Talk:The White Goddess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 NPOV tag 2 NPOV tag removal 3 Older discussion 4 Edit request 5 Edit request

[edit] NPOV tag

I added the NPOV tag to this article because it was painful to read. It doesn;t sound much like an encylcopidea article as it does a feel-good cheering session by someone in love with the book. The only mentions at all that this book was highly speculative and generally disregarded by the scholarly community are in the last sentence (which still manages to sound a rah-rah for the wonderfulness of the idea) and the mention that he used a controversial method for trying to come up with historical analysis.

We need a strong rewrite here, one that approaches the book by how other scholars see it and points out that this goddess Graves talk about was a theoretical construct that isn't supported by the vast majority of other authors. In fact, the only scholars I know of who support it in any way are those with a very stong pro-feminist neopagan historical revisionism mindset, such as Barbara Walker, Merlin Stone (I'm not sure she would count as a scholar), Gimbutas and so forth.

Even someone who believes in his theory should have to admit that this article is focusing way too much on the cultural validation followers get from the book and not on whether it was basically fictional. Ideally, I think the purposes of NPOV would be served best by someone nuetral on the topic going through and cleaning it up. I can and will add my thoughts to it, but at this point I feel like I would almost rather completely start from scratch if I were to do it, and then I just waste my time as people try to change it back. If this gets nudged to at least trying to be somewhat restrained in its love for the book instead of pure uncritical lovefest then I think I could go in and add politely worded parts about the lack of support it has among scholars.

DreamGuy 17:16, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same thing here? The article says to me that: Graves deified his mistress; that nobody believes the turn of the century anthropology and comparative religion stuff that Graves founded his personal mythology on; that Graves's knowledge of Celtic languages and mythology were seriously inadequate; that his imaginative method guaranteed that he would find exactly what he was looking for; that Graves was anti-Semitic; and that the current fame of the book is the result of its being a shared fantasy rather than a historically accurate account. I added much of that stuff, and tried to state it as neutrally and as factually as I could. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Those parts end up as very subtle in the other article, with some of that I'm not even sure how you can possibly read into the current article. The "nobody believes" part is nonexistent as far as I can tell (other than a "may not be real" thing at the end, which sounds more like a tentative slight possibility instead of the opinion of the majority of scholars), the Celtic part sounds like an aside while his Greek mythology revisionism completely passed by, the intro talks about his White Goddess as if she actually existed, and the strong outpouring of support for the great things he says comments still litter the piece. I suggest that your interpretation of how the article appears is more based upon what you meant to say and how you intended it and not on what we really have as an end result. Even still, the points you mention still would not make up for the glowing language of support persistent throughout the rest of the article. DreamGuy 18:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag removal

I removed the NPOV tag that I put there a while ago. While I think the article still needs work, since I've been here a little longer I've decided the tag was a little severe for the things I was complaining about. When I get time to edit I shall try to do so, but in the meantime I couldn't see keeping the icon up top expecting someone else to just make the changes for me. DreamGuy 02:38, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Older discussion

As I said in my edit summary, this is a nice little article! Just a couple of things:

1. Could we have a source for it being called "unreadable"?
2. Could we have something in the intro that makes it get to the point a little quicker? The prose is nice, and the article feels complete and readable, but I don't know exactly what the book is about till the end of the article. Just an addition to the first paragraph should do it, though you might then need to edit the ending to avoid repitition.

--Sam 18:52 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

1. I don't think unreadable is that far off beam. I have read it and found it very heavy going. 2. Your point about the sense of abstraction in the article is correct and it probably needs a one-liner explaining what it's about as a prepend. If nobody has done it in the interim I'll have a stab tonight. user:sjc

1. I'm not suggesting it's not right, just that if we're quoting, it'd be nice to know who; I like to attribute views. Even if it's truthful to say many reviewers have called it unreadable or near unreadable or something like that, it's a bit better than just putting "unreadable".
2. Cheers! I'd do it myself, but I've never read the book! -- Sam 12:48 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Your point about attribution is apposite, however sometimes the facts tend to speak for themselves and do not necessarily always require attribution. As an example, it would not be unreasonable to suggest without attribution that Rush Limbaugh writes from a perspective which is markedly right of centre or that the Battle of Hastings represented a setback for the Anglo-Saxons. In this case I feel the comment is not unreasonable although I will try and find some established corroboration for this perspective, albeit that anyone essaying the book will come to very similar conclusions. user:sjc

I agree, though if anyone comes across an apt remark on this book, then it might help. I don't mind "unreadable" being there! Intro reads better now, too, nice one. -- Sam

The text in question was "Others have described the 500-page book as "unreadable" (or nearly so)," I am always untrusting of these judgments made by unspecified "others." Often "scholars" are credited with such statements. So often the attribution turns out to be spurious. Does the entry for Middlemarch tell us that few college students actually finish the book? Out with this, which genuinely violates NeutralPOV. --Wetman 06:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hell, I'll come out and call it "unreadable;" I've tried about five times. Someone should come out with an annotated version that translates all the Greek, Latin, and other languages that Graves sprinkled through the book.

Septegram 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is User:Poitypoity's contribution valid/NPOV? -- Sam

---

Anticipating that some might quarrel with my additions to the article, I'd call attention to the criticisms of Graves made here:

• http://silver-gateway.com/grove/hutton/

The Ronald Hutton book The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles contains much valuable information about Graves and his shared fantasy; his later book The Triumph of the Moon has even more. -- IHCOYC 03:23 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't Hutton's book be mentioned and quoted in the entry, as central to the "de-bunking" of Robert Graves? --Wetman 08:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would not be hasty about "debunking". Hutton's criticisms of Graves, judging from the link above, smack of a Christian position defending the dogma. Among other things, Hutton appears to dismiss not only Graves, but Frazer as well, as "ungrounded". Hutton's position is probably biased. We need an unbiased rewrite of the article which actually gives information about the book and its criticisms, and does not read like a broad editorial review.

---

I agree that a rewrite is necessary, but not because it's "feel-good cheering session". The passing comment that Frazer's work has been discredited is simply dropped in as though it's self-explanatory. Scholarship which has attempted to debunk him has made little headway apart from nitpicking minutae, and anthropologists are returning to him increasingly (though the dying/reviving god is clearly an exception). The comment that Grave's argument becomes hard to sustain likewise is hardly unbiased. He never aligned himself with an "Aryan racial myth", and this seems an attempt to align him - anachronistically and counter-intuitively - to some form of reactionary conservatism/fascism. Quite aside from the loaded use of "Aryan", the notion of European ascendancy via technology etc. finds more contemporary support from Jared Diamond's books (another writer who's ideas many find hard to stomach for whatever reasons, and whose thesis has yet to have a strong counter argument). Additionally, the Moon-Goddess/Sun-God idea is found in the works of writers and thinkers as varied as Nietzsche, Jung, Camille Paglia, Colin Wilson, Joseph Campbell (who is mentioned in the article, though not in any productive way). The final comment of the work being mere contemporary mythmaking is glib and dismissive in the extreme. His methodology is as structured as the evidence and subject matter allows, indeed anyone who is involved with anything similar (and I will here include the attempt to retro-actively arrive at a formation of Indo-European through etymology and - forgive me - leaps of linguistic intuition) can appreciate the difficulty involved. In short, this page is an opinion piece (and a poorly argued one at that), but it isn't an unbiased article. -- Fugazilazarus 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

I believe that this article now goes a long way towards pointing out that The White Goddess is not respected as accurate. However, I think that it would be justified to expand on this opinion.

Graves' book is separable into scientifically verifiable ideas (mostly linguistically and archeologically) along with his poetic nonsense (which, I believe, he would feel is the main subject of the book). The scientific ideas are discredited because of the analepsis technique, among others. I have read the book through several times. Unlike some authors that propose new ideas, he does not look at contrary evidence and discount it because it does not fit with the theory. Most of his scientific discourse is difficult to refute, even as more archeologically evidence has become available since it's original and revised publications. In fact, what he conjectured at, based on linguistic evidence, has since received supporting evidence from archaeological discoveries.

I would like to see a short (two or three sentence?) representation of this idea of the two themes that run through his book. --Timatthelab 13:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

Actually, I find this article fairly insulting, and would agree with "Timatthelab" that the points he is making (about Grecian myths influencing Irish and Welsh religious culture) as well as other archaeological evidence of syncretism between "opposed" religions. I am not going to call bias on the current state of this article, but it is obviously written by someone who does not approve of matriarchal religion. 64.122.204.27 02:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)