Talk:Robert Graves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Early comments - no headings

This is the text by Dr Ian Firla, St John's College, Oxford, that appears at http://www.deepsky.com/~graves/bio.html . How do we know it's not a copyright violation to have it here, please? -- isis 05:55 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

It's quite explicitly copyrighted (1999), and contains no license that would allow our use here. If someone wants to contact the author for explicit permission, that would be nice, but until then we can't use it even in the talk page here (though we should of course retain the link above). --LDC


I'm the author of the Graves Trust pages. Explicit permission is, of course, granted. I will updated the copyright statement on the pages linked to above, but also point out that the link above has been updated on the new home for the Trust:

http://www.robertgraves.org/bio.php


--kubla

Can anyone speak of the 'degeneration' he suffered at the end of his life?--DennisDaniels 02:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Must have been Altzheimers or something akin to it, perhaps influenced by his war injuries. Evidently he visited the TV production of I, Claudius in the late 70s and the cast and crew were quite saddened by his mental condition. -- Cranston Lamont 16:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


"At the Battle of the Somme in 1916 he received such serious injuries that his family were informed of his death. However, he recovered, at the cost of permanent damage to his lungs, and spent the remainder of the war in England, despite his efforts to return to the front." This isn't true. He did return to France, albeit for a short while. I shall edit it, when I get a moment Monk Bretton 02:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I changed the above thing. But it has become a bit of an unwieldy sentence. Ho-hum. Sources for this are:

Miranda Seymour's biography, Robert Graves, life on the edge.

&

http://www.robertgraves.org/bio.php

Monk Bretton

I'm editing the bibliography sections. The list prior today had some errors such as putting the novels "Antigua, Penny, Puce" and "No Decency Left" in the non-fiction list.

I also thought that the bibliography might benefit from, where known, first North American and UK publication and variances in titles.

--kubla

I haven't checked the bibliography really closely but it seems not to include Graves' translation eg. his popular translation of the Golden Ass by Apuleius. I am hesitant to alter anything to much because perhaps this is intentional and in any case I haven't immediate access to an exhaustive or even at all detailed list of Graves' publications -orizon 10:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy: The Greek Myths

although i believe Robert Graves often sets up a dichotomy between the matriarchal and patriarchal which i do not see any evidence of, he certainly is thinking in terms of the imagery of the myth being symbolic. his knowledge about specific images and the importance of ancient greek earth goddess worship/matriarchal culture non-linear thought is extremely revelatory in light of classical greek study. the implications of such connections makes the bacchae a non-linear dionysian art piece. i have found significant resistance and even outright flat dismissal when attempting a discussion of such things as the sacrificial king role of pentheus, which i believe to be non-modern gender role, with individuals who have endorsed an insular view which dismisses mythocultural interpretations as "not in the play." their reaction is to say that pentheus is killed because of what they believe is a literal causality, which seems an idea completely out of place in archetypal myth, he is misfortunate enough to be "a 5th century athenian male educated by sophists." when criticized as ascribing modern gender role reconstructions upon a character which is mythological they merely say they are only understanding it by "what is in the play", and deny that they are projecting a gender based identity onto pentheus which is a fiction. the divide between readers of greek like myself who see an iconic interpretation of the dionysos pentheus myth, and those who deny this is so divisive that i personally feel that those who do not understand bacchae as archetypal do not understand greek at all. this will surely cause a major schism between an unfortunate philosophy among classicists which promotes an insular literal interpretation of myth and those who see greek drama as a non-linear art. dev

[edit] Bibiliography

A number of works now listed as "novels" (here and on the bibliography article) clearly are not--some are short story collections, some appear to be nonfiction. Nareek 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pennsylvania Stay

The remarkable details of their sojourn there and ultimate breakup have been told in several books...

This is lacking in any detail whatsoever, and is nonencyclopedic in style. If someone knows about this period in his life, could it be filled in, rather than simply referencing two books, one of which is a novel? --DrGaellon 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicion?

"Edmund Blunden and Siegfried Sassoon, deeply suspicious of the work...." I don't know much about Graves but this isolated statement is intriguing. Could someone please elaborate on this. What do you mean by suspicion? Why were they suspicious? (Voloshinov 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Pejorative critical comments

I have removed the pejorative wording lifted from the Times literary critic on the grounds of bias. I believe that it would be correct, if someone wants to, to point out that some modern scholars take issue with Graves, if such sources can be directly cited. But to simply describe his work in pejorative terms, when that is really just opinion, is not I beleive correct in a wikipedia article. Tashkop 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see multiple sources at Talk:The Greek Myths which reflect his poor reputation among classical scholars. For example, Robin Hard's appreciation (a fairly mild part of which I added to the article) characterizes his explanatory notes as "a farrago of cranky nonsense". --Macrakis 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is correct that Graves considered himself a poet first, but take alook at his bibliography. He was a classical scholar and an iconoclast. No 'classical scholars' take issue with his works as long as he doesn't stray from their own narrow guidelines. Of course (some or even the majority of) other classical scholars will disagree with him, just as they did during his lifetime, but how does that make your cited source's opinion relevant to the facts of the article. IMO - It is relevant to cite the disagreement, but not the criticism. Let's not forget that the mainstream of classical scholars poo-pooed Schliemann as well - until he stuck the proof beneath their noses. The quotation that you have added is simply an ad-hominem attack - where is the scholarship in that? Tashkop 01:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the opinions of these authors are being quoted I have quoted back Grave's opinion of them. Is that acceptable?Tashkop 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it is "acceptable", but it is not very convincing. More convincing to find scholarly sources which support him. --Macrakis 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Macrakis - Graves was an iconoclast and the worldview that he challenges informs the very root of western patriarchial society - which is why it is so sensitive to people. By definition you are not going to find any mainstream scholars supporting him. He was (is) at war with them. That's why they put out all of this anti-Graves propaganda. Anyone that published showing themselves sympathetic to Graves would quickly be on the breadline. Like I keep saying - by all means let's report the disagreement - I am even in favour of it having its own section, but reporting the actual propagnada is another thing altogether in my view.Tashkop 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to report your views. We are not here to campaign against patriarchy. We are here to report the errors which presently possess humanity.
(And if that were the only reason that Graves' work is unendorsed, where is the criticism of Marija Gimbutas?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Tashkop, thank you for agreeing that we will not find any mainstream scholars supporting him. This is certainly a notable fact, comparable to the Criticism of Noam Chomsky's political work by many "mainstream scholars" (note that both Chomsky's positions and his critics' are reported in some detail). I am not sure how you distinguish between "actual propaganda" and "disagreement". Are the (widespread) criticisms of Graves' etymologies "propaganda" or "disagreement"? --Macrakis 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard of scholarship

The standard of scholarship in this entry is not high and I'm afraid that attempts to improve it are being made difficult by someone who keeps reinstating the original text - which I see is claimed to be written by someone from St John's College in Oxford - but who I can not find listed on their website as a member of the academic staff. For example, to imply that Graves enlisted at the outbreak of WW1 because he didn't like 'the prospect of spending another four years studying Latin and Greek' is misleading and simplistic. The biographies make it clear that his motives for enlisting are complex - linked to the expectations of family and school, and the wave of patriotism and adventure that drove many others to do the same. It is true that Graves did not enjoy Charterhouse and worried that Oxford might have a similar atmosphere - but his love of Latin and Greek was unabated (this is Graves the great Classicist after all). The article tries to portray Graves as some sort of iconoclast or rebel but doesn't tell us what his philosophy or aesthetic was. How, precisely, was he 'an iconoclast in his poetry'? It does not make sense. Graves and Riding were not 'forced to leave Majorca in 1936 due to the Spoanish Civil War'. Again, all biographies, as well as Graves's own account, make it clear that their decision to join the evacuation of British subjects was their own. Many other writers were actually going to Spain at precisely that time. Graves could have stayed but again for a variety of complex reasons decided to depart. Many other elements of style could be improved - eg the description of Richard Graves's biography as 'non-fiction' and Miranda Seymour's account as a 'fictionalized novel'... It would be helpful if others were allowed to improve the article and make it more accurate and complete - rather than just reverting to an unsatisfactory text which is ok as a starting point but could be much improved. (unsigned comment by User:RG21 on 2007-04-13T10:55:01)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Claudius.jpg

Image:Claudius.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birth date

For a long time there was confusion about whether he was born on 24 or 26 July 1895. It's still out there - [1]. How did the wrong date get into the public record? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)