Talk:Georg Brandes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Jewish?[edit]

Removed the wording "Jewish" in the first line. Brandes never regarded himself jewish and was not a member of the jewish community in Denmark and was in general regarded as very critical towards any religion. This is of course a matter of definition. If being "jewish" is a race-biological definition, then he might or might not have been jewish ... I know very little about race-biology:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsten Levin (talkcontribs) 07:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Søren Krarup[edit]

Removed the word "prominent" from the section about Søren Krarup. He can hardly be considered a prominent member of the danish parliament, as he is a part of the extreme right, and is largely ignored by the greater part of the danish public

Which is largely why I have taken the liberty of removing that section altogether (it was also unsourced). Undue weight on the opinion of some obscure Danish right wing politican. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No complete bibliography?[edit]

Shame on the editor. This writer's meaning and value was through his writings. Not presenting a complete list is a major weakness of this article. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are wrong on both accounts. Brandes' influence was largely through his lectures and personal relations with the thinkers of his time - his writings are rarely cited nowadays, and generally people who know of him don't know about any of his specific works (except maybe the "main currents" which was a lecture series). Furthermore there already is a substantial list of his works in the external links section.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with your assessment. His works have been reprinted numerous times, and they are very accessible even for people without any special training in the field. Most recently a publisher has announced that his monography on Søren Kierkegaard will be reprinted in connection with the 200 year anniversary of the birth of that philosopher. It is of course correct that academically his views are outdated and mostly referred to in the historiographical sections of works of the history of literature, but he is still impossible to ignore if you are a scholar in the field, and still a very entertaining read if you are a layman. And to the OP you are more than welcome to add a bibliography to the article. After all anyone can edit. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)