Talk:The Good Soldier Švejk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern
Assessment comments

The Good Soldier Svejk (Redirected from The Good Soldier Schweik)

REDIRECT The Good Soldier Schweik

--> Could we avoid this please? --KF 09:48, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd say the granddaddy of all absurdist anti-war novels is probably Simplicissimus (1668) by Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen. See http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/grimmels/simpl/simpl.htm

Contents

[edit] Good or Brave?

Doesn't the original title mean "The adventures of the brave soldier Svejk"? 72.80.202.119 (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Schweik is actually both good and brave, so it doesn't matter. 140.109.169.66 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

come back when you can find one reliable source that translates dobr* as brave.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 16:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's simple - dobrý is literally good. It has nothing to do with brave. --Adam Zivner (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Granddaddy born in 1668?

I'd say an ancestor. :-)

I'd say granddaddy, because it was the attribute the Introduction to the new English translation ascribed to Svejk, not Simplicissimus. Perhaps it should had been in quotation marks an attributed to the said Introduction. ;-)
I'd say that Švejk is not an anti-war novel. It's an anti-stupidity novel. 140.109.169.83 15:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
a major theme in the book is the stupidity of war. there are a lot of other stupid things that are criticized, but the one that keeps the book running is the stupidity of war.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 16:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, what you say is absolutely right. What I meant was that (it seems to me that) Hasek is saying that "This all enterprise was so stupid that it shouldn't even be called war, but confusion and slaughter. Let's imagine there would be a single good soldier...". In my imagination, Hasek perheps might have been a bit of a war fan with an unfulfilled wish for a proper war with honor and such, take a look e.g. at his description of the military encryption codes in the book. 140.109.169.42 07:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
hašek was an anarchist. i really doubt he favored a stronger state through war or any other means. read the wikipedia entry on hašek.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hašek, as all people are, was and is many things to many people. To label him an anarchist is self-serving. Whether he was an anarchist, when, why, etc., is really not that important. Don't forget that after his collaboration with the Anarchist movement in his youth, after serving in the Austro-Hungarian military in WWI, he was later decorated as a member of the Czechoslovak Legionsfighting Austria-Hungary at the Russian front, then he was a Commissar of the Red Army the Legions ended up fighting on their way out of Russia. Most importantly, whatever he was - and he was more things than most ordinary people - he wrote a famous book. I presume he would like to prefer to be discovered through and defined by this latest accomplishment which is informed by and reflects all of his life's experiences. -- 67.72.98.45 14:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism issue?

I haven't compared them in detail, but quite a bit of the material here seems to come from this article from the Chicago Tribune: http://www.zenny.com/svejk/Chicago%20Tribune%20Tempo%20feature.html. There are a few identical phrases.

It would be helpful to identify them and share them with us. In the meantime, I put the following phrase - a quote from the Introduction to the new English translation - "drafted back into the army as cannon fodder to die for an Emperor he despises" in quoation marks.
here we go: "The novel is set in the times of World War I in Austria-Hungary, a country which, as someone put it, was a figment of bureaucratic imagination, with borders constructed by political compromise and military conquest and which held in subjection numerous nationalities, with different languages and cultures, for 300 years. The multiethnic, and in this respect modern Empire was full of long-standing grievances and tensions."
and "The multiethnic, and in this respect modern Empire was full of long-standing grievances and tensions. World War I, amplified by modern weapons and techniques, quickly escalated to become a massive human meatgrinder. Fifteen million people died, one million of them Austrian soldiers. Jaroslav Hašek participated in this conflict and examined it in The Good Soldier Švejk."
and "The German speaking Habsburgs and their imperial administrators had ruled the Czech Lands from 1526. By the arrival of the 20th century, Prague, the seat of the Czech Kingdom, had become a boomtown. Large numbers of people had come to the city from the countryside to participate in the industrial revolution. The rise of a large working class spawned a cultural revolution. The Austro-Hungarian Empire ignored these changes and became more and more decrepit and anachronistic. As the system decayed, it became absurd and irrelevant to ordinary people. When forced to respond to dissent, the imperial powers did so, more often than not, with hollow propaganda and repression."
All direct copies from zenny.com. But maybe Zenny Sadlon, whose signature I can see on this page posted them by himself - is it possible to plagiarize oneself :)? Apart from that, the section "Allusions/references ..." concentrates too much on the stereotypical interpretation of the book as an anti-empire caricature. Hašek himself was Czech nationalist and he definitely didn't like the Empire, but wasn't as naive as to deceive himself that the Empire and the Emperor were the main cause of the wrongs around him. The book investigates the real causes of corruption through the mirror of the unscathed Švejk's personality. Political agenda of the Empire is shown to be laughable and unimportant. Everybody and everything get their share of satire. It is said that the book exhaustively describes all possible life situations. There is no need to be obsessed with the Empire history when talking about Švejk. As for the geographical allusions, most of them are to Prague neighborhoods, it might help if somebody explained what is "Malá Strana", "Žižkov", "Pankrác", where is the pub "U Kalicha" etc., maybe today's photos of the locations would help, maybe a small map of Prague and Bohemia with Švejk's journey marked in, like in the Lord of the Rings. But the book is not about Prague and Bohemia, just like Dubliners are not about Dublin.

140.109.169.83 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"... is it possible to plagiarize oneself:)?" That indeed is the question. It is closely related to the question of "forging one's own signature". The following is an excerpt from Tropos Kynikos: Jaroslav Hašek's The Good Soldier Švejk, by Peter Steiner.
"... Hašek's text contains an instance of another legal act—in many re­spects very much like an oath—that by its nature ought to have stopped Švejk's unfettered play with identity. This is the signing of his confession in Chapter 2, Švejk at Police Headquarters:
   "Do you confess to everything?"
   Švejk fixed his good blue eyes on the ruthless man and said softly: 
   "If you want me to confess, your worship, I shall. It cannot do me any harm. But if you say: 'Švejk, don't confess to anything,' I'll wriggle and wriggle out of it until there isn't a breath left in my body." 
   The severe gentleman wrote something on the file and handing Švejk a pen invited him to sign it.
   And Švejk signed Bretschneider's [the arresting plainclothes policeman] deposition with the following addition 
   All the above-mentioned accusations against me are based on fact. 
                                                                    Josef Švejk 
   When he had signed, he turned to the severe gentleman: "Have I got to sign anything else? Or am I to come back in the morning?" 
   "In the morning you'll be taken off to the criminal court" was the answer. (58; 22)
"What does the signing of a confession represent? In broadest terms, we can speak of the volitional and semiotic ramifications of such an act. If breaking the law manifests a strong preference for competitive values on the part of the criminal, voluntary cooperation with the police (which the signature appended to a confession indicates) clearly marks the willing­ness to move in the opposite direction. An admission of guilt is the first signal to the authorities of an individual's readiness to reenter society, even at the cost of punishment. From a semiotic perspective, the signing of a police deposition is (like an oath) an unrepeatable event tethering the signer to the evidence in a singular, legally binding fashion, one that dis­credits any subsequent renditions of facts. And the evidence is authenti­cated because a signature is the unfalsifiable index of a unique individual which, because of its attachment to a confession itself, implies actual physical contact between the document and the signatory.
"This is the normative function that a signature effects in a society, and Švejk, we learn from another scene in the novel, is well aware of it. During his prewar service Švejk is regularly harassed by one of his NCOs, Sergeant-Major Schreiter. The opportunity for revenge occurs when Švejk, on sentry duty, notices on a nearby wall the inscription "Old sweat Schreiter is an oaf." Since this coincides fully with his own sentiments on the subject, he places his signature under it. This does not escape the attention of the hostile NCO, but the investigation he initiates reveals some­thing more serious: Švejk's signature is also in proximity to another in­scription that has a blatantly pacifist message. Švejk is immediately taken to the regional court, and handwriting experts begin to collect evidence as to which of the two inscriptions Švejk actually has written and authorized by his signature. "They sent all the material to Vienna and in the end," Švejk recalls some three years later, "the result was that as far as those in­scriptions were concerned it was not my handwriting, but that the signa­ture was mine as I confessed to it. So I was sentenced to six weeks because I had signed it while on sentry duty and they said I couldn't be properly on guard at the time that I was doing it" (342; 337).
"Švejk gets off the hook in this instance only because his signature falls, so to speak, into the crack between the two writings on the wall. Because of this crack the authorities are unable to decide whether his signature was intended to defame the NCO or to endorse draft resistance or both or neither. Švejk's signing the police deposition on the dotted line, however, closes the loophole and makes it seem inevitable that he will now face prosecution for his antisocial behavior. Yet the concept of signature is far from being as unproblematic as is commonly assumed. In his polemics with Austin, Derrida argues convincingly that "in order to function, that is, to be readable, a signature must have a repeatable, iterable, mutable form; it must be able to be detached from the present and singular inten­tion of its production." Put differently, so long as the signature remains a sign, its connection to what it stands for cannot be completely transpar­ent. Not only is it made with different purposes in mind, but also, because of its written form, a signature always exceeds the immediate context that generates it and thus obfuscates the originary intention behind it. With this caveat in mind, let us return to Hašek's text.
"What strikes us when we read Švejk's exchange with the police inspec­tor is the patent inappropriateness of the good soldier's behavior. Even societies based on Plato's ideals sanction a judicial process as an agonistic situation in which an individual is encouraged to prove (within the bounds of the law) his or her competitive mettle. Yet, in an unpredictable fashion, Švejk turns a contest into cooperation, or better, straightforward submission. If Josef K. did the same. The Trial would be a short story ac­commodating in a single chapter a morning arrest and an evening execu­tion. Thus, treating the inspector as the highest authority, Švejk asks his only question: To confess or not to confess? And when handed a pen he readily signs the deposition, offering, moreover, to replicate his signature on any other document the policeman might deem appropriate. But is Švejk's signing the confession tantamount to his acquiescing to crimes such as high treason, abuse of His Majesty and the members of the imper­ial family, approval of the murder of the Archduke Ferdinand, or the in­citement (57; 20) for which he is charged? The answer, as the novel illus­trates, depends entirely on context. As far as the inspector at police headquarters is concerned Švejk clearly confirms the evidence. The mag­istrate at the criminal court who sees the signature "detached from the present and singular intention of its production" is not so sure. One of the first questions he asks is whether anybody coerced Švejk to confess. The candid answer puzzles him: "Why, of course not. Your Worship. I asked them myself if I had to sign it, and when they told me to do so I obeyed. After all, I wouldn't want to quarrel with them just because of my own signature, would I? It wouldn't do me any good at all. There must be law and order" (61; 25). Švejk's intention, if this category still makes sense, in paraphing the deposition is not to authorize the document but to protect law and order, he says. Yet, by so doing he manages to subvert due pro­cess. This again brings Švejk close to Diogenes—the adulterator of coinage. For Švejk's autograph is a fraud of a forgery as well; a counterfeit of his own signature that renders it legally worthless. Like Diogenes, Švejk gets away with proverbial murder. After listening to him for a while, the magistrate concludes that Švejk is not responsible for his ac­tions on the grounds of insanity, and instead of jail the good soldier ends up in a psychiatric hospital."

67.72.98.45 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why mention catch-22?

Here is why: "Joseph Heller said that if it weren’t for his having read The Good Soldier Švejk he would never had written his American novel Catch 22." Here is the source. -- Zenny K. Sadlon

it says More familiar to today’s readers, perhaps, is Joseph Heller’s Catch-22, set in World War II. Although predating it by almost 50 years, Hašek’s biting satire and humor is its direct ancestor also, as well as that of many others. Joseph Heller said that if it weren’t for his having read The Good Soldier Švejk he would never had written his American novel Catch-22 [1]

First of all, why mention this another book at all?

... because there are important literary reasons, as for example the following: "J.P. Stern's recent comparison of Hasek's novel with Heller's Catch-22 asks the following: why did 'the Prague Circle linguistique, famous for its concerns with all sorts of out-of-the-way literary matters, totally ignore Svejk?'"

Secondly, there are quite some other Shveik rip-offs, like Arkady Gaidar's stories about bumbarash for example, thirdly, the text sounds terrible. That the book Catch-22 is perhaps maybe more known to modern people is certainly not very useful information, especially since where come from, in eastern europe, nobody seems ever have heared about this catch-22, the adventures of Shveik however, are still well known. So either it had to be added, that it is more familiar to today's northamerican readers or, rather, removed completely.

In fairness, I'd never heard of Švejk and am very familiar with Catch-22. A 32-year-old Canadian here. I think it's a good comparison to get Western Europeans and North Americans to understand the tone of the novel. --MattShepherd 20:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The extreme popularity of the novel in Poland led to creation of a common noun szwej denoting a kind of street-wise soldier, as opposed to newly-drafted cats.

According to Internet dictionary of army language szwej is a drafted soldier, as opposed to a cadet. Xx236 12:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Švejk interpretation disputed

(a) The current version writes that "Švejk is subverting the empire etc." and "Švejk despises the emperor". This is very shallow understanding of Švejk. (b) The novel (at least the Czech original), (c) does not contain any direct evidence to support either of this claim. It is likely that the vast majority of people in Švejk's situation WOULD despise the emperor and try to subvert the empire, (d) but this is exactly the conclusion which all the novel characters around Švejk make, whether they pretend loyalty to the emperor or not, since they know that 'only a fool would really support the empire'. They, not Švejk, are subverting the empire (e) and it is exactly because he is not doing so that the others have such a hard time understanding him (f) and are alternately taking him for either a fool or a clever trickster. (g) For most of the characters around Švejk, there is direct evidence of their lack of loyalty for the empire, but not for Švejk. (h) Still, most readers (i) make this conclusion by their own judgement. (j) But I suspect that this exactly is the prank Hašek is playing on us. (k) Rather than subversive element, (l) the story of the dog thief Švejk (m) is written as the one of the last righteous and fearless knight (n) and what happens to him among the corrupt rabble 100% filling the imperial institutions. Hašek in Švejk steps away from criticizing either the empire or the emperor (o) and gets down to the more primary cause, and that is the corruption of humanity, which is why his book fits our reality so well regardless of the borders, nationalities and professed political systems.

Previous unsigned comment posted by 140.109.169.80

(a) The flag in the article reads "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed", not "The interpretation of the understanding of the novel is disputed". Furthermore, per Wikipedia rules: "If an article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article may be significantly inaccurate." This whole section does not belong here. However, since it's here, let's talk ... :-)
(b) ... whereas your understanding is deep, I presume?
(c) ... is it a matter of the Czech original or your particular Czech interpretation of it?
(d) ... and your evidence is ...?
(e) ... yeah, right ... in a pub, over a beer. Then when taken to task, they claim the beer made them do it, they didn't know what they were doing. That is the Czech model, isn't it? :-)
(f) ... since when is a singular character's not being understood by others a measure of how wrong he is?
(g) ... while he is neither ...
(h) ... Hašek's book is not a legal brief containing all the evidence, especially not evidence proving the innocence of the one being accused and maligned [i.e. Josef Švejk]...
(i) ... and your evidence as to the proportion of the readers is ... ?
(j) ... absolutely. They provide their own evidence for their judgement based on their own life experience.
(k) ... you think Hašek is playing a prank. I think he is deadly serious.
(l) ... his method of communicating, verbally and non-verbally, is indeed subversive and has a very long history ...
(m) ... just a dog thief? If you have to pick just one attribute, why this one? I'd say it is evidence of your bias against Švejk. He was also a veteran, among other things.
(n) ... a dog thief and the last righteous knight? You can't have it both ways. A righteous dog thief? You've gotta be kiddin'...
(o) ... he also "steps away" from concentrating on the title character. The book is not about Švejk ... he is a mere vehicle for the author's exposition of his views steeped in experiences most people have never had.
Answer: The most important thing about your remarks is not so much their contents, as the fact that you destroyed readability of my paragraph, before I turned your remarks into footnotes. Please behave well and do not destroy the postings just because you don't like them. This is not your personal mailbox. This is a forum so that all the assholes like me can express their stupid and POV opinions without affecting the main article. P.S.: I'm not Czech.
Yes, you are absolutely correct that this is not only a "very shallow understanding of Švejk," but actually an incorrect one as Švejking does not allow for Švejk to despise the emperor or subvert the empire--it is only through NOT doing that that Švejk Švejks. I suspect that anyone who has actually read the book does not make the conclusion that Švejk is subverting the empire, as it is hard to make this conclusion that he is trying to anything but serve the empire in exactly the way it deserves, or that he's mentally deficient, or that he doesn't want to go to the front and get killed, or anything. This is a brilliant and important book that deserves more than this brief article. And deserves to actually be read by more people


I am looking up resources to use to change this article to reflect an accurate reading and interpretation of the novel, however there are not many available English language sources on the article.
KP Botany 17:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for having destroyed the readability of your paragraph. That was not my intent. I appreciate your reformatting it by including my comments as footnotes. Nice job. You find the unintended consequences of my action a more important characteristic of my remarks than their content. That is unfortunate. I don't contribute to Wikipedia outside of this subject and don't have the requisite dexterity or the time to aquire it. If the content of my remarks is of such low value in comparison to the value of the formatting, perhaps I should just spend my time doing something else. From what I understand, I have sinned and could be banished by one of the true Wikipedians in short order anyhow. -- 67.72.98.45 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I must admit that you correctly expressed my feelings about the quality of your messages, although your sincere admission to your sins doesn't make me feel good about it. You might also be right that doing something else might be better for your own good. I must however beg you not to get down on yourself and not to pressure yourself away from WP. Numerous other poor quality contributors less sensitive than you will never introspect, will become admins and will take over WP once all the people like me and you leave. This is an inherent flaw of the WP constitution - because of this, also I almost do not contribute to WP outside this entry. The correct way is exemplified by Scholarpedia.org, which has expert-curated, peer-reviewed articles to which anyone can contribute. Unfortunately, they solve the problem of controversial entries by avoiding the issue - they currently only have science articles. Controversial entries would require not one, but several curators maintaining several versions for the entry covering all viewpoints. 140.109.169.66 (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe this: "an accurate reading and interpretation of the novel"? According to whom? The Ministry of Accurate Interpretations of Novels? Are you the Minister? unsigned comment posted by User:67.72.98.46
Of course I am. Sarcasm aside, when an article discusses a novel from the viewpoint of someone who has never read it, which happens when someone writes an article about a book they have not read, it can perpetuate disinformation. Shvejk is not about a soldier who despises the emperor, it's a subtle book, and whoever wrote the introduction to the English translation was probably simply hired to do that, not actually read the novel. So, what's an "accurate ... interpretation" of this novel? One that shows it is written by someone who has read the novel, and is in agreement with other interpretations written by others who have read the novel. It's not rocket science, reading the book shows how wrong the publisher's comments tend to be about books that have not been read by those writing the review. Please sign your comments with 4 tildas. Minister KP Botany 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to your expressed belief, the Introduction to the novel was not written by someone who has not read it. He wasn't paid to do it either. Both he and you have read the novel. Whose interpretation of it is the correct one and on what basis? -- 67.72.98.45 13:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

about two weeks ago, i completely rewrote the plot summary section. On november 10, the summary was:

The novel tells a story of the Czech veteran Josef
Švejk who, after having been drafted back into the
army as cannon fodder to die for an Emperor he
despises, proceeds to undermine the
Austro-Hungarian Army's war effort by "švejking".
"Švejking" is the method for surviving "švejkárna",
which is a situation or institution of systemic
absurdity requiring the employment of "švejking"
for one to survive and remain untouched by it.
Švejk's method of subverting the Austrian Empire is
to carry out his orders to an absurd conclusion.
"Švejkovat", "to švejk"' has since  become a
common Czech word. 

The action of the novel begins in the very first
days of the First World War, opening with a
charwoman mentioning the assassination of the
Archduke Ferdinand to her employer, Švejk, who had
earlier been declared an imbecile by the army.
It goes on to describe events taking place during
the war's first year, as Švejk joins the army and
has various adventures, first in rear areas, and
then during a long anabasis to rejoin his unit on
the front lines.  The unfinished novel breaks off
abruptly before Švejk has a chance to be involved
in any combat or enter the trenches.

i rewrote the summary to be:

The novel tells a story of the Czech veteran Josef
Švejk and his adventures in the army. The story
begins with news of the assassination in Sarajevo
that precipitates World War I. Švejk is so
enthusiastic about faithfully serving his country
that no one can decide whether he is merely an
imbecile or is craftily undermining the
Austro-Hungarian Army's war effort. This idiocy/
subversion has come to be known as "švejking".

The story goes on to describe events taking place
during the war's first year, as Švejk joins the
army and has various adventures, first in rear
areas, and then during a long anabasis to rejoin
his unit on the front lines.  The unfinished novel
breaks off abruptly before Švejk has a chance to
be involved in any combat or enter the trenches.

are there any complaints with this rewrite?   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 19:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Man, this is just a second iteration, but I'm actually so impressed that anybody around here cares for the real truth that I'm gonna have no further suggestions, just thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.109.169.83 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] The meaning of the name "Svejk"

Does anyone know by accident what the name "Svejk" origionally meant? I ask this question out of personal interest, since I'd like to know the meaning of my surname. I know that Wikipedia is not the right place to do such research. But I would really appreciate it, if someone came up with an idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.231.54.1 (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, Švejk is just a Czech surname, perhaps derived from "šít" (to sow, pronounce "sheet") - "ševec" (shoemaker, pronounce "schehvetz"), "šev" (seam, "schehv") of which diminutive could be "švík" (little seam, "schveek") which could be pronounced as "schweik" in Prague dialect. The name conveys the feeling of (1) relatedness to dressmaking or shoemaking, (2) relatedness to seams as in "praskat ve švech" (bursting at seams), (3) phonetic impression of slyness given by largely voiceless letters as in "zašívat se" ("to stitch in" = to hide oneself) and (4) phonetic similarity to German Schwein (swine). His given name Joseph, or "Pepa", is perhaps the most frequent Czech name. 140.109.169.83 15:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Czech language article much better

I feel ashamed by my ignorance, the article in czech was written by real Haskologiststs, i'll try to translate it if I have time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.109.169.42 (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Interpretation or not?

The article writes: Švejk is so enthusiastic about faithfully serving his country that no one can decide whether he is merely an imbecile or is craftily undermining the Austro-Hungarian Army's war effort. This idiocy/subversion has come to be known as "švejking". Wasn't it an obvious trick? Švejk tries to dodge military service by presenting himself as an undesirable element - a fact he tries to hide by playing a volunteer? His reaction when he is found fit to serve is telling. -- Zz 14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Image:JaroslavHasek.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 insure 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) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Muliar Schwejk.jpg

Image:Muliar Schwejk.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 insure 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) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modernism

The following claim is incorrect for a number of reasons, which I will enumerate after the quotation:

Jaroslav Hašek was one of the earliest writers of what we have come to know as modernist literature. He experimented with verbal collage, Dadaism and the surreal. Hašek was writing modern fiction before exalted post-World-War-I writers like Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Faulkner.

I have added a fact template to this whole paragraph. First, the boundaries between modernism and earlier literary periods is blurry, to say the least. We can identify elements of modernist writing as far back as the 1880s, if we want to, in the writings of George Meredith and Thomas Hardy. Second, "verbal collage, Dadaism and the surreal" are not the only attributes of literary modernism. Third, this novel is published in 1923, a year after Joyce published Ulysses and T. S. Eliot published The Waste Land. So, Hasek is not an early modernist, he's writing during the high point of literary modernism. And fourth, Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Faulkner are indeed "exalted" writers, but what point does it prove to say that Hasek wrote before them? He didn't invent modernism as this paragraph implies, he was a product of it, as were the others. He didn't beat them to the punch, because they were all there at the same time. And finally, what is so significant about Hasek that elevates him over a group of Americans? Modernism existed before Hasek and after, and in many other countries.

My addition of the fact tag is just to give the people working on that paragraph a chance to restate their claim. If he was one of the earliest Eastern European modernist writers (an area of which I know nothing at all), then we need a citation to verify it. Otherwise, is there any special reason not to simply lump him in with all of the other modernist writers writing at the same time? Victorianist (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)