Archive I
Thanks for your polite and appropriate note, Yossarian. On reflection, it actually looks to me like I slightly botched the revert a bit, and got a version that used "shortish", which I agree is a bizarre formulation. In fact, I don't really agree that RLSK is a short novel at all--not sure where this came from. I do think it's appropriate to spell out Nabokov's name in Cyrillic in the article--after all, the man wrote nine novels in Russian before starting to write in English, and he's regarded, just for his Russian output, as one of the preeminent Russian authors of the 20th century. As for novellas, he wrote only one or two works that could be really considered as such: The Eye, and The Enchanter.
The bit about the bidet is also something I didn't insert originally; if you go back through the edit history, you'll see that there was one VERY unencyclopaedic entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Life_of_Sebastian_Knight&oldid=45129980), about which the edit note proudly stated, "it is not very "encyclopediac" but its incoherence is meant to ape that of a Nabokovian narrator." As I edited this away, I tried to exercise good faith and incorporate some of the pieces of it; hence the bidet remained. The true story behind RSLK (documented in the recent excellent biography by Brian Boyd) is that Nabokov wrote it in his small quarters in Paris, where the only way he could avoid disturbing his wife and their newborn child was to escape into the bathroom, where he stretched his valise across the bidet to use as a writing desk. Amusing, and, if properly incorporated into the article, a valid part of the story behind the composition of the novel.
Besides the Cyrillic, your edit had also removed the link to Zembla, a link that I regard as more important than the dubious "Nabokov Library", which I fear could someday disappear anyway due to copyright issues.
Lastly, I concur about the importance of proper italicizing/bolding of novels! Great to see someone else who places importance on such things--I too have threatened violence on people who underline.
You really ought to actually read RLSK, by the way. It's my very favorite of all of Nabokov's works. -- PKtm 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Beckett, Three Novels, etc.
Hey. Thanks for writing.
I had the same qualms when I first suggested the merge: Beckett was indeed opposed to the idea of the books ever being called a "trilogy" (though he did, of course, relent on the matter of publishing them together, and the word "trinity" was even tossed around a while before being—thankfully—dropped), and as you point out, they are certainly stand-alone works (in the sense that reading Malone Dies without having first read Molloy—which I assume you were referring to when you mentioned Murphy—is hardly going to leave one confused about where the second book is coming from).
On the other hand, I think that reading the three books as a series casts a whole hell of a lot of light on each of the novels individually, and the same can be said for another non-trilogy, the three somewhat earlier stories "The Expelled", "The Calmative", and "The End". Each series is something like: birth—death—limbo (or some other pat assertion).
However, in the final analysis, I think choosing to group the novels together is a critical choice that can easily and sensibly be challenged—and thus, you're probably right that it's best to not put them all in one article. But, once the articles for the individual novels have been expanded upon (I myself might get around to it some day), there should most definitely be a section or a note or some such thing as per the three books' potential to be grouped together and seen as something of a continuity.
Anyhow, them's my thoughts. Thanks again for a thoughtful comment on the issue. —Saposcat 08:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Gracias
I'm just writing to say thanks for the Barnstar—it's heartening to know one can go up one class with the press of a keyboard key.
On a somewhat more serious note, today I've written out a whole "Works"—early, middle, late—section for the Beckett article, and would be interested in seeing what you think.
Thanks again for the Barnstar; I really appreciate it. —Saposcat 21:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: More Beckett stuff ...
I had a look at Endgame, Krapp's Last Tape, and Happy Days, and they are indeed disgraceful. Your pages on Godot's characters are—judging from the quick glance I had—pretty solid, though maybe some tweaking could be done (tweaking work never ends, after all).
I may well work on the abovementioned stuff, though I'd have to bone up on them a bit before tackling them. The novels, too—as you pointed out—are absolutely shoddy pages (not much of a surprise, I suppose: fewer people tackle the novels because they're tough going, so it's not as widely known that Beckett's one of the 20th century's most important and revolutionary novelists), and I'll definitely be working on those at some point.
As for a Beckett project, that might be a possibility, though I don't know how much interest we could drum up. It seems like it might be pretty slim pickings, since—for example—just before the centenary I sort of pleaded, "Please help me write a Works section!", on Beckett's talk page, and got pretty much no response (leading to me fortifying myself with Jameson's whiskey and making the section up meself). Anyhow, we'll see what happens.
Cheers. —Saposcat 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm just butting in here (Greetings Yossarian, I hope all is well with you!)...I hear the words "project" and something related to theatre and my ears perk up. I've been doing some work to create some small wikiprojects to help take care of small chunks of theatre. We now have one for Elizabethan theatre and one for Ancient Greek theatre is in the works. Perhaps a wikiproject to cover Theatre of the Absurd? It would cover just those playwrights connected with the movement, their works, general terms and for fun we could throw in Beckett's novels. I would be willing to help in creating the project page (I think the Elizabethan theatre page is quite snazzy) though I must admit that my knowledge of Absurdism is limited. Certainly it could be a fun challenge. If not, I would certainly be more than willing to lend a hand in working on some of the Beckett pages, at least once David Garrick is done (what a leap from Garrick to Absurdism!). Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Barnstars
The Barnstar of High Culture
I, Ganymead hereby awards you the High Culture barnstar, particularly for your excellent devotion to articles relating to Samuel Beckett. 14 April 2006. |
This second one should have been given some time ago...
The Template Barnstar
I Ganymead hereby present you the Template Barnstar for you wonderful work on theatre templates! *Exeunt* Ganymead |
Re: Still more Beckett stuff ...
Just a note about the Dramatic Works template (good work on the templates by the way: nicely done, clean, simple, unobtrusive): we might want (at some point in the future) want to split it off into Stage, Radio, TV, and Film (a lonely subcategory, that last one), but only once the articles have been created for the non-stage works, of course. —Saposcat 09:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- PS—I've done a bit of cleanup on Waiting for Godot; look out for more in the near future. —Saposcat 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I think your idea (viz Dramatic Works template = stage plays; the yet-to-be-done template = radio, TV, film) is a good one. As for a name for the potential new template, I'm stumped a bit on that, too: perhaps something using the word "media", because although the stage is of course a medium (our mouth is a medium, too, but we hardly go around saying, "Look at this medium!", do we?), when we use the word "media" in English it tends to imply radio, TV, and film (it usually does for me, anyway).
Anyhow, there's still plenty of time to come up with a name, I think, as it should be a while before there are decent pages for Beckett's radio/TV/film works.
Your ideas are good, even scintillating (I just love using that word). Keep them coming, and keep up the good work. Cheers, Saposcat 10:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
Re: That fabulous Godot userbox
Just for your curiosity, I have modified the Godot userbox and put it on my own page in the following state:
This user is waiting for Godot, who will surely be arriving on August 15. |
Is it an improvement? Is it a deprovement? I don't know, but it looked a bit cleaner to my eye. —Saposcat 09:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done—it's officially in the template now. —Saposcat 09:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The new image is great. Only problem (really minor): on the small userbox version, Estragon (the front fellow)'s right shoulder ends up looking like a stray dot rather than a line. Other than that petty quibble, it's a fantastic change. Well done! —Saposcat 10:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Judith Crist Wiki Page
I'm sorry if I'm not doing this talk page thing correctly, I'm very new to editing Wiki. I created the Judith Crist page (she's my great aunt) and I wanted to thank you for helping me Wikify it. I was wondering, if you had any more tips or help for that page, I would really appreciate it! Thanks, User:SaraK
Ayn Rand, et. al.
Thank you for your views and recommendations; I'll try to do something about the introduction when I have more time. LaszloWalrus 21:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I know how exasperating it can be. I have a history of edit warring with Alienus, and Alienus seems to have a history of edit warring with EVERYONE, accusing others of bad faith, and making personal attacks. He deletes the talk on his user page alot, but if you look in the history, you'll see what I'm talking about. If Alienus continues to write others off, then I don't see the point of discussing it with him. Just revert his changes until he agrees to talk, and (if need be) get an admin involved. LaszloWalrus 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to keep the articles neutral and for your fortitude. LaszloWalrus 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for help on the Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Homosexuality article. LaszloWalrus 09:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Re:Adding articles or removing articles from categories up for deletion
Then maybe you should alert the guy who voted Oppose and stated 'There aren't any articles so there aren't any reasons', shouldn't you? Because there were two articles in there before you removed them, and the guy was led to opposing because the category was blank. That's stuff for you to "chew on". SushiGeek 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Dictators category message
If an admin with a twitchy finger came along, I'd just undo them. :P SushiGeek 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm serious... SushiGeek 03:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ocular prosthetic
Hey, fellow cyclops! I have 8 or 9 - I lost my eye as a baby so had to get new ones periodically as I grew. The teensy ones are the most fun for tricks and games - hiding them (uh, clean) in people's drinks or in their salad is always a fun party trick :) It must be strange having to go through it as an adult, though - have you only recently lost your sight? Cheers Natgoo 10:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I had a retinoblastoma, my right eye was removed when I was 18 months old. Occasionally I walk into door frames and I get pretty clumsy when I'm drunk, but it hasn't really stopped me doing anything - do you drive? I was 25 before I got my license, purely due to my own fear of being in charge of a large steel deathtrap with a restricted field of vision. Now I'm used to it driving's fine.
- My eye moves enough, it looks a little lazy at times - it's usually the pupil that people notice though (it does look a bit weird in the dark - one large pupil and one normal). Do you wear specs? I find that wearing specs minimises any adverse visual impact the eye has (but I'm also shortsighteed so I need them). I love the idea of costume eyes - I've always wanted one with a laser pupil for playing cyborg, or a holographic iris. A cat's eye would also be very, very cool. I've worn fun contacts before - I can only wear them on my good eye, so I've had one black, and one cat's eye. Contacts are also cheaper, as you only have to buy one!
- Sorry for raving on and asking questions - I don't get to discuss it with compatriots very often. Cheers Natgoo 12:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yes! Fun with optometry students - I always test to see if they've read my chart by not telling them about my right eye then watching the reaction when they try to test it. I've had several run out to get a more senior doctor, leaving me chuckling away in the chair.
- Be careful when you do get your license! I'm not sure of the situation in Canada, but I was turned away from one test (in Australia) because I got a stickler for policy, and the policy stated that everyone who couldn't pass the eye test had to have an optometrist's report. This was after I'd got my l's once, renewed it, AND failed one driving test without any such report, and in the end all they wanted was a statement of my prescription. Grrrr.
- The pic in the ocular prosthetic article is my current eye - I've had this one for 15 years now, so it's definitely time for a new one. I haven't had a new one for so long because they were free (government-subsidised) where I grew up, then we moved to another state where they cost (around AU$600) and I was a poor student, blah blah, and then it wasn't urgent so I basically totally forgot about it! My eyelid now gets very droopy when I'm tired - I'm sure my face has changed quite substantially in 15 years :)
- I have a full implant - has your implant fully healed? Does it give you any trouble? One thing to look out for, and this has happened several times over the years, is bleeding. If you ever get hit in the eye the hard prosthetic pushes back on those lovely rich blood vessels in the implant, and you bleed from your eye, which is as fun as it sounds (although it's not really painful, and it is very effective for zombie parties). I've also had to get a chip ground out of mine (which was causing great irritation) after I dropped it on the bathroom floor while cleaning it.
- Are you fully comfortable with taking it out? That would be one area where I think getting the prosthetic as an adult would have been far better - I couldn't take my eye out until I was 8 years old, and it would get very festy and goopy (brain snot, as my sister so fondly refers to it!) as I couldn't clean it properly myself. I had a substitute teacher for a few months in grade four who had one, and he finally taught me how to take it out and clean it well. You might not have the same brain-snot issue with a smaller eye? I believe mine is due to the fact they took part of the tear ducts when they removed the eye, so there isn't enough lubrication when I blink, and the friction causes a build-up of gunk (um, sorry if that's TMI).
- I think the first time it really hit me that I was 'different' was when a favourite magazine ran a competition where you had to find the image in one of theose 3D 'magic-eye' pictures. I wrote to the magazine saying they were discriminating against the partially-sighted (I was 7/8 years old)! Then I realised that, hey, this sort of thing is going to happen occasionally. My partner tried to convince me to register as partially-sighted when we moved to the UK (at the time it would have made me eligible for some tax discounts, no longer applicable as you have to make modifications to your home to cope) but I just couldn't - while I was well within the criteria my blindness has never been any sort of real disability. That is not to say it's not a good excuse when I miss really easy shots playing pool :) Natgoo 11:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Just writing to see if you'd like to take up the task of helping me pretty up this stub. I've added to it, rearranged it, and even moved it, but it remains ugly as ever. I'd like to enlist you to help me bring it more in line with the usual aesthetic standards, since I'm a little weak in that area outside fo tables and charts. Oceanhahn 01:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)