|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aldous Huxley article.|
|Aldous Huxley has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 scientology?
- 3 Number of children
- 4 Date of Birth & Death
- 5 Huxley and Humanism
- 6 Why no mention of founding Happy Valley School?
- 7 Captain Beefheart
- 8 Quotations
- 9 Literary Themes
- 10 Zaehner
- 11 Trivia clean up
- 12 Banned for being ugly
- 13 Source number one
- 14 Huxleygame
- 15 Matthew Huxley
- 16 The List Of Quotes
- 17 Vedanta classification would be appropriate, "Hinduism" isn't
- 18 huxleys final LSD
- 19 quote question
- 20 First novel intentionally destroyed?
- 21 NPOV dispute - Middle Years: Huxley's eyesight.
- 22 "Heroin" quote
- 23 New images
- 24 Missing information
- 25 Copyright problem
- 26 Parapsychology
- 27 Huxley's lost play - Now More Than Ever
- 28 Religion
- 29 Jiddu Krishnamurti?
- 30 Construction of the first sentence
- 31 Spam
- 32 Huxley Review of 1984
- 33 Position during WWII ?
- 34 COI Disclaimer
- 35 Doors of Perception listed under 'Novels' (and also, correctly, under 'Essay Collections')
- 36 Please omit the line, " Peter Kreeft's book Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis, & Aldous Huxley."
- 37 Hoax book
- 38 Huxley as a Hollywood screenwriter.
- 39 Potential Inaccuracy Regarding Huxley Brother
"On November the 22nd of 1963, unaware of the assasination of John F. Kennedy earlier that day and under the influence of an unspecified entheogenic substance." Can someone supply a verb for this non-sentence?
Was Aldous Huxley a scientologist when he died?This list lists him as a past one, i just want to know.... http://www.adherents.com/largecom /fam_scientologist.html Sp0 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is no discovered source material in which Huxley explicitly confirms nor disaffirms a personal belief in the comprehensive doctrine of Scientology. I have read all the relevant literature available to date. However, in his essay, "Education on the Nonverbal Level," Huxley notably advocates for the use, specifically, of the "Imagination Games" of "Dianeticists and their successors, the Scientologists" in place of academia's exclusive adherence to dry, scientific, rigidly empirical, "Enlightenment" modes of education. And he makes similar reference to this "imaginary" aspect of Scientology in his article, "Post-Mortem on Bridley." (Aldous Huxley: Complete Essays, Volume VI: 1956-63, ed. Robert S. Baker; Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, 2002.) Riskquette (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- While I'd by no means add something of the sort to the article, as it's simply conjecture -- I suspect in research for The Perennial Philosophy he familiarized himself with all manner of religious beliefs. As can be seen in much of his later writing, he had no problem sampling ideas from faiths that he did not adhere to. Scott.wheeler (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Number of children
The article states: "Huxley's only child, Matthew Huxley (d. 10 February 2005) was also an author, as well as an educator, anthropologist and prominent epidemiologist. His work ranged from promoting universal health care to establishing standards of care for nursing home patients and the mentally ill to investigating the question of what is a socially sanctionable drug. Matthew's first marriage, to documentary filmmaker Ellen Hovde, ended in divorce. His second wife died in 1983. He was survived by his third wife, Franziska Reed Huxley; and two children from his first marriage, Trevenen Huxley and Tessa Huxley."
How can Matthew Huxley be his only child if he has two others from his first marriage? Can someone with better knowledge of Huxley clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Date of Birth & Death
It stated he was born in 1894 and died in 1963. Could we please get this right?--LAgurl 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Huxley and Humanism
I reworded the sentence about Huxley being a humanist, it had the sentence that Huxley had "humanistic concerns" early in life. Huxley never dropped his adherence to humanism as his philosophical foundation, to say that he moved past it is POV and not what is factually true. If its reverted again, I will put a NPOV tag.ForrestLane42 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42
While investigating on the website I came across this website which reads nearly word for word of the present page! http://www.coolove.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13 check the page out! ForrestLane42 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42
- Nothing strange since source for that article is Wikipedia. Why did you put Original research tag on the whole article? -- Vision Thing -- 14:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow Vision Thing, you got me, I thought it was the other way around in sourcing...lol...I didn't see that on the bottom of webpage, ill reverse it all. ForrestLane42 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
- Ok, I'm glad I helped. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Why no mention of founding Happy Valley School?
Aldous Huxley helped to found Happy Valley School, one of the most interesting private schools in Ojai, CA.
Not sure if this is an 'Official Source' but on the Old Gray Whistle Test DVD it mentions that Captain Beefheart worked as a door to door travelling salesman and tried to sell Huxley a hoover. Huxley was supposed to have said "Sir, this sucks."
Would this be consdiered suitable for a submission if I can get the exact quote? 22.214.171.124 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the anecdote says that Don Van Vliet (a.k.a. Captain Beefheart) tried to sell Aldous Huxley a vacuum cleaner using the line, "Sir, this thing sucks," upon introducing himself at Huxley's doorstep in the late fifties. Mike Barnes, author of Captain Beefheart: The Biography (New York; Cooper Square Press, 2002), has noted that the factuality of this account is, "Open to debate," on page nine of his book. A funny tidbit, but it probably doesn't qualify even as official Huxley trivia. Riskquette (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Huxley's quote on psychological totalitarianism "... because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods." is from when he lectured to The California Medical School in San Francisco in 1961, referenced here, and here, and here. All three mention this in the 'Later Years' section- I'm very sorry, all three are the same one but I don't know which one the other two are from, so I've provided all three links. Anyway! A couple quotes there have no reference whatsoever, so I figured this might help, but I'm not quite sure where to put it in. -Riot Lion- 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added in a section on Huxley's Literary Themes as I felt there was a lot of good information on his life but not so much on this aspect of the author's work. Ivankinsman 12:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- For a hostile view on his religious and mystical ideas see R.C. Zaehner.
Removed this from the opening paragraph; while I feel it's a valid inclusion it shouldn't be placed in the opening paragraph, as Zaehner's views of Huxley's philosophy hardly defined Huxley in any way. Naphra 14:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Trivia clean up
I'm removing some of the trivia which is already included in the main text. Also, removing:
Huxley has become the name of a beloved mini-schnauzer in Ottawa Ontario. Famous for his mischeivious pranks and devilish good looks.
Seems like, even if not vandalism, is hardly important enough to include here. Quine 13:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Banned for being ugly
"After World War II Huxley applied for United States citizenship, but was denied because he was ugly. Nevertheless he remained in the United States and in 1959 he turned down an offer of a Knight Bachelor by the Macmillan government."
Is this for real? I'm quite sure it isn't, and if it is, it needs to be better explained. They didn't have fashion police at Ellis Island.--Bill Slocum 20:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know why his citizenship was denied, but surely not because of that, so I removed that bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 23:21, May 9, 2007 (UTC)
- This was one of a spate of vandal edits on May 9. Fixed now. --Blainster 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- - -
The answer can be read in David King Dunaway (1989), "Huxley in Hollywood", pages 305-308.
Quotes: "[a]fter fourteen years resident aliens, they applied for American citizenship. [...] they encountered one last form. On it was the question: "Are you prepared to serve in the U.S. armed foces?" When Aldous Huxley answered "No", the near blind author of a half-dozen works on pacifism was summoned into a courtroom [...] A special hearing would then be necessary for naturalization, the judge informed them. When they left the building, Aldous's face was white. "They don't want us here!" he said in an uncharacteristic outburst. [Footnote 19: Betty Wendell, essay in the possession of Sybille Bedford.] [...] By February 1954, they had heard nothing. "If papers come through, well and good; if they don't, well and good also," he wrote Matthew. "Still, I wish we hadn't let ourselves in for this bother and confusion." [Footnote 22] A few days later they withdrew their application, renewed their British passport, and quietly resumed resident alien status." End of quotes.
Aldous loved his Encyclopaedia Britannica, but IMHO that's no reason for treating him so poorly on Wikipedia.
Ries Baeten, Brusssels, Belgium (where many letters of Huxley and Maria are kept in the library)
Source number one
Anyone notice that the first source in References is dated "(FUCK YOU!)"? TheConstrukt 07:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the problem. You can fix this sort of thing by just clicking on the "edit this page" tab at the top of the article. --Blainster 15:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There's been some drama about the external linking to Huxleygame. Could the people who keep linking to it please explain how the game is relevant to Aldous Huxley. All I've heard is, "This game is based on Aldous Huxley", which I find hard to believe. Perhaps it is based on one of his books? Thanks!--Heyitspeter 12:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The wikipedia article for Huxley (video game) and this website - http://videogames.yahoo.com/pc/huxley/preview-451216 - both disconfirm that the Huxley videogame is based on the novel, A Brave New World.
- Regardless of this, the Huxley video game has no worthwhile relation to Aldous Huxley the man, and I've removed the remaining link.--Heyitspeter 03:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are objections I'm going to trim down the Matthew Huxley section. Two paragraphs on what he did after his father died seems to be overkill.
Scott.wheeler 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be moved to a new article on Matthew? I'm not sure if he is notable enough... Urlass 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- My feeling from a quick search is that an article on him isn't warrented. Really I think it should be trimmed down to one sentance. More than that isn't really relevant in the article, fine fellow though he may have been. Scott.wheeler 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've restored the info - he was prominent enough to warrant a substantial obit in Washington Post. It seems that two paragraphs is warranted, given that he is Huxley's only child and all descendants of Huxley are through him. I just visited the article looking for information about this very topic. Sylvain1972 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)
The List Of Quotes
There used to be an admittedly, rather long list of quotes in this article. Was it really necessary to get rid of the ENTIRE thing? There were some really good ones in there and I felt they really helped demonstrate his view points and unique wit on many topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Vedanta classification would be appropriate, "Hinduism" isn't
Like many intellectuals of the late 19th and the 20th centuries who had a spiritual sensitivity or interest, Huxley was drawn to a study of the philosophies and "higher psychologies" of Buddhism and Vedanta. Though he may have been a vegetarian for a while, and was drawn to and studied with the Indian traditionalist Swami Prabhavananda, Huxley was not a convert to Hinduism. If anything, he was a Vedantist. Vedanta is a philosophical expression similar to the philosophical idealism or mysticism expressed by various well-known Western writers, going back centuries.
Hinduism encompasses the convictions, folk beliefs, and devotional religion of vast masses of people in India, many of whom have little or no knowledge of Vedanta. While popular religions of the world were a subject that Huxley read about and thought about, this can be said of very many curious and intellectually active Westerners who certainly never convert to Hinduism. Joel Russ (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That you can be "certain" that "curious and intellectually active Westerners... [would] never convert to Hinduism" tells how enlightened is your knowledge of the exact mindset of Aldous Huxley (I am sure you knew him quite intimately).
I agree, that you can object to Huxley's "converting" to Hinduism, because unlike major varieties of the Abrahamic faiths, there is no baptismal, ceremony (with circumcision), salaat, or a "method of conversion" associated with the majority of the thousands of belief systems (sometimes disjoint) which are associated with the term "Hinduism." But by your definition of Hinduism, enlightened Westernized Vedantists of Indian extraction would also "certainly never convert to Hinduism" - it is after all the religion of the foolish masses. And analogously, according to some, Jesus would be too pacifist to be called a Christian. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that in lack of certain fact (arguable), Huxley's supposed "conversion to Hinduism" (whatever that means) can be left out of a Wikipedia article. Instead, his familiarity and thoughts about Vedantism could be explained. However, Joel Russ's reason is certainly not why. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
huxleys final LSD
The article states 100 micrograms of LSD was consumed by Huxley as he was dying. Acutualy the dose was 10,000 micrograms! 100 micrograms of pure LSD wouldn't get an ant high. But the known dose of LSD for a human for the full effects of the drug to take affect is about 700 mics. 10,000 mics would be a near death experience. Also I'm sure the man had a tolerence for the drug. It would be nice to see this changed in the article to better represent the historicle facts.
Entjones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entjones (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, 100 micrograms is the correct quantity. http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BzvC2t_LeI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twipley (talk • contribs) 00:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The following quote in the article is listed as from Huxley's novel Point Counter Point. I'd like to know which page in that novel the quote is on:
"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion... Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain. Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from cat's meat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough." --Origamikid (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
[adds Ries Baeten, 6 November 2010:] Well, let me answer that for you then: The quote is rather from "Amor Fati", in "Texts and Pretexts", 1932, p. 270, after an extensive quote of a poem by Henry Vaughan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
First novel intentionally destroyed?
I wonder if anyone here can help me with a possibly faulty memory. I recall reading an article years ago which alleged that in the course of a transatlantic crossing, Huxley tossed the only copy of the manuscript for his first novel in the ocean, reckoning that "no one should have to read a writer's first efforts," or some such. Am I remembering this wrong, confusing him with another writer, or...? Any confirmation or denial would be welcome. Economy (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Either this is a mix of the "Titanic" and of "Stephen King," either something I haven't yet heard of. But if this is right then it is probably referenced in Murray's biography of Huxley. Twipley (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
NPOV dispute - Middle Years: Huxley's eyesight.
I have come across legitimate evidence for disputing the neutrality of (at least portions of) the following section of this article:
"For most of his life, since the illness in his teens which left Huxley nearly blind, his eyesight was poor (despite the partial recovery which had enabled him to study at Oxford). Around 1939, Huxley encountered the Bates Method for better eyesight, and a teacher, Margaret Corbett, who was able to teach him in the method. In 1940, Huxley relocated from Hollywood to a forty-acre ranchito in the high desert hamlet of Llano, California, in northernmost Los Angeles County. Huxley then said that his sight improved dramatically with the Bates Method and the extreme and pure natural lighting of the southwestern American desert. He reported that for the first time in over 25 years, he was able to read without glasses and without strain. He even tried driving a car along the dirt road beside the ranch. He wrote a book about his successes with the Bates Method, The Art of Seeing which was published in 1942 (US), 1943 (UK).
"However, while his vision had undoubtedly improved, it remained imperfect and variable. Ten years later, in 1952, Bennett Cerf was present when Huxley spoke at a Hollywood banquet, wearing no glasses and apparently reading his paper from the lectern without difficulty:
"'Then suddenly he faltered—and the disturbing truth became obvious. He wasn't reading his address at all. He had learned it by heart. To refresh his memory he brought the paper closer and closer to his eyes. When it was only an inch or so away he still couldn't read it, and had to fish for a magnifying glass in his pocket to make the typing visible to him. It was an agonizing moment.'
"This incident well exemplifies Huxley’s own words in The Art of Seeing:
"'The most characteristic fact about the functioning of the total organism, or any part of the organism, is that it is not constant, but highly variable. ... People with unimpaired eyes and good habits of using them possess, so to speak, a wide margin of visual safety. Even when their seeing organs are functioning badly, they still see well enough for most practical purposes. Consequently they are not so acutely conscious of variations in visual functioning as are those with bad seeing habits and impaired eyes. These last have little or no margin of safety; consequently any diminution in seeing power produces noticeable and often distressing results.'"
The evidence to which I refer is contained in Laura Archera Huxley's biographical perspective of Aldous Huxley, This Timeless Moment (New York; Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1968)—specifically the chapter entitled, "That Poor Fellow—He Can Hardly See" (pgs. 55-67). Regarding the content of that chapter, it becomes quite clear that Laura Archera Huxley herself (at least) would very likely dispute a number of points in the above section from this article—in particular, I suggest, the quoting exclusively from Bennett Cerf's article as a commentary on Aldous Huxley's seeing efficacy and in exemplifying the reception to his book, The Art of Seeing. I would be most obliged to cite direct quotes from Laura Archera Huxley's book (in e-mail, so as to avoid possible copyright infringement) which illustrate my discovery and constitute my reason for dispute of the above section. Furthermore, I have emboldened the most explicitly disputable areas of the above section of text from the article, in a modest attempt to facilitate greater ease in its revision. In these areas, at the very least, I suggest rewording and/or more comprehensive qualification and contextualization of evidence. My e-mail is email@example.com. Riskquette (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Riskquette and welcome to wikipedia. Thanks for your information about Huxley's eyesight. I'd like to suggest an alternative way of proceeding, more in keeping with the wikipedia way. If you read WP:BOLD you will see that the way to do it is just for you to change the article to be what you think it should be, taking care to give a full reference to Laura Archera Huxley's book. If people agree that what you've done is right and fair, nothing happens; your edit becomes the article. If people disagree, they change it back, and then you argue it out on this talk page. Happy editing! SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the quote about heroin usage (in the Quotes section of the article) should at very least be provided with a citation: what is its source and date? If it is authentic (and it may not be), then it probably was a passing opinion. By the mid or late 1950s, Huxley was quite aware of the differences between opiates (and similar narcotic type drugs) and the psychedelics.
Huxley wrote critically of the effects of drugs of complacency. However, he committed himself to explaining what he saw as the value of drugs offering insights, self-knowledge, and a wider view of life.
I realize that the sentences in the "quote" in question are provocative (probably why they were put in the article) — but since there is no context given, this quote may be misleading as an expression of the mature Huxley's overall view of things.Joel Russ (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded several new high-res public domain photos of Aldous Huxley (and others) by Ottoline Morrell, below. They'll take some restoring before they're useful, but I think many will be useful. See also Commons:Commons_talk:Media_restoration#Suggested_for_restoration. Dcoetzee 01:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Aldous Huxley; Eric Dickinson; Edward Joseph Harrington O'Brien by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Aldous Huxley; Hon. Dorothy Eugénie Brett; Mark Gertler by Lady Ottoline Morrell (2).jpg
Aldous Huxley; Hon. Dorothy Eugénie Brett; Mark Gertler by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Aldous Huxley; Maria Huxley (née Nys); Baroness Franchitti; Philip Edward Morrell by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Aldous Huxley; Maria Huxley (née Nys); Matthew Huxley; Mimi Gielgud by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Aldous Huxley; Mark Gertler; Arthur Murry by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Aldous Huxley; Philip Edward Morrell by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Madeline Clinkard; Aldous Huxley; Mark Gertler; Philip Edward Morrell by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Maria Huxley (née Nys); Aldous Huxley; Philip Edward Morrell by Lady Ottoline Morrell (2).jpg
Maria Huxley (née Nys); Aldous Huxley; Philip Edward Morrell by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Maria Huxley (née Nys); Julian Ottoline Vinogradoff (née Morrell); Basil de Selincourt; Aldous Huxley; Philip Edward Morrell by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Mark Gertler; Aldous Huxley; Hon. Dorothy Eugénie Brett by Lady Ottoline Morrell (2).jpg
Mark Gertler; Aldous Huxley; Hon. Dorothy Eugénie Brett by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Mark Gertler; Hon. Dorothy Eugénie Brett; Aldous Huxley by Lady Ottoline Morrell (2).jpg
Mark Gertler; Hon. Dorothy Eugénie Brett; Aldous Huxley by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Rose Nys; Matthew Huxley; Maria Huxley (née Nys); Aldous Huxley; George M. Baltus by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Hon. Dorothy Eugénie Brett; Mark Gertler; Aldous Huxley with Lady Ottoline Morrell's pug Soie by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Could someone update the article to include the quotes from his work - "Confessions of a Professed Atheist"
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Yoenit (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence Aldous Huxley had any interest in parapsychology, none of his books deal with parapsychology, so why is that put in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- To deal with your concern I have added a tag requesting a source for that information. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Huxley's lost play - Now More Than Ever
I've added a small reference in the drama section and in the external references. I know more than I can add but that would oount as original research and raise hackles. Feel free to delete but you'll be doing Huxley's legacy a disservice if you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregpalmerx (talk • contribs) 09:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Can a section be added explaining what Aldous Huxley's religious views were? Some websites seem to say he was an atheist, but according to some parts of the article he studied vedanta hinduism, but what were his actual religious views?. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
He wrote a book called "perennial philosophy" which basically explained there is a common element of truth in all religions. He wrote another book about God where he described his vedanta view of God. However in other essays he expressed his atheist beliefs. It is confusing. You do not need to have fixed religious views, but to write a book about the truth in all religions to then support atheism or vedenta hinduism. Makes no sense. For the article, it is misleading if someone wants to know his actual beliefs. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). — goethean ॐ 17:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Construction of the first sentence
Rothorpe has undone a change that I made to the first sentence of the article. My suggestion was to say not
- "Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963) was an English writer and one of the most prominent members of the famous Huxley family."
- "Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963), one of the most prominent members of the famous Huxley family, was an English writer."
Rothorpe argues "it makes more sense to put 'writer' first". I hold against this that the fact of Huxley having been a writer is stronger stressed when one constructs the sentence as I have suggested it to be constructed. When the sentence runs as Rothorpe suggests, the fact of Huxley having been a writer is stated with the same strength as the fact that he was a member of the famous Huxley family. According to my suggestion, this latter fact would not be stated in an own phrase, at all, but only be inserted as an attribute, between commas.
- I personally believe the first sentence is better. The second might be a better construction in German, but not in English. Sorry. Yworo (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Don`t overlook that the article goes on so that You have the choice between:
- "Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963) was an English writer and one of the most prominent members of the famous Huxley family. He spent the later part of his life in the United States, living in Los Angeles from 1937 until his death. (...)"
- "Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963), one of the most prominent members of the famous Huxley family, was an English writer. He spent the later part of his life in the United States, living in Los Angeles from 1937 until his death. (...)"
We are told Huxley was "an intellectual of the highest rank". This is referred to a book, with no separate proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) LSD causes numerous car crashes. There is nothing intellectual about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Huxley Review of 1984
Huxley reviewed Orwell's 1984. he concluded that the world described in Brave New World was more likely to happen than was Orwell's in 1984. Should we included a brief discussion? Enthusiasmcurbed (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Position during WWII ?
What was Huxley's position during WWII ? Did he opposed it as a pacifist or supported it all the same ? Did he write something about it ? Some articles ? Some books ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I just added a link to publicly available digitized materials (lots of photographs, but other documents as well) held in UCLA Library's Special Collections. It's a rich resource that I think others will find meaningful and useful, but I'm mentioning it here because I'm a librarian at UCLA. I had nothing to do with the creation of the project, but I still want to make sure that it's generally agreed by page editors that this doesn't represent a conflict of interest. Nafpaktitism (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)nafpaktitism
Doors of Perception listed under 'Novels' (and also, correctly, under 'Essay Collections')
Please omit the line, " Peter Kreeft's book Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis, & Aldous Huxley."
I'm not an expert in the the Wikipedia discussion pages so apologies in advance for miscues.
It seems to me this line, " Peter Kreeft's book Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis, & Aldous Huxley," does not warrant being in the article, as it detracts from both Huxley and Kennedy.
Kreeft is a conservative Evangelical apologist, which wouldn't matter, per se, but the book itself is purely on theology, and makes constant negative tendentious misleading theological references to both Huxley and Kennedy, in its bias for C.S. Lewis.
This work in evangelical theological apologetics doubtless deserves a brief mention in the bibliography, and possibly in the Wikipedia article text iself on C.S. Lewis, but certainly not in the article's text itself on Aldous Huxley, any more than it would on the Wikipedia article's text on John F. Kennedy.
It's in fact already in the bibliography here--which is fine. But it surely doesn't belong in the text of the article.
Thanks very much and thanks for The Wikipedia.
There's currently an AfD for The Travails and Tribulations of Geoffrey Peacock. I've done a little research and I'm pretty much 99.9% certain that this book is a hoax. There's no mention of this book anywhere but in very basic bibliography lists in places that appear to have pulled from this article. The school that supposedly owns a copy of this book has never owned a copy of it. I'm going to remove it from the article. I mean, given the amount of people who have written about Huxley as a whole, it's very, very suspicious that none of his biographies ever mention him writing a second children's book, not even in passing. Sure, someone could say it's because of the small printing, but that doesn't make sense either because at some level a researcher would unearth some sort of actual proof. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to have got into the article on 25 February 2008, here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Huxley as a Hollywood screenwriter.
The article says that Huxley's success in Hollywood was 'minimal'. However, the only evidence it quotes is that Disney decided not to use one particular script, 'Alice in Wonderland'. Since it's common for even extremely successful screenwriters to have particular scripts rejected, this doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps more importantly, it's specifically contradicted by Christopher Isherwood's 'My Guru and his Disciple'. Isherwood, who was himself a very successful screenwriter who describes himself as earning $500 per week (itself a large sum at the time), describes himself as being envious of Huxley's much greater screenwriting success and income (which he puts at $3,000 per week). Isherwood also says that Huxley devoted most of his income to sponsoring German friends and acquaintances escaping Hitler's Germany.
Can someone please fix this? I don't know what if anything should replace this paragraph, but it can't stand as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChengduTeacher (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Potential Inaccuracy Regarding Huxley Brother
On this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley) in paragraph one under the heading "Early Life" the birth and subsequent suicide of Huxley's brother Trevenen is mentioned. Here however, his name is purported to be "Noel Trevelyan Huxley" which I believe to be false, having read numerous biographical accounts of the subject's life by acclaimed sources (James Sexton's "Selected Letters of.." and Nicholas Murray's "...An English Intellectual"). Trevenen, from what I understand, was an old family name originating from the Matthew Arnold (i.e. his mother's) side of the family. Further evidence to support that this may be an error comes from the name of Huxley's grandson, Mark Trevenen Huxley - another occurrence of the old family name. I was not able to access the source pertaining to this matter (number 5 listed under references) and was therefore not able to confirm nor deny my hunch. Regardless of its insignificance, I feel this was still worth mentioning. I've not yet attempted to make any changes regarding the inaccuracy, as I'm not entirely certain that I'm right. Any confirmation or denial on the subject would be helpful.