Talk:Encyclopedic novel

Sources

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm flattered by whomever wrote this, though I should note (as someone on the History pages implies) that this sort of article probably ought to be based on more than just some fan's distillation of one of my essays, and deal more with Mendelson, Leo Bersani, Stephen Burn, et al.--DJL "DJL"—Letzler we are to assume—you're a pretty snotty [redacted]—I wrote this when angry based on the condescending "just some fan's distillation of one of my essays". I'll hope you'll reflect on the accuracy of that and how it sounds. When you say "just" as in "only" a distillation of one essay by you, you are objectively wrong, as can be seen by reviewing all the citations in the article,[1] and noting the weight given to Mendelson in the first paragraph, and the fact that a notion of yours is not mentioned until paragraph four. (Someone around here is affiliated with Mendelson, I've always had the feeling. There's a lot of Auden stewarding, and Columbia IPs creating and editing his and related articles. Is this about that? Rhetorical question.) In many cases your work is used simply to indirectly cite others whom you quote, because your work is what's on JSTOR—ironic for a man talking about distillation, isn't it? And I have no idea who you think is a "fan" here, nor of what. Anyway, "distillation" is what Wikipedia does. In theory, it's better (here) to use secondary sources that talk about Mendelson's idea than it is to summarize their content oneself (see stuff like WP:OR, WP:SECONDARY). My purpose here at this "free encyclopedia" was to add a basic article explaining the EN concept, with the pastiche of online sources available to me; I can't get past the journal paywalls or to those university libraries holding the material you mention. I've removed all references to your work to confirm the fact that there are no "fans" here (believe you me), in a move that I understand to be your preference from the above. Riggr Mortis (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC), edited significantly at 20:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Riggr I've put back the content and have found at least one more source, (in a quick and dirty search), to add (when we get to it). To the orginal poster: the way wikipedia works is that we distill sources. We don't write original content here - we cite material others have written. This article is barely ten days old, and as you well know (since you've written about the concept) is that it take a bit of time to get things exactly perfect. One huge difference between this place and academia, too, is that we publish in real-time, we build fairly slowly (well those of us who are scrupulous and Riggr Mortis is one of the most scrupulous editors I know). I'd invite you to create an account and try to write in an encyclopedic style according to our policies - it's not easy. Regardless, given the woeful state of most of articles about literature, this is a welcome addition and should stay. Thanks, for popping in. Victoria (tk) 17:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC) This page seems a pretty classic example of how easy it is to misread what people have written on the Internet--I think the three of us are guilty of doing it regarding both each other and ourselves. Indeed, I think rather more sarcasm was read into the first half of my comment (which I intended sincerely) than was meant, and the second read more dismissively than I wanted. Since edits on Wikipedia articles aren't really something worth getting upset about, let me clarify what I meant. Let's start by establishing that this article is (or was, when I stumbled onto it) a distillation of my essay (plus talk). Regardless of what Riggr thinks, it really was that: out of 15 citations in the article, I see two to Edward Mendelson (the standard reference point on this subject), seven directly to me, four to other writers that are only made via their appearance in my work, and two other citations to Burn and Herman. Additionally, the Herman and one of the Mendelson quotes appear in my essays basically as quoted. That's 13 of 15 from me, one way or the other--add, what's perhaps even more important, they track pretty closely the structure of the way my own work presents them. Now, I have no inherent problem with people using my work--indeed, it's gratifying to see that anyone's read it at all! I'm happy you thought it was useful. I also have no proprietary hold on the quotations of others' work that have been made, so that's not a problem either. The problem, instead, with making this article a distillation of my work is that my essay/talk are not survey reviews of the literature on encyclopedic novels. Instead, they are arguments made about specific novels--by a then-doctoral student, I should add, trying to make one minor contribution to a much more extensive literature--that, for their own discursive purposes, quote some other commentary on this subject. In other words, my presentation of the material is not some impartial overview of the subject that gives proper weight to the relative importance of different contributions to it--it's an arrangement of ideas intended to lead into my argument. Consequently, tracking my argument as closely as that earlier draft did means that this is not an article on the encyclopedic novel--it's an article, instead, on my essay. While that's flattering, I think it's probably not what an article on this subject should be. Now, I apologize if I misinterpreted the motivation behind that particular construction of the article. Nevertheless, I don't think you appreciate how oddly it read. Imagine, for instance, that you look up an encyclopedia article on DNA that begins by spending a paragraph or two on Watson/Crick/Franklin, then devotes the rest of the article to making direct and indirect quotations out of a graduate thesis on genetic mutation in the common squirrel, highlighting several prominent examples from the squirrel genome. Whatever you thought about it, you'd think it was odd, and you'd assume that whoever wrote the article must really have some sort of a thing for squirrels. I showed this article to several people--again, largely due to being gratified that someone outside of the academy read the essay!--and it was suggested, only half in jest, that I must have some Charles-Kinbote-esque devotee on the Internet somewhere. After all, if someone had just decided that Wikipedia really needed an article on the encyclopedic novel, surely they'd mostly devote it to Mendelson, with maybe a few references to major critiques/adaptations (of which mine may or may not be among the half dozen or so most important), rather than making a relatively unknown graduate student the leading authority on the subject. In fact, I assumed I was agreeing with Riggr in pointing that out, since I misread the history page and assumed that his disdainful wisecrack about how all the of the quotes were indirectly derived from my work was a criticism of someone else's previous writing, not his own. Now, Victoria suggests--as is the standard Wikipedia retort, it seems--that if I think the article isn't good, I should rewrite it myself. For reasons I broach in that essay, though, I'm ambivalent about Wikipedia--partly for theoretical concerns, and partly for the private reason that I know that if I really seriously decided to get into it, I'd get addicted to a variety of Sisphyean efforts that would generally exhaust and frustrate me. My comment was meant to briefly suggest, for those who do really want to devote the effort to it, the direction that such work should take, and that appears to be the way the article is headed.--DJL Hi, first let me point you to an odd rule of thumb we call too long; didn't read, which I'm about break myself. Next, you're working on few false premises. No, I didn't say this: "Victoria suggests--as is the standard Wikipedia retort, it seems--that if I think the article isn't good, I should rewrite it myself." What I said was this: "I'd invite you to create an account and try to write in an encyclopedic style." They are two very different things and since you probably have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) this isn't the right place to begin your Wikipedia career. The premise that we have access to all the sources and research on a given topic is false. To begin an article - any article - one must have access to source/s - which is an obstacles for those of us without database access to the best sources that hide behind paywalls. Your essay was the one that popped; your essay was the one that's visible to the poor minions who waste time here. No more, no less. It wasn't a case of fandom, of "gee he's got a really great argument", it was simply that that was the source available. I've never seen the author of a source pop in and complain about its use, describe how the Wikipedia article has been passsed amongst friends and made fun of. That's really not very nice. The premise that the people here (on this page) might not quite understand what they're writing about or might not quite understand the arcane rules involved with academic literary crit, is, too, a false premise. Clark has it right - those who are struck with the madness of writing an encyclopedia simply distill (I mentioned this earlier) - we don't make an argument here, we simply inform. Unfortunately, after your first foray to this talk page Riggr lost interest. I found a few more sources, in other words spent unpaid time to satisfy unreasonable demands, and tried to pick at it, but honestly it's disheartening. Who really cares? So what if Northrop Frye coined a phrase, Mendelson ran with it, and others have crafted arguments? Who really cares about a literary concept? (Well, I do, but not enough to write about it (for free) and then be criticized). My suggestion at this point is to send the article to WP:AFD and be done with it. I am sorry I "rescued" the work Riggr did here - he's smarter than I am and had it right the first time. Victoria (tk) 17:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

This seriously reads like a conversation between a couple people. Can someone verify? 24.207.50.80 (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)