Talk:Richard J. F. Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 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]

I'm practically embarassed to say that I simply edited this article to add proper italics, given how interesting Day's Gramsci is Dead is. (This was my first Wikipedia edit ever, so I wasn't that adventurous.) Does anyone know what became of the 'forthcoming' Affinities? Am I right in guessing that became Gramsci is Dead? Oxygen Smith 14:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know it was not yet released. I do know that he has released at least one follow-up journal article that deals with the themes found in Gramsci is Dead. Duanarchy 05:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)duanarchy

I do personally know Day, so I will ask him about these things as soon as possible, but I think that Affinites became Gramsci is Dead as well. This article does need to be worked on some more though. I'll get on it soon. 195.221.241.130 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The publishers coerced him into changing the name from Affinities to GID --however he has publicly stated that he invented GID as lark to try and get them to stop bugging him-- and they thought it was great. Now this is the RD version. I would suggest that the name was shrewdly chosen in order to provoke Marxists to read the book out a desire to knock-down Day for attacking Gramsci (meanwhile the truth is Gramsci is one of Day's favorites--it is how he uses Gramsci against authoritarian Marxism). So that strategy has a two-fold benefit: 1) Marxists buy books. 2) They are also perhaps exposed to some ideas they are currently ignoring? Whose shrewd idea, Day's or the publishers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.94.143 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)