Talk:Curzio Malaparte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion. This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.

[edit] As is

My first attempt was to collect the existing information about this great writer and present it as is - without posting anything as my own opinion --Oesterling 00:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the details about his parents and his political affiliations. It would have been wrong to present the life of Curzio Malaparte without mentioning that he was an early and enthusiastic follower of Mussolini and a member of the fascist party. --The Gnome 15:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed your though containing a number of historical inaccuracies or implausibilities - due to the fact that he was a correspondent during the WWII and participant of the events he described. His testimonies could be questioned, but an ultimate claim of inaccuracies should not be accepted here. It should go, maybe, in an essay about validity of his testimonies supported by some references. Also, I put back Italy of Austrian and Russian as well as Italian descent simply because I found it in the biographical note of his "Kaputt", printed in the 1946 in the USA - which means that the writer was aware of this note and accepted it as is. (Unsigned, by User:Oesterling)

The phrase "though containing a number of historical inaccuracies or implausibilities" should be re-insterted. Along with the rest of the additions I made. I will not do it but, instead, will let your sense of intellectual honesty to move you to do so on your own. Some background:

I have read Kaputt for the first time in the mid-1960s. At the time, it was a book that was accepted practically unchallenged, as a piece of literal truth. We were no more than twenty years after the WWII guns were silenced. (I'm European.) Celebrity reporters tended to exaggerate and embellish, aiming at Hemingway prose, circa Spanish Civil War. (Oriana Fallaci's writings are a prime example of the period.)

Time passed. I had the opportunity to learn more about the war and examine more closely the details of events and the protagonists' lives. The horror did not subside when the picture became clearer - and hyperbole retreated. I re-read Kaputt recently, in the NYRB edition. The afterword by Dan Hofstadter contains a robust re-appraisal of the book, pointing out both its merits and its shortcomings, whether in literary worth or historical accuracy. Make no mistake, Malaparte's 'grand opus' is a testimonial for the ages. But here is a sample of the liberties that Malaparte took with historical veracity, as identified by Hofstadter:

The Jews' pogrom in Rumania: Malaparte relates his witnessing the Jews' pogrom at Iassi (Jassy), whereby he valiantly attempts to save as many Jews as possible. But why does he inexplicably fail to seek his "friend", the grocer Kane? Because Malaparte did not witness the pogrom at all, and in fact wrote, at the time, an article in Corriere de la Sera where he expressed no sympathy whatsoever for the victims.

I intentionally did not reply to you immediately - wanted to take some time and read the 'Rats of Jassy' chapter again ('Kaputt'). I cannot find any fact (in the book or anywhere else) claiming that Malaparte did not witness the pogrom at all and also - who was supposed to answer the question: But why does he inexplicably fail to seek his "friend", the grocer Kane?? Apparently - somebody who was that time in Jassy and participated in the events or witnessed them. If there is no answer to the question - then how Hofstadter succeeded in getting the historical veracity? Also, do you expect that any expression of sympaty to the victims could be published in Corriere de la Sera that time? It is well known that many of the wartime Malaparte's reports sent to Corriere de la Sera were rejected ultimately.--Oesterling 15:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The ghettos in Poland: Malaparte did no investigate the ghettos in Poland, contrary to what he claims; if he had, would he have portrayed himself as cheering up their (actually starving) denizens with an insouciant phrase in, of all languages, French? That's just Malaparte's habit of placing himself center stage, as the protagonist, which is apparent throughout the book - and his career.

Are you reffering to the Cricket in Poland chapter? Again, what makes Hofstadter to conclude Malaparte did not investigate the ghettos in Poland, contrary to what he claims? Hofstadter's if he had is simply meaningless. As to Malaparte's narrative style - it is the well-known "ich form" practiced by many writers (Turgenev, for example) who lived and wrote before or after Malaparte.--Oesterling 15:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I also ask that my description of Malaparte's parents be re-instated, a task which I will also leave to your discretion: You state "Born in Prato, Italy, of Austrian and Russian as well as Italian descent". Well, his mother was an Italian from Lombardy, for crying out loud! You can't get a more direct "descent" than the mother, I'd think! Which is why I previously tried to correct this to read "Born in Prato, from the Tuscany area of Italy, to a Lombard mother and a German father". (If you happen to know that the German father was actually an Austrian, I will defer to your sources.)

--The Gnome 18:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above - Italy of Austrian and Russian as well as Italian descent comes from the biographical note I found on the back cover of the first English language edition of his Kaputt (E. P. Dutton, New York 1946). So, this information has some primordial legitimity over the others due to the fact that it was known to very Malaparte. That was my only reason putting it back. But, your claim is valid for some other reasons - so - you won.

The matter of the book's implausibilities and liberties with historical accuracy is more important. I believe that otherwise the article reads like an encyclopaedia entry of around 1955. We now know better (and more) and we should be able to appraise Malaparte's opus for what it is. It is still a great piece of work - but a qualifier is necessary.

--The Gnome 10:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This links gives one example [1] (it concentrates on Ante Pavelic story).

Where are the other examples? Who wrote them and why? The man who wrote the example you referenced here is C. Michael McAdams, once property manager of the University of Sacramento, California campus. Never held any academic position at any university as a historian or a literary critic. Retired at the age of 51. Claimed to be an expert in the Croatian studies.--Oesterling 23:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A quip from the link: The book chronicled Malaparte's movements around Europe in 1941 and 1942 when he visited every front and knew every head of state, usually on a first name basis. Malaparte apparently spoke every language and shared the charms of every beautiful princess on the continent. Pavel Vozenilek 22:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The above text is just a cynical comment coming from the same "expert" - McAdams. Take Malaparte's books (Kaputt, The Skin) and read them. Malaparte never claimed that he knew 'every head of state, usually on a first name basis' or he ' spoke every language and shared the charms of every beautiful princess on the continent '.--Oesterling 23:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is: the Malaparte's reference should be clearly marked as widely known but still fictional descriptions. First he didn't write the texts from sufficient geographical and time distance to avoid bias, second he was journalist and politician, not a boring pedant scholar. His information about Russian revolution in Tecnica del colpo di Stato (1931) was criticised by Trotsky as an insipid invention, from beginning to end [2] (so here's another example). I did read the books, they made an impression on me but this should be boring encyclopedia based on facts. Pavel Vozenilek 23:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

First he didn't write the texts from sufficient geographical and time distance to avoid bias??? So, every eyewitness' testimony bears unavoidably bias?!?! All Nuremberg Trial testimonies were given by those who were participants and eyewitnesses of the WWII events. How a geographical distance or a time distance could support somebody's objectivity? ... second he was journalist and politician - this, then, disqualified him as an objective eyewitness and the events' participant? By the bye, Malaparte was a diplomatist (not a politician) and a (world-renown) writer.--Oesterling 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is straying rather off-topic. My opinion is that this page should make sure the books are fictions and should not be used instead of scholar historical references. I saw this in article about Ante Pavelic where this should be also stressed, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 02:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Fictions, cook-books, fitness, yoga are the book-shelvers classifications that might be seen in the book stores and libraries. The valid academic terms are novels, poems, short stories, essays, etc. About scholars - Sigmund Freud highly regarded Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov as a psychoanalytical study, Balsac's novels are regarded by French historians as social studies of the French society, Andric's The Bridge on the Drina is a scientific reference in the books of the world-renown historian W. McNeill (Europe, Ottoman Empire) and a part of the history curricula (University of Missoury, Kansas City Dr Carla Klausner: [[3]]). The same way Malaparte's Kaputt and The Skin are widely regarded as the WWII literary testimonies. As you might know, the testimonies that could be found in the Nuremberg Trial and in the Eichmann Trial (Tel Aviv, 1961) archives are the scientific, historic references - even though based on the words of common people.--Oesterling 13:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I added small note on his political stand after the war. Pavel Vozenilek 23:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About changing the text

I reverted back, to some extent, the changes made by Dahn. The reason (my opinion) is

a) Subdividing his life into three paragraphs cannot be strictly done and does not bring any increase in the text clarity or readability

b) Removed and changed text is not supported by some point of view or a reference

c) My today's reverting is not ultimate - if there are people supporting Dahn's changes - I'll take them as is.--Oesterling 01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I can agree with your opinion on the headers, but I do not see why an article (any article) should praise its subject and coach its readers. I had not deleted info from the text, I had deleted adjectives which this article could do well without. Otherwise, why not write down that, let's say, George Washington was a good American president? Although few people do argue with the latter sentence, it is still not "material" to be passed into an encyclopedia. Prove me wrong. Dahn 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the italicized text you had deleted: In all the literature that derives from the Second World War, there is no other book that so brilliantly or so woundingly presents triumphant American innocence against the background of the European experience of destruction and moral collapse. I do not see why you could not accept it as a plain finding or a comparison made by some editor - written very colorfully? As I said at the very beginning, I collected the information about this writer and presented it as is.--Oesterling 13:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify things: I have no opinion on whether Malaparte's book is good or bad, and, even if I would have one, I would not pass it into the text.

To the matter at hand. First of all, the "very colorfully" you cite is reason enough for the sentence not to pass into a neutral on informative text. Secondly, if praise is so crucial to the book that it needs to pass into this text, then quote the source (i.e.: indicate where the quote begins and where it ends, using "", and indicate its precise source - and not "some editor"). Dahn 13:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if the evaluation belongs to editors of the book, and not to neutral critics, consider not adding it back at all. This article should not be helping them make a profit. Dahn 13:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have to say that the publisher is not the editor - the publisher is one who is making profit. Usually editorial notes are written by some literary critics or university professors or other writers. To sell Malaparte's book - there is no need for a praise. Also, I did not start this discussion in order to outsmart you. That is why I said above that my reverse is not an ultimate one. Praising someone or something is usually not supported by the facts - rather by emotions. Here is the comparison of someone who apparently read a lot and whose job is to write what he wrote about 'The Skin'. Please, do me a favor - remove these subtitles because of your own words 'I can agree with your opinion on the headers' .--Oesterling 18:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry myself, but: the praise belongs on a jacket cover meant to sell the book, regardless of who wrote it; if it is composed by the works of some editors, reproducing it without quotations falls under the domain of plagiarism; all praise is either superfluous or POV on an article such as this one. The headers, I believe, appear to be consistent with formatting used by wikipedia - if I remove them, I'm willing to bet that this article's probable candidacy for featured status will prompt others to subtitle sections (especially since fragments are reasonably long, and may even get longer). Dahn 19:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism? No way! The original text is paraphrased well enough. The editorial note is a professional point of view of the person who was a university professor and therefore, the very valuable contribution to understanding of the Malapater's work greatness.--GiorgioOrsini 00:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Rendering it without proper quotation is plagiarism. 2. Rendering it without proper quotation is in breach of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for creating personal hierarchies and giving subjective assessments. Clear? Dahn 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Only an author's work might contain plagiarism - an editor's work - never. Only an author's work could contain something as POV in the sense stated by Wikipedia - an editor's work - not! As per the contributor's disclaimer above written under the paragraph title As Is it is quite clear that the whole work is just an editorial work. In order to see the honest intentions of the previous editor - it is enough to read the references given at the end of this article.--GiorgioOrsini 00:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

GiorgioOrsini, I'm not going to repeat myself again after this. The issue was a simple one: does GiorgioOrsini have the right to plagiarize a text written by another person (book editor or Malaparte himself)? I don't know why you keep returning with this sort of observations, especially since Oesterling, whom you apparently quote, showed that he understood what the point was and conceded. I frankly still have trouble with the fact that editors who claim to be knowledgable with Malaparte can only come up with either their own brand of statements of the "OMG, that was such a cool book you guys OMG OMG"-type or a cover description... Rest assured, a potential featured article version of this one would/will drop such superficial spam and concentrate on more relevant assessments. (In the meantime, I can at least hope that the quotation marks you have since added to a statement that you kept introducing back into the text indicate that you have learned a lesson about wikipedia conventions and the laws of copyright.) Dahn 00:39, 27 November 2006 (USo, no TC)

Before trying to edit anything - read the existing references, and support your point of view by providing new ones, please! Also, learn the difference between the editor's and the author's work. That's all!--GiorgioOrsini 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing anything, I just pressed you to stop introducing a POV until you indicate its source and properly cite it. The editor is the author of his own statements, believe it or not - in case you feel like challenging this, do provide at least the semblance of a reference. As for the rest, what I have told you is that a proper article will eventually do without as simplistic and superficial references as a book cover. You write: "read the existing references, and support your point of view by providing new ones". What point of view would that be, pray tell? That one cannot barge into an article and write "this is a great book, you guys"? Or did you get the impression that I am contesting Malaparte's status as a major writer because I wanted to remove POV from the article? Really now. Dahn 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)