Talk:Daniel Handler

Untitled

This page ought to redirect the other way around due to name recognition, c.f. Lewis Carroll. Ashiibaka tlk 06:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be articles for both Lemony Snicket and Daniel Handler, since Snicket is a fictional character as well as a pseudonym. Lee M 17:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I concur. While Lemony Snicket the pseudonym may play the accordion I hope only Lemony Snicket the fictional character has walked up corridors made from skulls, raced volcanoes and had unfortunate things happen to the loves of his life. And I've only read up to the Miserable Mill!

I also Agree, The only reason Handler used the pseudonym was because he was creating a fictional character, he planned to use his own name, until the writer of the Baudilere books took on a life of his own.

Oh, and apparently Mr. Handler has worked in the band the 6ths too (along with half the indie pantheon of the mid-nineties and before, it would seem). sheridan 20:52, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Isn't Daniel Handler also a screenplay writer?

The name appears on the Lemony Snicket film credits - if you have information about other films that'd be of interestsheridan 18:50, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

When is a vandal not a vandal?

A recent vandal remarked "He is married to Lisa Brown." This actually appears to be true. Perhaps the vandal was trying to make amends? He (DH) met Brown, a graphic artist, at university, it would appear. Rich Farmbrough 21:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should've checked on that. The same vandal wrote similar stuff in the Sex and the City article, so I assumed it was some schoolgirls trying to be cute saying one of them was married to this guy. – flamurai^TM 22:07, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

He is married to Lisa Brown. What did the vandal actually do that was bad? General messing up pages? Anyway, yep, the vandal's right. LordMooCow 9:52, July 3, 2005 (GMT+10)

University

He is married to Lisa Brown, a graphic artist he met at university

Very Long Intro

Daniel, as Lemony, has also done an intro to a very long titled book: "Noisy Outlaws, Unfriendly Blobs, and Some Other Things That Aren't as Scary, Maybe, Depending on How You Feel About Lost Lands, Stray Cellphones, Creatures from the Sky, Parents Who Disappear in Peru, a Man Named Lars Farf, and One Other Story We Couldn't Quite Finish, so Maybe You Could Help Us Out." I haven't seen the intro, and I don't know if it is noteworthy enough to put on here. Anybody else know? --JCoug 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm

do any of you know daneil handlers email adress???

lsnicket@harpercollins.com Umm...nope..<33333...== yeah, the part about him being a very talented author and how many children love his books seems like totally unnescesary, so i'll remove it.----The Guilty Undertaker.

why do you wont to know his emial he will not aswer you because he is so busy working and spending time with his family duh or writing books that i want to read so stop wordering that k bye bye!

people have emailed him in the past, however, his email automatically sends you a message in sebald code. The Guilty Undertaker. 18:30, 27 July 2006

more info

dear snicket, i was going to research you for a project but there was bearly any info so my point is to just add more under both names. thanx!!

with all due respect, a fan/reader of your work

If you're trying to get in touch with Daniel Handler this is not the place to do it. He's not responsible for the content on this page. Hope you found the info you needed. --Grace 23:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

--Klaus Baude 123 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)One of my friends dad, the dads friend is one of Daniel Handlers friend.

Merge with Lemony Snicket

Doesn't seem to make much sense to me having a seperate page for the pseudonym, this should be merged with Daniel Handler. Maybe a page should be made for the character with the same name. darkskyz 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC))Contribution moved from Lemony Snicket#Merge with Daniel Handler)--Jerzy•t 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lemony Snicket should be dedicated to the character of that name, while info on the writer using the pseudonym should be moved into this page. darkskyz 16:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It'd be too confusing to mix and match the two articles. The only suggestion (if any) is to divide Lemony Snicket's article into seperate sections.--CyberGhostface 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging Handler and Snicket makes little sense, as Snicket is also a significant character in A Series of Unfortunate Events, and the distinction between Snicket as an author and Snicket as a character is highly blurry (if it even exists). It's so much simpler - and in my opinion, makes more sense - to keep information on Lemony Snicket on the Lemony Snicket page, and information about Daniel Handler on the Daniel handler page. 81.132.183.220 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• The above contrib was copied, under a note reading

See comments on Talk: Daniel Handler. My copy-pasted view:

to Lemony Snicket#Merge with Daniel Handler and signed with "81.132.183.220 20:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)" Sig moved from Lemony Snicket#Merge with Daniel Handler--Jerzy•t 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Below it, the copying contributor added,

Besides, what information would you class as relating to Snicket the pseudonym, and what relates to Snicket the character? Both the pseudonym and the character are the canonical writer of the books (not just ASOUE but his other works as well), and Handler in his personal appearances presents Snicket as a separate individual rather than a simple pen name.

1 'graph moved from Lemony Snicket#Merge with Daniel Handler--Jerzy•t 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense. The pseudonym is simply another name of the author, who is a real person, and is likely, as with Mark Twain to be the best means of providing access to the author's bio. What is true about him is exactly what is true about DH, and is verified by consulting works of non-fiction. There is nothing true about the fictional character of the same name except what appears in works of fiction, and the only amibiguity rests on uncertainty about what, if anything, in the bios on the works of fiction corresponds to the facts of the real person. In this case, my impression is the bios treat the other fictional characters as being as real as the LS that they describe, so they are further works of fiction, applying only to the fictional character. Any further ambiguity can be mentioned both places as uncertain in its significance. (It is conceivable that there is enuf material for an article on Lemony Snicket ambiguities that could be referenced from both places.
  --Jerzy•t 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  

Propose that, if votes against continue to dominate a fortnight after the original suggestion, we call this a majority against merging the articles and scrap the merge tags. 81.132.183.220 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the merge as the persona Lemony Snicket is an odd one that isn't just the pseudonym for the author but part of the story. It is thus quite hard to disentangle the two with a simple merge/redirect without messing up the Daniel Handler page. ps: I haven't actually read any of the books and have just watched the ASOUE movie on DVD so kind of neutral in view. Ttiotsw 17:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We Shouldn't merge Handler with Snicket. Instead, We should merge Snicket with Handler! Makes perfect sence! Dabeebo929 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions is policy that calls for using the name he is best known by (and see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) for details on the issue), so the answer depends on what has not been discussed here, let alone been backed by sound arguments (i.e., supported by evidence). Unless i scanned too rapidly, the discussion here so far is far from what is needed to decide the merging and naming questions. My current opinion (well-informed on the principle, but based on a casual inspection of the particulars of the LS/DH topic(s)) is that

1. the DH name should Rdr to Lemony Snicket (person), a bio covering his life, including a list of all his works under either name.
2. Lemony Snicket (fiction) should have a small early section about the fictional life of the character, with a lk to the bio of the person who uses the pseudonym, but should have most of its bulk devoted to the Lemony Snicket series of books, which is probably also better known by the LS name than by either the formal title or the fictional family's name.

But don't be in a rush to make the decision.
--Jerzy•t 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't make sense to list all Handler's works on a page about Snicket; Snicket doesn't encompass Handler, but if it's going to be like that, Handler does encompass Snicket. So if some merge absolutely must be made (which I'm far from convinced about, as the current mechanism not only works fine but makes sense), I'd say to make the Lemony Snicket page about the character, and add a subsection about Handler's identity as the author Snicket on Daniel Handler's page. That would be considerably muddying the waters of a very simple issue, though. Snicket is a fictional character presented as having written the books that bear his name upon them. (Additionally, the existence of the books within the fictional world in which they take place is acknowledged, meaning that while in reality Snicket is just a pseudonym, in the universe in which the books take place nothing such is true, and Snicket is the author.) It isn't sufficient or accurate to say that Daniel Handler = Lemony Snicket or vice-versa. When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? The answer is that they would put in Lemony Snicket's name if they were looking for a book by Lemony Snicket or for information about the Snicket character, and they would put in Daniel Handler's name if they were looking for a book by Daniel Handler or information about the person Handler. 217.44.118.112 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Handler's "Adjusted Income" article in the NYT Magazine

The June 10, 2007 issue of the New York Times Magazine (p. 106) includes an article by Daniel Handler describing his guilt about whether he donates enough money to charity. Mr. Handler uses this potentially interesting introduction to quickly move on to a discussion of his immense annual income and wealth, including a personal income ranking down to the thousandth of a percent. It also includes amusing anecdotes about how truly ridiculously wealthy Mr. Handler's friends and family imagine him to be, when he is in fact merely "monstrous[ly]" wealthy.

Mr. Handler tells us that the amount of money he gave to one charity in one year is more than 99% of the rest of the world makes per year, which is an efficient way of turning a private act of generosity into a noisy public spectacle. Mr. Handler's rug, were it a person, would rank at the 15th percentile of incomes worldwide, he helpfully shares. Sadly, no information was provided on the expense of his silk boxer shorts or the size of the tip he left the waitress at Chez Panisse, or how many people he told about it on the way out the door to the valet.

Read Daniel Handler drone on and on about his wealth and mock people who can't comprehend it (Times Select)

full version—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.223.85.152 (talk • contribs).

You devoted 45 minutes and 14 edits to this? --ShelfSkewed Talk 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It was one of the most remarkable pieces of literary narcissism I've ever read. This is my first Wiki edit. Do you have a point you'd like to make?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.223.85.152 (talk • contribs).

I made my point. Why not do something to improve Wikipedia rather than spending time on axe-grinding? This isn't the place for it. --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO User:69.223.85.152 did improve Wikipedia by this comment. It was way more informative than anything written on this talk page - especially since the article in question is hidden behind a paywall - and more interesting than a lot that was included in the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

A quick read of the article shows that it’s clearly a short piece intended to be humorous. I would argue the original poster here sounds bitter and irrationally upset. Additionally, the article contains nothing that would need to be included in an encyclopedic entry. I suppose we could enter a line about Handler’s estimated net worth? But not a paragraph of one person’s opinion of a little passage Handler wrote 15 years ago. Apathyash (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I cannot read the article itself due to the paywall and overzealous reaction to adblockers.

You say "the article contains nothing that would need to be included in an encyclopedic entry" and yet the very same article served as the basis for an entire paragraph, one that was even longer before I cut it down to encyclopedic size. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

More Imfo

You need to have more stuff like when and why did you start to write. Thanks, Kayte fasco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.245.235.239 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can find (or know of) verifiable information, then by all means, add it yourself.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Basiceight.jpg

The image File:Basiceight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Handler and Snicket

FYI, these two authors are catalogued distinctly by the U.S. Library of Congress (contrast its treatment of Sam Clemens[1]), VIAF and WorldCat. Evidently, the German national database has a single listing (Snicket) but it's not working as I complete template {{Authority control}} at the foot of this article, twice.

LC does assign the same Library of Congress Classification, thus library call numbers of their books both begin "PS3558.A4636". It provides a reference showing that the librarians learned years before some of us: "Phone call to pub., 03/12/99 (Daniel Handler also uses the name: Lemony Snicket)"; vice versa for LS.

At Talk: Authority control i have learned that many databases and some webpages use the control numbers in order to automate links both to the catalog pages for these two authors *and* (after we have added this template) to their wikipedia biographies. I don't yet know whether it can work to put both at the foot of this article.

My primary purpose in reporting here now is to inform that there is high-level professional interest in distinguishing DH and LS. --P64 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

National Book Awards ceremony

I think the IP has it right. It's not yet clear if Handler's remarks will have lasting significance so right now, it's just a piece of news. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. An article full of praise regarding his other views (wealth, religion, etc.) should include someting to balance the point of view. Additionally, the racist joke was made in such an notable situation that I find it to be news worthy of including. Maybe not as a section of its own, but certainly in the "personal life" area. Stamboliyski (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We Are Pirates

The following are reviews of We Are Pirates, Handler's recent book: [2][3]. I don't have time to summarise them in the article now, and haven't actually read the book, but We Are Pirates may be notable enough to deserve its own article if someone wants to create one. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

How to Dress for Every Occasion (by the Pope)

The role of Handler's wife Lisa Brown in creation of this 2005 picture book may be unknown, at least to some libraries. As the point is more important Talk:Lisa Brown (artist). --P64 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Handler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927210151/http://www.theweeweb.co.uk/public/author_profile.php?id=497 to http://www.theweeweb.co.uk/public/author_profile.php?id=497

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Handler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407072505/http://columbiajournal.org/issues/issue-51/journal-51-table-of-contents/daniel-handler to http://columbiajournal.org/issues/issue-51/journal-51-table-of-contents/daniel-handler

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEAD and bad jokes

I removed this section from the lead:

In 2014, Handler was criticized for making a joke about watermelon directed at African-American author Jacqueline Woodson, and in 2018, women accused Handler of verbal sexual harassment at book conferences.

This places undue weight on a minor controversy that is only marginally covered by mainstream sources, and is not why the subject is notable. Events in the lead section must be held to a higher standard of notability than simply including in the article. Elassint ^Hi 06:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that "Criticism of racism and sexism" is bordering on BLP-vio, but "Controversy" is not an encyclopedic heading – it doesn't accurately establish what the section is about. Given that about a third of the sources in the articles are about the "watermelon" and #metoo incidents, I thought it should be covered in the lead (WP:LEAD says "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight"). Also, MOS:OPENPARA clearly doesn't apply to things other than the opening paragraph (i.e. the third paragraph of the lead). These are two significant news stories spread years apart so I think just a sentence in the lead is appropriate. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Elassint in case they haven't seen my response. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree over the use of the word "Controversy" as it's used on quite a large swath of articles, especially on living persons, and on this article can be used as a blanket over two unrelated controversial events. As for the lead sentence, it strikes me like a teaser for content in the controversy section as previously written. I see your point about summarizing aspects of the article, but the true purpose of the lead is to provide "a concise overview of the article's topic". Weight isn't everything, some facts are more important than others. That being said, you're justified to add it back in if neutral sources prove that the events deserve to stand alongside his writing career. Oh, and everything in the lead also needs to be sourced directly in the lead, even if it's already sourced down below - looking back, this is what gave me a bad gut reaction to the sentence. Elassint ^Hi 04:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean it's quite clear that these statements can be sourced given that they appear, referenced, in the body of the article; this isn't a reason to remove the content, but to add the incites to the lead. I don't really understand how a criterion like "neutral sources prove that the events deserve to stand alongside his writing career" could possibly be met. There are at least a couple of dozen sources about these events, while his accordion playing and even The Basic Eight (both mentioned in the lead) are not covered to the same extent in mainstream sources (though of course, by far Handler is most notable for ASOUE).

We're agreed that "Controversy" is a bad title – I struggle to think of a better one though. "Criticism of public conduct"? Do you have any suggestions? Also, in this case several sources about Handler's harassment behaviour refer back to the 2014 watermelon incident, suggesting that it is part of the same problem, so I don't think in this specific case that we're using "Controversy" as a "blanket" to link unrelated things. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)