Talk:Nadine Gordimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nadine Gordimer has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. WikiProject Atheism     (Rated Start-Class) Nadine Gordimer is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

Archives

Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 1 - 2006 archives Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 - assault discussion part 1 (2006/11/18 - 2007/3/5) Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 3 - assault discussion part 2 (2007/3/5 - 2007/3/22) Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 4 - assault discussion part 3 (2007/3/22 - 2007/4/12 ) Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 5 - assault discussion part 4 (2007/5/10 - 2007/5/22 ) Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 6 - other 2007 archives

Contents 1 debut short story in biobox 2 Removed Faux "Banned by the Apartheid Gov't" assertion 3 restructure "work and themes" section? 4 flags

[edit] debut short story in biobox

So the bio info box lists "Face to Face" as her "debut short story"; but the article itself says her first published story was "The Quest for Seen Gold" at age of 15. When was Face to Face published, and by what criteria is it being listed as her debut short story? I'm going to shift the biobox but bringing it up here first in case there's a better explanation for Face to Face. --lquilter 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also seen "Come Again Tomorrow", published in Forum when she was 14, cited as her first work. ... Really need to go get some definitive critical biography for this. --lquilter 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Faux "Banned by the Apartheid Gov't" assertion

I noticed with astonishment the claim that...

"July's People was also banned under apartheid, and faced censorship under the post-apartheid government as well: In 2001, a provincial education department temporarily removed July's People from the school reading list, describing it as patronizing and offensive."

I lived in South Africa from 1981 to 1993 during the end of the apartheid government there. I read "July's People" having bought a copy at a CNA (Central News Agency), a chain of shops in South Africa selling magazines, newspapers and books, in Pretoria shortly after it was published in 1982. I don't know how it could have been banned when you could buy it at the CNA.

I also noticed...

"In 2001, a provincial education department temporarily removed July's People from the school reading list, describing it as patronizing and offensive."

which is a sentiment that I totally agreed with.

One thing that wants remembering is that all sorts of books in South Africa were "banned" for a period of a few days to a few months and subsequently achieved wide sales to the public in South Africa. The implication in biographical faux-historical screeds like this one is that the banning was permanent till the ANC took over and sometimes not even then. Nothing could be further from the truth on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaasjaapie (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You will find many purportedly anti-apartheid writers like Gordimer and Hope among many others who claim that this or that one of their books or short story collections were "banned under apartheid". More often than not these were marketing ploys by their publishers to drum up sales, not serious attempts at censorship on the part of the apartheid gov't of that era. Christopher Hope makes a similar claim for his 1981 book, "A Separate Development".

http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth50

I bought that one at the CNA in Pretoria, too, a few years after it was published. Hope had it over Gordimer at that time of being able to write a narrative that didn't ooze self-righteous pretentiousness, a fault that Gordimer has never seemed to have been able to overcome. Plaasjaapie 14:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The book is widely cited as "banned", so I'm reinstating the sentence (which also states that it was censored post-apartheid), along with references. If you can dig up more specifics about how long it was banned, that would be great, or if you could find a published source stating that it was available for sale during those times, that would also be great. Alas, personal anecdotes about finding the book available for sale don't really qualify. (Moreover, I would note that an item might be officially "banned" or "censored" and still be widely available. "Banning", as you note, can refer to a lot of things, and doesn't necessarily indicate how long, what level of enforcement, etc.) At any rate, I've now rewritten to clarify that only two of her works were banned for lengthy periods of time; and I plugged in several cites. --lquilter 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Good! I'll see if I can find something about how long her stuff was banned.

"Alas, personal anecdotes about finding the book available for sale don't really qualify." The personal anecdote was mentioned here in discussion, not on the article page as a challenge to an unsupported assertion that the works mentioned were actually banned.

"or if you could find a published source stating that it was available for sale during those times, that would also be great." Most things are "available for sale" barring going out of print. I'll see what I can do, though. Plaasjaapie 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any progress on this since I added a bunch of explanatory information providing further details and cites about levels of censorship, official ending, and so on. Assume this issue is resolved? --Lquilter 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] restructure "work and themes" section?

The work-by-work material in there now is clunky and amateurish,* and (a) I believe it would be more graceful and useful as a review of Gordimer as a writer if there were a section primarily looking at persistent themes in Gordimer's work, and tracing when they started arising and how they were handled over her works. (b) I'm ambivalent about the work-by-work section. I realize that some readers want to get information on each individual work, and it is a useful place to chart other chronological issues, such as awards, censorship/availability, relationship to Gordimer's biography, etc. But work-by-work alone is not adequate for a literary biography. Thoughts?

* (Yes I'm the one who mostly put in the material in a work-by-work format but I excuse myself because getting *any* useful information in the article was difficult at the time.) lquilter 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I added a subheading to reflect a break between generic discussion of style and work-by-work discussion. Will flesh that out more over time. --lquilter 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flags

An editor recently put two little country flags in the Gordimer infobox. I'll say it straight out, that I really don't like flags for the most part: I find them visually intrusive, first of all. And I find them simply inappropriate for private citizens, since they imply an affiliation with a government, and at least imply that whatever that flag represents is something important about that person's identity. The visual emphasis of the flag is what creates or strengthens the implication. ... That said, I accept that many editors find them appropriate and not distracting, so I'd rather raise the issue here for discussion. --lquilter 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the old South African flag from Nadine Gordimer's birthplace per WP:FLAG (merely a proposal) which strongly suggests to not include birthplace flags in infoboxes. In fact it urges against birthplace flags in at least three different places in that proposal, which, although it hasn't been accepted, suggests that birthplace flags are particularly problematic. (I agree.) Discussion? --lquilter 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• I left the new South African flag in for now because it is her current citizenship. However, as a private citizen who has no particular affiliation with the SA government, either as representative to the world or as participating in the government, I don't think it's necessary to include the flag. Discussion? --lquilter 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the way it is now, with the small South African flag listed beside her nationality, is fine. I certainly don't see it as her endorsing whatever values might be implied by the flag, or any sort of governmental role. I think it is simply a little icon listed beside the country name. It is not unusual to see this in the real world. I think it merely adds a little color to an otherwise drab black and white page. Plus, it's tiny.

Of course, I realize that these aren't reasons to leave it in, but merely reasons not to take it out. Those are two seperate issues. But for all the recent peace this page has seen, I agree with you that we should not be too hasty removing the flag. Andyparkerson 00:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The feeling on WP:FLAG is that in infoboxes it's distracting and redundant of information already present (the country). Just FYI. --lquilter 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing policy, and I'm sure that others have thought more about this than I have. I just think flags are pretty. Andyparkerson 07:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your "flags are pretty" with a "flags are ugly but the SA flag isn't as ugly as most". <g> --lquilter 13:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant you that flags aren't as pretty as butterflies and daisies, but if we peppered the pages of wikipedia with unicorns and rainbows, we'd have a Hello Kitty version of wikipedia. Hey..... maybe that's not such a bad idea. What better way to end edit wars than with Hello Kitty? Andyparkerson 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)