then dropped into a church.... For his transient churchgoing he usually picked a Roman Catholic mass because, as he said, 'they put on the best show.'"

Don Iddon's memoir of Runyon (which is included in the first British edition (London: Constable, 1948) of Runyon's book Short Takes) includes the comment: "There was a strong strain of religion in Runyon. You see that plainly in his columns. But he was not a man for elaborate ceremony and did not think a church was necessary for praying." ("Memoir of the Author" in Short Takes, pp. 21-22) Paulannis 15:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A word to the author(s) of the article

Re ERRORS. On 15 Oct 2005 user Jm546 pointed out to you on this page that not enough care had been taken in presenting the biographical data in this article. He did this in the most civilized manner possible by mentioning only a minor discrepancy. A less tactful person might have just told you bluntly that you created a mess by giving your readers a hotchpotch of dates of birth and death for Mr Runyon that, when put side by side, do not make any sense whatsoever (birth 1880, death 1946, age at death 62 (!), to cite just one example). Nevertheless you have not found it necessary so far to make the called-for changes in the article. In Switzerland the Americans are revered for their efficiency, their tolerance for dissent, and their openness to criticism. I am therefore very much surprised and disappointed to find such unseemly behavior in this place. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.—mjb 06:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re MISTAKES. Dear Mjb, in Switzerland, where I come from, we see things differently. If people make a mistake, and somebody points this out to them, we expect the people who made the mistake to correct the mistake. It would never occur to a Swiss to lecture the person who pointed out the mistake, and much less to ask him to correct a mistake that he is not responsible for. But then, of course, Wikipedia is not Switzerland. No need to tell me, Mjb!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bruno: You addressed your comments to the "author(s) of this article". I get the impression that you do not realize that there have been 64 different authors that have made a total of 93 edits (check the History page). The majority (46) of the authors made just a single edit - they noticed an improvement they could make and they simply made it. And most of them have probably not looked at the article since.
So your expectation that these people will correct their "mistakes" in response to your message is misplaced. People are not responsible for checking on every article that they have changed, and most could not do so. People make improvements when they can. If you find a change that you think would help, you can make it if you wish. If someone later finds a problem with that change, they might fix it. Over time, the quality of the article improves. That's how it works.
If you have some change that you think should be made, but do not feel that you have the ability to make it, then by all means, talk about it here. Maybe you will inspire someone to make the change. But posting directions for previous editors to correct their mistakes is a non-starter. Chances are they will not see your message, and even if they were to see it, they have no obligation of any kind to follow your directions.
Also, you have talked about the "called-for changes in the article"Ļ, but I have only seen one change mentioned - your complaint that (birth 1880, death 1946, age 62) makes no sense. But as far as I can tell, the article has never indicated a birth year of 1880 - it has always been 1884, so the age of 62 is correct. So you have not suggested any valid changes at all.
And finally, you might want to take a look at some of the Help pages available on Wikipedia. There is a lot of material there and reading it should give you a better idea of how this Wiki thing works.
JPMcGrath 10:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Re 1884. You are right, JP. The article never indicated a birth year of 1880. It was always 1884. My imagination must have played a trick on me. It only goes to show that one can't be careful enough when critizing other people's work.
I can also see now that I failed to make the main point clear. All I wanted was to register my surprise at the fact that no attention was paid to the valuable comments of user Jm546. I never intended to suggest any changes, valid or invalid, in the article. In Switzerland a commentary is meant to complement or complete a text, not to change it.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about commentary on an article, but I do not think you realize that the Talk (Discussion) page is not intended as commentary, but for discussion of what should go into the article. Wikipedia is about collaboration, and collaboration usually requires discussion. The aim is to produce the article and the discussion is secondary.
-- JPMcGrath 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re AIM. No doubt, JP. But in Switzerland we see in the bringing forth of commentaries the whole purpose of an article. The discussions are the sperms, the article the egg, the commentary is what comes out of it. The only thing that counts. You see, whatever is in the article at any given moment is exactly what should be in the article at that moment, and also what has always been there at that moment. Just as you pointed out correctly on the subject of 1880. - A commentary is a different thing. A commentary is like a diamond, if you allow me to mix my metaphors. Forever.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 19:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removed False Statement and Speculation

I removed some text inserted by User 149.79.145.166 on 15 December 2005 at 15:40:

The president is often quoted as having said it and he probably did (in relation to arms-reduction talks with the Soviet Union), but Reagan was quoting Runyon. And undoubtedly, as an actor from the same era as Runyon's colorful characters, Reagan knew he was quoting Runyon.

There are 2 problems with this: First, Reagan repeatedly said that "trust, but verify" was a translation of the Russian proverb "dovorey no provorey", so the claim that he was quoting Runyon is false. Second, the editor's rank speculation that "undoubtedly ... Reagan knew he was quoting Runyon" has no place in Wikipedia. JPMcGrath 07:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/m/Talk%7EDamon_Runyon_15e9.html"