Talk:Agnar Mykle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] A regular Reclusive
I thought it was Sousa, I said to myself, just read the article on Mykle. Well written, stringent and enlightening. That the writer for the latter part of his life became a reclusive, is quite right. How did norwegian public life react? For the first part of Mykles life the article goes public. Why did'nt Mykles old friends in the gouvernment party (Labour) help him out in the second? The truth is that Mykle was well and thoroughly ostracized. Not to mention this shrouds otherwise good presentation into some sort of remote reclusivness, only accssible for even more aesthetic study, very unlike the writer himself. Around 1960 Mykle fired a whole page broadside in Dagbladet against the norwegian publishers, especially his own, and from then on he was "mad Mykle" in that business. When he died thirty years later in 1994, very few had seen the writer around, not even his upcoming biographer, a well known publisher, who seven yeras earlier even had written his first book on the subject and had dwelt in the same city.Writers may become reclusive, articles should not.Eric Haig 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Eric is right For most of the time it was Sousa. However the whole sentence "His favourite composer of marches was Kenneth Alford..." is mis-leading and of no importance. Mykles favourite composer changed many times through his life. For an author it should be more relevant to know his favourite authors. Anders Heger
[edit] "He was very intelligent ..."
Mykle is an important writer, both for his literary work and for the debates caused by his novels in the 1950s and 1960s (and even later on). He deserves a better and longer wiki entry than the current version. – I did a bit of cleaning, and decided in the process to take out the sentence "He was very intelligent and learned how to read before he began school". That sentence is too empty, without any further pointers or links or related substantiation. Doesn't everyone learn how to read before beginning school? And isn't every writer "very intelligent"? Slavatrudu 08:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The power of punctuation
I quite like the sentence <<As an author, Mykle brought passion, love of beauty, and the longing for closeness to Norwegian literature.>>, as I support all efforts, including those of incorrect (absence of) punctuation with unintended side effects, that help us understand our longing for "closeness to Norwegian literature". So let's not edit that one. Slavatrudu 10:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rubicon
I am puzzled by the phrase "originally thought of as a follow up on the previous two." Rubicon is quite clearly a sequel to these, although for reasons which I have never understood, Ask Burlefot is renamed Valemon Gristvâg. On the back cover of my Norwegian version, there is an extract from a letter from Mykle to the publisher which purports to explain the change, ending "Ask er død, - leve Valemon!" ("Ask is dead, - long live Valemon!") but I am afraid Mykle's reasoning is unclear to me. I'd value elucidation from fellow Wikipedians. User:PDAWSON3 —Preceding comment was added at 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
