CZ Talk:Literature Workgroup

Thanks for creating this workgroup. I look forwarding to taking part in it.--Jason Sanford 09:30, 21 November 2006 (CST)

Jason, do join the discussion on the Forum Amal Chatterjee 14:05, 21 November 2006 (CST)

Bonnie Hicks

I know that Sanger has urged authors to focus on major articles, but circumstances in my life have occurred such that I needed a good grasp of the Singaporean author Bonnie Hicks. I therefore thought I would contribute this article to maximize my labor. I am unsure exactly how the approved article nomination works - specifically, whether or not authors as well as editors can so nominate - but I did nominate this article. While the article could go into considerable more detail, I do not think that is appropriate in this case. So here we have my first significant contribution to CZ - one I would never have prior foreseen. Stephen Ewen 02:15, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Though not familiar with Bonnie Hicks, the article looks well-written and well-researched indeed. Will keep an eye on Hicks in the future - yet another advantage of being part of this! --CM 05:29, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Minor revisions

I just read through the article, which indeed seems to me to be well-researched and amply documented. I have made just two small stylistic revisions, and I think there may be a few other places where a kind of 'copy-editing' editing could strengthen the overall flow of the article. I don't know enough about Hicks to comment on any substantive matters, though I do have some background in, and occasionally teach, postcolonial literature.

Russell Potter 07:32, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Hi Russel and Carmen. Thanks much. I addressed Russel's referencing concern at Talk:Bonny_Hicks. I did copyedit the article some more but have probably exhausted my own ability at such for now by reason of my proximal investment in the article. Stephen Ewen 19:08, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Are all workgroup discussions this slow?

I joined, but what's the point of the workgroup, if there's no collaboration? Kevin Scott Bailey 02:59, 1 December 2007 (CST)

Literature is tiny compared to others. The best way to get attention to whatever it is you'd like to write is just to be bold and write it for now. :-) Stephen Ewen 12:14, 1 December 2007 (CST)

Will do, and thanks for the response. I contributed heavily to the To Kill a Mockingbird article at WP, so I may C&P that, and rework it for CZ. Kevin Scott Bailey 15:51, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Categorizing literatures by "nation," language, etc.?

When this workgroup was just getting started, various suggestions were put forward about how to subdivide "Literature." Now that we have the "Related Articles" subpage, such subdivisions could have a practical effect. How, for example, do you navigate from the top "Literature" article to, say, H.G. Wells? Via "British literature" (which, if interpreted literally, he would share with 14th-century Welsh-language poet Dafydd ap Gwylim), or "British literature in English" (with the Welsh-, Cornish-, etc.-language authors off in their own categories), or "English-language literature" (with Mark Twain, V.S. Naipaul, etc.)?

The Britannica, in its "Outline of Knowledge," seems to go for pragmatism over a strict scheme. They have some strictly national articles ("American Lit.," "French Lit.," "Japanese Lit."), though their "English Literature" article covers works in English by authors from all the British Isles, including Ireland. Then they have "German Lit.," which is really German-language, as it includes Austrians and Swiss, and "Yiddish Lit.," including residents of many sovereign entities. There are regional entries ("Scandinavian," "Australia and N.Z.") and cultural ones ("Islamic Arts").

Why does it matter? Well, if I, or others, goes through now and puts "British literature" as the parent topic in the Related Articles page of every English-language British writer, and then some Powers That Be later decide that we want to categorize by language, it might require a lot of drudgery to change them all. With an individual writer of ambiguous status, it's not a big deal -- it's not much work to move Kafka from Czech to Austrian to German and back again, but if the whole scheme changes, lots of Related Articles pointers will have to move. (Or is there an easy way to do that on a large scale that I don't know about?)

Any thoughts? Bruce M.Tindall 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe there might even be overlapping categories. Dylan Thomas, for instance, might be mentioned on one article about "Welsh poets," where his work could be placed in a context including Welsh-language poets, and also in "British lit.," where he would be discussed alongside English and Scottish poets who wrote in English. Bruce M.Tindall 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been experimenting with masterlists so that if changes are made they only have to be made a few times. For example, you could start a page British Literature/Related Articles/Masterlist where all brit lit authors are kept. Such a page can then be transcluded to multiple pages. For example, the Dylan Thomas/Related Articles subpage could have {{:British Literature/Related Articles/Masterlist}} under the related topics section. As would many other brit lit authors. If a change is subsequently needed, a deletion or an addition, then the change is only needed once on the masterlist, not on many different pages. I started a discussion on the forum with a few examples. Is this what you had in mind? Also see Leptotes/Related Articles, it uses two masterlists, one under Other related topics and another under subtopics.

Also there does not need to be one route to an author. Mutliple classifications is preferable as you never really know which route someone will be browsing through related articles. I don't think of it as a linear hierarchy but more of a network. From each Related Articles subpage one can browse up and down. Track any given path as readers move between different RA subpages, via the [r] links and the path could be quite complex. The more chance of hitting Dylan Thomas, as in the more related articles subpages that point to him, the better. Chris Day 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris -- that would be a big help for a problem I hadn't even thought about, although I don't think it solves the one I was thinking about. My problem is: We set up "British literature." Then we decide we want to classify literature by language instead. "British literature" and all its subpages get deleted, a new "English-language literature" gets created, and there are ten billion articles out there whose "Parent Topic" now points to a nonexistent article. Redirects would probably help in some cases but not necessarily in all. Anyway, the Masterlists idea does look like a great solution to the problem you described. I'll try it out. Bruce M.Tindall 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere recently, and it's driving me crazy because now I can't find it, I wrote a number of words about my thoughts on subgroups. Various people were discussing the possibilities of creating new subgroups, or sub-workgroups, and I asked if anyone at all, such as me, could come along and add "Mystery stories" and "Science fiction" and so forth to the Literature Workgroup? And then sub-sub-groups, such as "Agatha Christie" and "Rex Stout" to the "Mystery stories"? It seems like a tempting idea, but one fraught with dangers, I would say, it if isn't very carefully worked out in advance. I would think that my comments would also apply to what you've written above. I really don't have any answers of my own -- I really *was* asking other people precisely what they meant.... Hayford Peirce 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hayford, it was on Russell's talk page. See User_talk:Russell_D._Jones#Subgroups. Chris Day 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[undent]Bruce, redirects do help under such a situation. Remember that after a page move all the subpages do get redirected to the new location, not literally deleted. The main term in the {{R}} template will change from a plain text blue link to bold text black link if a redirect is the target, so CZ authors are subtly alerted to the change and the links would eventually be updated. If the term is part of of a masterlist then it would be easier to change many at once. Here is an example of how it would look on a Related Articles subpage for the scenario you outline above. We have an article on Drama and with the R template it looks as follows:

• Drama [r]: A type of literature, especially plays, meant to be delivered in spoken performance on stage. ^[e]

But let's assume that it was originally called Dramatics and for the sake of argument it would have looked like the following:

• Dramatics [r]: A type of literature, especially plays, meant to be delivered in spoken performance on stage. ^[e]

After a move from Dramatics to Drama any of the original links on a Related Article subpage, such as {{R|Dramatics}}, would not be disfunctional but look exactly like the following example:

• Dramatics [r]: A type of literature, especially plays, meant to be delivered in spoken performance on stage. ^[e]

Obviously this is not a disaster, although it is dependent on the presence of the redirects Dramatics -> Drama and Dramatics/Defintion -> Drama/Defintion. Chris Day 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would expect that rather than deleting "British literature" to start "English-language literature", we'd supplement "Brit. lit." with "English-language lit." The two can and probably should exist simultaneously. There's no harm done if they dicsuss some of the same things, because they will provide different ways of looking and would very probably each refer to the other as another way to think about the material. Chris's comments about multiple paths to arrive at an article would apply here. --Joe Quick 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, one could exist as a main article whereas the other might exist as a Related Articles Only subpage. I guess it depends what all our writers have to say, certainly both could coexist in the parental topics section on the related articles subpage, they do not sound synonymous. Chris Day 02:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

News (updated 4/11/07)

CONGRATULATIONS! to the Literature Workgroup -- our toplevel entry for Literature is now approved!! Russell Potter 16:34, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

To get this group underway, I've created this page. Please feel free to edit and get involved. We do need to decide on subgroups and update and expand topics. Amal Chatterjee 03:52, 21 November 2006 (CST)

Suggestions for subgroups

These are just thoughts, can we get a discussion going? One way to go would be to organise literature on language

• Literature in English
• Literature in Spanish
• Literature in Indian Languages
• Literature in Arabic
• Literature in Russian
• Literature in Chinese
• Literature in East Asian Languages
• and so on

Or to use region-based categories common in university departments, eg:

• English Literature
• American Literature
• Spanish Literature
• Indian Literature
• Arabic Literature
• South Asian Literature
• East Asian Literature
• Chinese Literature
• Sudanese Literature
• and so on

We could also begin with categories like Prose, Poetry etc ...

Amal Chatterjee 03:46, 21 November 2006 (CST)

Categories and subgroups

While these high-level categories may have their uses in terms of lateral organization -- each, presumably, would involve a sub-group of editors and authors fluent in the requisite language(s) -- for the time being I think we would do better to see what areas of interest current editors and authors have, and set about working on articles. Ad-hoc working subgroups could then be created as needed if, for instance, a group of people working on Victoria literature, or the Epic, or the poetry of Languedoc, or graphic novels, or whatever. In other words, I think for now we should write 'from the bottom up' as it were. There may also be a need to edit from the top down at some point, but this will be far easier once we've all done some work on specific articles together.

Let's continue to discuss this in the forum!

Russell Potter 10:33, 21 November 2006 (CST)

genres -- some serious confusion here

There are two headers here:

Literary motifs and genre

and

Literary styles

I am baffled by the thinking processes of whoever drew up these lists. Why, for instance, are historical novels and mysteries in one but science fiction in the other? Some revision is needed here.... Hayford Peirce 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I brought the Literature Core Articles over to the main Literature WG page (the original list is still there). I then converted to rpl format which I believe gives a better idea of the state of progress of the articles. In the process, I added the sub-heads, leaving the redistribution of articles until later. I have now done that. Meanwhile I am expanding the original 50 or so Core Articles to closer to the 100 envisioned for those listings. The Core Article points distribution (never started on the original Core Articles listing) will be added when that expansion is closer to completion.

You are of course, free to add to or otherwise edit the listing. I can think of some science fiction writers (Asimov, Clarke) who probably should be on the list.

When this is brought closer to completion, I will probably propose (on the forum) that all the Core Articles listings be placed on the main WG page, but first I need a sample. Sorry you were baffled. ;-)

James F. Perry 21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

genre vs. genres - don't understand why you want to keep this singular

James, I don't understand why you remove the "s" from genres -- all the other headings refer to *plural* thingees, including Writers just above and Literary motifs, styles, and techniques just below. If *those* are plural, then why isn't "genres"? Hayford Peirce 04:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Magificent 100?

Didn't you mention in a Summary box that you were paring the authors down to 100? Shouldn't this be explained somewhere in the article itself. Myself, I'd leave P.G. Wodehouse over a whole *bunch* of the others, but I suppose that the Chairman of the English Department at Harvard probably wouldn't agree.... Hayford Peirce 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The working list on the Lit WG main page was originally brought over from the CZ:Core_Articles listings. The Core Articles initiative seems to have become somewhat moribund and I hoped to re-invigorate it, at least for this WG, by posting the listings directly on the main page and working on them by adding definitions to all of the articles along with at least some starter articles (each about 300-500 words) added at the rate of one or two per week. The original Core Articles listing was only 50 or so articles whereas the program allowed for up to 100, so I expanded the listing from there up to the "limit" of 100.

However, it now appears to me that the 100 article limit is, in fact, too small for this WG and I will be expanding beyond that limit to up to 200 or so. There is nothing magic about the number 100 (or 200) but I believe some limit is necessary to enforce reasonable selection to just the most important artilcles.

Originally, I had thought to expand (from 100 to 200) by adding works of literature. However, I think it would be best to bring the most important works directly into the defnitions (of the writers) and link them. As definitions are written for the works themselves, they can be made into lemma articles so that the links lead somewhere. In this way, a more or less usable encyclopedia section will be created consisting of just the most important articles with the ability to travel around the section somewhat unimpeded.

At some point, I may propose (on the Forum) that all the Core Articles listings be moved to their respective WG main pages. First, I would like to more fully develop this WG main page as an example.

James F. Perry 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the fine explanation! I now see what you're doing, and it's certainly a worthy project! I still think, however, that maybe at least *some* of this explanation ought to go into the very top of the article itself - I don't think we want a gazillion (well, maybe two or three) other people like me coming in from time to time and then adding P.G. Wodehouse and Donald Hamilton and Michael Gilbert etc., etc., simply because they themselves like these writers and/or they have written articles about them. It should be made very clear that there are definite limitations, even if they are completely arbitrary. I myself would greatly prefer to read any of these three writers than Tolstoy, Austen, Conrad, etc., but even I will admit that if this is supposed to be about *core* literature, then some people outweigh others. Hayford Peirce 17:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

the Wilde Oscar and other puzzles

I don't think Oscar should be listed under Irish writers -- how many people today outside of college English departments could tell you that he was born in Ireland? Just as Conrad should not be listed as a Polish writer. Or Camus (or someone or other) as an Algerian writer -- it's where he produced his works, and what language he wrote in, and what he wrote about, etc. etc, that are important, not the precise place of birth. Hayford Peirce 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"I am Irish by race, but the English have condemned me to speak the language of Shakespeare" [1] I'd say that Wilde is inextricably linked with Ireland. Then again, I spent a good deal of time in an English department. -Derek Hodges 19:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better example of what Hayford is saying is Vladimir Nabokov. Russian or American? Clearly an American author, though Russian by birth. Albert Camus should certainly be listed as Algerian - French, though. He wrote in French, but Algeria was the scene of much of his writing (The Stranger) and political activity. James F. Perry 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

mystery and thriller writers

If we have a listing, short so far, of major S.F. authors, then I really think we ought to have the same for mystery-thriller writers. We could try to limit it to a dozen, maybe, or maybe not. Certainly 3/4 of today's bestseller lists are dominated by writers that 40 years ago would have been consigned to the literary dustbin. As a start on the mystery genre, there's Poe (already under American), Doyle, Christie, Carr, Queen, Stout, Chandler, Hammett, Innis, Gilbert, LeCarre, various Macdonalds, and then a whole slew of more modern people I know very little about. Hayford Peirce 17:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Rooshians

Nabokov is a tricky case, though. Didn't he write all of his early novels in Rooshian? Later, I believe, his son translated them into English. And maybe some of *those* he eventually revised -- in English. And, of course, he was living in Germany when he wrote them.... Hayford Peirce 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only reason I inroduced the nationality categories was to better organize the work - and to better see where there might be gaps in the selections of articles. Some of the entries are listed under more than one category. And that could be done with Nabokov and Oscar Wilde as well. James F. Perry 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Is there a reason that H4 is used instead of subsubsections? It would be easier to edit smaller sections.

Shouldn't Nobel prize winners, Prix Goncourt, Pulitzer prize, etc. be all added?

Peter Schmitt 21:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The listing came originally from the CZ:Core_Articles initiative and was expanded from there. This initiative was designed to produce at least starter articles on the most important subjects for each workgroup. Thus a limit of either 100 (or, for selected WGs, 200) articles was placed. Such a limitation is necessary in order to limit the number of articles a manageable collection. Were we to include all Nobel, Pulitzer, etc prize winners, the list would far exceed what, in my opinion, is manageable.

Were the names recently added to the German writers section of paramount importance? Certainly Schiller is. But I cannot find Schmidt listed in either my Merriam-Webster Collegiate Encyclopedia (some 25,000 entries) or the Houghton-Mifflin Dictionary of Biography (18,000 biographical entries). Nestroy is listed in one, but not the other.

The reason I used the "H4" format was partly cosmetic. For some reason, the wiki (last I checked) renders the level 4 sub-head larger than the level 3 sub-head. Once the list is up to size, there shouldn't be much editing in any case.

James F. Perry 22:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that a list such as this has to stay managable. First things should come first. Whether this author or that author is more important will always stay, to a certain degree, a matter of personal opinion. But if you do not want to be partial on English literature, French, German, Spanish, etc. authors should have a larger share. I just four names which came into my mind (I did not include Lessing, Kleist, Hauptmann, etc. to mention some classics, or Grass, Frisch, Musil, etc. from 20th century). Nestroy is a author of sarcastic comedies (Hello, Dolly is based on one of his plays), Schnitzler portrays the turn of the century (1900) (Eyes wide shut is based on of his novels, Der Reigen was filmed several times), Arno Schmidt was modern, difficult but important, author (he uses language similar to Joyce, and probably has also similarities to Pynchon - WP knows him). Any of these names can be contested, of course. I juat wanted to make a point. (I could also have added Balzac to French authors, or Calderon as Spanish author).

Peter Schmitt 23:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I freely admit to there being a bias at present in the listings in favor of English-language authors and their works (the latter are linked in the definitions). Such is the result of the limitations of my own knowledge! That same limitation would prevent me from doing much at all to move forward the work on those arhtors (or works) about which I know little or nothing. I culdn't even supply definitions for some of them!

So here is what I would ask folks: if you wish to add names to the list (at present, there are about 145 or so listed, so there is room for expansion), then by all means do so. And if at all possible, please be willing to also supply at least a definition for those you do add.

I am also attempting to write starter articles (around 300-500 words) for as many of the authors and their works as possible. It is not a one person job (especially as I will not be writing about any work or author which I have not read recently).

I am also biasing the list in the direction of those authors and works which might be expected to be included as part of a high school lit class.

In the not-too-distant future, I would like to see a list of about 200 articles, all of which have proper definitions and at least starter articles. The Literature WG is one of the most important on Citizendium. The entire panoply of human culture is reflected in the literature of the human race, our history, our politics, our hopes and dreams, our thoughts and reflections. There is not any aspect of human knowledge not touched upon or commented upon in literature.

In short, keeping in mind the nature of the listings (core articles), if you can correct the current biases (where those biases need correcting), then by all means do so.James F. Perry 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a dilemma: If this is meant to be a list of "core authors" from the literature of the world (with uniform selection criteria) then the limit of 200 will be a problem: Either there will be a strong bias, or the English authors list will probably have to be truncated. Peter Schmitt 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And is anyone here competent to choose the core 200 from all over the world and its many cultures? For instance, one from ancient China, one from modern Nigeria, one from Eliz. England, one from 18th-century Swiss. etc. etc. Impossible. I doubt if Edmund Wilson or that character from Yale could do it. Anthony Burgess maybe? Naw, it's impossible. I doubt if we should try for even-handedness. Throw in some famous ones that are known to the educated elite of the English-speaking world, such has already been done, and forget it. Hayford Peirce 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

why are the names of *some* writers in bold and others aren't?

All the names ought to be the same, I think, unless there's a clearly explained *reason* for the differences. Hayford Peirce 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the r template (and has the same effect on the Related Articles subpage): It is bold if there is a Definition but no Metadate subpage. I think that bold face is the wrong choice to indicate this because it suggests emphasis. Peter Schmitt 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes my head hurt! Hayford Peirce 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)