Talk:Michael Chabon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Michael Chabon has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
July 29, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] "Final Solution" written in 2004?

I was under the impression that "Final Solution" was written as a short story published in "Harper's" before its publication as a novella.

[edit] Reverted a major rewrite

The series of anonymous edits that started on August 9 had the effect of throwing out most of a small but solid article, replacing it with outrageously POV statements and bad writing. I don't think subsequent edits should be based on that version. If 69.37.33.235 wants to reinstate some of his/her language, he/she can do it one sentence at a time and provide justifications in the edit summaries. There have been a few good edits by others since then, which I'll try to duplicate. ←Hob 17:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, actually most of those later edits were just damage control. Well, let's move on. ←Hob 17:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "gay writer" reverts

To the anonymous editor who keeps changing the "gay writer" passage: if you feel strongly enough about it, please discuss it here, rather than just repeating the same revert; edit summaries are not the right venue for a debate. As for "who cares" - it's notable because Chabon and his critics thought it was notable. It figured pretty prominently in the reviews of his first few books, and many of his interviews - a lot of critics just assumed that no straight writer would choose to write about gay protagonists, or would be able to do it at all well. It's interesting both as a footnote to Chabon's biography and as a symptom of widespread attitudes about literature and identity. ←Hob 03:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


Is it possible to create a section for that? I mean, there's sporadic details in a bunch of the articles about his books.

[edit] Film

"...and is at work on a rewrite of a project for Disney, a live-action martial arts retelling of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, to be directed by master Hong Kong fight choreographer and director Yuen Wo Ping."

I put a [citation needed] after this, because even though I know this is true, it sounds ludicrous in and of itself and I couldn't find a credible source to support it. Anyone have one they care to link to?

68.9.101.244 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


How about Michael Chabon's own website:


Snow and the Seven

As of March 29, 2006, 12:59 AM

Writing is ongoing for this Disney/Yuen Wo Ping martial arts fantasy.


http://www.michaelchabon.com/works/

ShelfSkewed 03:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

swell. can we put it on the page itself?

68.9.101.244 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Done and done--with two additional references, as well.

ShelfSkewed 02:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing problem

Can anyone with more Wikipedia experience explain to me what I might have done wrong trying to edit this page? When I previewed my edits, everything was fine, but when I saved the page, half the article disappeared. I fixed the mistake (twice) by reverting to a previous version, but I've never had that happen before. Thanks in advance for any advice.ShelfSkewed 04:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You were trying to add a biography section right? I just tried and it seemed to work fine for me, unless you're refering to something else. I don't know what the problem would be. -Fearfulsymmetry 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I tried what you did, plus removing the Personal Life heading and moving that sentence to the end of the Biography section. Well, maybe my earlier experience was just a fluke: I just tried it again, and had no problem at all.ShelfSkewed 14:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone still cares, I ran across this recently in Wikipedia:Article_size: "There is currently (June 2006) a problem with the latest version of Firefox when combined with the Google toolbar. See the Bugzilla case for more information." The Bugzilla link leads to a page citing many, many experiences like mine. And I do use the latest version of Firefox plus the Google toolbar, so I guess that explains it.ShelfSkewed 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Homosexuality as a theme" section

I read the NY Review of Books article that's linked to in this section. In it, Chabon does mention his own same-sex experiences, but doesn't mention anything about the main character's "homosexuality" as this section previously said it did. Indeed, in the novel, the narrator says that he is not gay, but felt that he needed to expand his range of experiences. So, I moved the citation. I also removed the bit about Chabon being married to a woman since it's superfluous, and if Chabon is bi (I don't know whether he identifies as such), his marriage doesn't contradict that. 213.199.128.149 10:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grady Tripp's novels

Just for future reference, in chronological order:

  • The Bottomlands (1976)
  • The Arsonist's Girl ("an unpleasant little story of love and madness....a slender volume")
  • The Land Downstairs ("won a PEN award and...[sold] twelve thousand copies")
  • Wonder Boys (unpublished)

--ShelfSkewed [Talk] 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sexual orientation as a theme" section and undue weight

I thought I would clarify this edit of mine. It's already obvious from the quotation from Chabon that he's not gay, and since being gay is purely a matter of self-identification, it's usually best to present this sort of thing in the subject's own words (which is why the quotation from the NY Times interview is good). Saying repeatedly that Chabon "is not gay" veers perilously close to being POV, since it implies it's very important to emphasize that's he's not gay. I think it's also important to avoid using language like this because it's not clear from the article (or from any reliable sources I know of) whether Chabon identifies as bisexual or as heterosexual. The only verifiable information we have in the article is that he's married to a woman now, and has had relationships with people of both sexes in the past. To many people, unfortunately, "not gay" implies "heterosexual", and so it's doubly important to be clear and even-handed. SparsityProblem 22:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Chabon is bisexual. Read the essay that he wrote that was published in the newer edition of the Mysteries of Pittsburgh. Also read an interview that he did in the 80s when his book the mysteries of Pittsburgh was first published and he came out then as being bisexual.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.74.161 (talk)

[edit] Note from Michael Chabon

I know it's not kosher to edit one's own biography on Wikipedia, so I thought that it would be most appropriate for me to comment here on one of a number of errors in this entry. This one has been drawn to my attention repeatedly in recent weeks as various journalists have cited it, and this article, when interviewing me, or have relied on this article to attribute to me words or sentiments that I did not actually say or express.

For the record:

As far as I know, I have never said that my "desire is nothing less than annihilation of literary categories." I realize that the article does not attribute this quote to me directly--in fact as the footnote indicates, these are the words of Erik Spanberg in the Christian Science Monitor--but given the number of times that I have recently been asked to justify or defend this supposed desire, I think the entry could stand to be rewritten. In fact, if anyone is interested, I am perfectly happy to allow the literary categories to continue their existence unmolested; what I would like to see annihilated is not the categories but the bias against certain ones of them (e.g., sf, fantasy, mystery, nurse romance) and the lazy, unexamined reliance on stale labels and on received ideas about genre. In the unlikely event that I ever did express, at any time, the desire to see literary categories annihilated, I hereby repudiate it, and apologize to the categories for whatever hurt feelings I may have caused them.


I hope that I have not violated any of the sacred tenets of Wikipedia in posting under this page.

Michael Chabon 03:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Michael Chabon


I don't know enough to make the subsequent changes, but the POV stub has been added until someone can edit the article so its subject doesn't consider it erroneous. This seems like the logical step to me, but I reckon someone can take it down if they want to disregard the author's perspective, or consider Mr. Chabon to have a poor understanding of... himself. - Alaaious 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC) -

This has already been done, promptly, in the wake of Mr. Chabon's comment. Please see my edit of May 25. In respect of this, I've pulled the POV. Thanks. -- P L E A T H E R talk 00:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. Didn't even think of looking. At least now it's clear on the talk page that Mr. Chabon's comment was addressed, so we won't get more people like me who are too zealous for their own good. - Alaaious 02:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC) -

Mr. Chabon just TPed his own page with a poorly photoshoped image which featured the bridge of the Star Ship Enterprise. Numskll 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISBNs

In the Works section: is it necessary to include ISBN numbers for all of Chabon's writings (especially those which have their own articles)? I'm asking this because I've noticed that very few other author articles (and none of Wikipedia's featured articles on 20th-century authors) include ISBN #s for an author's works. It seems to me that ISBN numbers muddy up this section and are not crucial; after all, they're no more important than, say, the exact day of release and the publisher. If no one disagrees, I'll remove the #s from this section in a few days. -Hobbesy3 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Although I've added a few ISBNs in the past, just because the other books in the article already had them, I think they are unsightly and have limited usefulness. All they are, really, are inventory-control numbers, which I don't see included in other types of articles. Does the article banana mention that the US cash-register code is 4011? I doubt it.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

A few things are holding this back with regard to the GA criteria:

  • Lead: too short, provide slightly more context and background, say something about what characterizes his writing the best or repetitive themes,etc. Perhaps use some of the stuff in Early years.
  • Citing: Van Zorn and Chabon universe paragraphs have no citations - get from the books discussed?
  • Put up one of those "Do you have a picture of this person?" tags in the infobox.

That's it and it's GA! --Meowist 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely pleased with the rewrite of the lead! It now excellently summarizes the subject and provides context. The Van Zorn and Chabon universe sections are now well-cited with Chabon's works and the picture tag is there. Suggestions for improvement: since I haven't read any of his books, I am at a loss to find something to improve the article with - it looks extremely good now. --Meowist 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)