Talk:Ann Bannon

Awadewit's comments on "Themes" and "Style" sections

Finally I have time to delve in these sections! If I'm being too picky, let me know.

• Since so little information was available about lesbians and lesbianism at the time, Bannon's books, through their far-reaching distribution and popularity served to form a part of a lesbian identity. - I'm wondering if "information" is really the right word here. Is information what allows people to form a lesbian identity? Hm. What about "representations" or something like that? I thought the theory was that the more lesbians are represented in culture, the more people feel comfortable articulating a lesbian identity.

• Bannon's depictions of lesbians served not only the heterosexual population at large, but lesbians themselves. - I'm not sure that "served" is the best word for a general readership.

• Loewenstein remarks that readers in 1980 had a tendency to reject that kind of reality in Bannon's stories - Was it reality or a fictional portrayal of reality?

• Bannon addressed the criticisms of her characters as self-destructive in limiting roles, in the new forewords to the Cleis Press editions, explaining that she simply depicted what she knew and felt at the time - Awkward wording at the beginning of the sentence

• I'm wondering how easy it is to separate "Identity" from "Gender". They seem part of the same thread in the novels. Would "Lesbian identity" be a better way to focus the first section?

• Andrea Loewenstein notes Bannon's use of cliché, suggesting that it reflected Bannon's own belief in the culturally repressive ideas of the 1950s - How did Bannon use cliche to suggest repression? This is not exactly explained to the reader.

• Barale writes that Bannon manipulates male readers to become interested in the story, then turns them into voyeurs and imposes homosexual desires upon them, though eventually places them in a safe position to understand a gay story from a heterosexual point of view - awkward phrasing

• The erotic nature of the books has been noted. - Weak transition

• Loewenstein remarks on the intensity of Laura's passion: "The presentation of a woman as a joyfully aggressive person is, in itself, a rare achievement in 1957" - Quote doesn't seem to support either claim of eroticism or intensity of Laura's passion.

• While a 2002 retrospective of Bannon's books claims "there were more explicit and nuanced representations of sexuality in those paperbacks than could be found almost anywhere else". - sentence fragment

• The last paragraph of "Style" seems like it belongs in the "Legacy" section.

• There are lots of quotations in these sections. You might try reducing the number by paraphrasing more of them.

• There is a little bit of repetition between the book descriptions and the "Themes" and "Style" sections now. Have you thought about trying to integrate these various sections? (Gasp, horror, I know.)

I think these are excellent additions to the article. Not many editors would take the time to add to an article that was already featured. You are one of those rare gems. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, articles are never finished. That can be good, or cause for insanity. Today, I'll consider it good. I very much appreciate your attention and remarks. I'll work on these issues over the next few days. One question I had: I use a lot of quotations because these sections basically interpret the books for the reader. I want to make sure that it's the scholars' words making those statements, not I. Is this more of a style issue from one editor to the next? --Moni3 (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but paragraphs full of quotations are actually hard to read. It is easier to read and to understand the concepts (which in these sections are actually pretty advanced) if the article is written in one style with the choice quotation here or there, if you see what I mean. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll give it a shot and take on the responsibility of paraphrasing their words. Thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Five or six novels?

In the first sentence it states that she wrote six novels. Yet only five are listed under The Beebo Brinker Chronicles. What was the sixth novel? HairyWombat (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Marriage is included in the section describing Journey to a Woman. It was the one that was not reprinted as it only tangentially dealt with homosexuality. Still quite an interesting read, though. --Moni3 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I find it strange that the author only lists five on her website. The article might also mention that the book The Beebo Brinker Chronicles is a compilation of only four of the five novels, and excludes Journey to a Woman. HairyWombat (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It states in the Rediscovery section that the reprints of her books by Naiad Press excluded The Marriage. The Beebo Brinker Chronicles are generally considered a compilation of all the books excluding The Marriage. The Book of the Month Club selection that you referenced is not a definitive compilation of the collection. The state adaptation, for example, includes only material from I Am a Woman, Women in the Shadows, and Journey to a Woman. I don't know why the Book of the Month Club excluded Journey to a Woman. It could have been something as dull as copyright documentation was unclear. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is lacking

I just read this article because it was the featured article of the day, but I have to say that it is somewhat lacking.

1) Many of the claims are unreferenced. For example, it is stated two or three times that the author was "stunned" when she learned of the impact her books had on the gay community. Where does this assertion come from?

2) The article contains very little about the author's personal life. At the very least, her husband should be mentioned by name and her marital status listed in the factbox. This is standard procedure for writers (including men - see Ernest Hemingway for example). The article also states that the "difficult" marriage ended in divorce, but does not explain how or why the marriage was difficult.

3) Is she gay? The article doesn't say. Does she / did she have female lovers? The article doesn't say. This is a major oversight for such a lengthy article about a woman who is being held up as a hero for gays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article isn't really about Ann Bannon, it's about her work. +Angr 06:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Still it is a great article about her work. I just wish there was more about her in it. Great read though! Colincbn (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It was promoted to Featured back in 2007 - would it make it today? Part of the problem is she is still alive, so BLP rules apply. If she is not publicly "out" it's not possible to comment on her sexual orientation, which unfortunately is the key piece of information the article needs to be complete. Also can't comment on her husband's name. It's a "limitation" (feature) of Wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For an ostensibly biographical article, the current draft does seem somewhat thin on detail about its subject's life. Which would be a starting point for expansion in a normal article, but this is a featured one, so it's a little surprising. I would certainly accept that BLP issues abound here, so perhaps this article needs to switch from biography to one about her books? Much as Angr implies, it's most of the way there already. A shorter biographical article that was not a FA could then be created separately. --PLUMBAGO 09:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you guys think should be included that is currently not? --Moni3 (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For my part, the article reads as being a lot more about the novels than about the novelist. To be honest, my initial perception of the article as being bio-lite was in part down to the way in which biographical elements are threaded through the sections on the various novels. This is good writing, to be sure, but it's not as clear as it could (should?) be for an encyclopedia. Admittedly, after having now looked at articles on a few other novelists, this one isn't especially light on biography, but I still think it has an odd balance. Bunching more of the biographical material together at the top of the article, then opening the floor for the material on her work might work better. But perhaps too structured and formalised. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Great subject; suspenseful; looks well researched. Congratulations to all involved! But a "featured article" should be copy-edited: no one benefits from sloppy syntax. I fixed a few stylistic problems between "Background" and the 1960 books. It wasn't hard: the ideas are good and clear. Wegesrand (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well for starters the article never names her husband. Centy – reply • contribs – 12:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is limited by WP:Verifiability. I was unable to find the name of her husband in a reliable source that discusses her life. --Moni3 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I too am rather surprised at the poor quality of this article, and was shocked it was a featured article until I saw it had been promoted in 2007. One of the glaring things I noted was as noted above; the lack of details of her personal life. This really does read as much of a history of the writings of the books she wrote, rather than a biographical article of her. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest should be included? --Moni3 (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What should be included? Much more about her private life (husband, lovers). Maybe some stuff about how many books she's sold. It should address the issue of her sexual orientation. If her sexual orientation is unknown, then this should be stated. If her marriage was to be "difficult" then it should say why it was difficult (or just delete that reference altogether). The bits about her being "stunned" at the effects of her book should be referenced to a reliable source.

Fair use book covers

I've removed the four non-free bookcovers that were on this article. The first two images were used in the sections "Odd Girl Out" and "I Am a Woman", which contain links to the main article for those books where the covers reside. There's no necessity to replicate them here. The second two were used in "Rediscovery" and "Legacy". In the former of those the cover itself was only loosely mentioned, and not specifically. In the latter case, it wasn't mentioned at all. All four of these images were being used decoratively. Further, the objection to covers in bibliographies has some weight here. Also, all four images had rationales that were meaningless to this article stating their use here as acceptable because "It illustrates an educational article about the book from which the cover illustration was taken" and "The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic". Neither statement is true for the usage on this article, thus all four images fail WP:NFCC requirements for this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted you about this on your talk page. The book covers from 1957 to 1962 are in the public domain. Gold Medal Books went out of business in the early 1970s. The book cover artwork copyrights were never renewed. --Moni3 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can you prove that? A company going out of business does not automatically mean their rights are void. Other companies may have purchased rights to those books (for example Cleis Press). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the text. The cover art specifically. What sort of reliable source would suffice? Bannon herself? I have an email from her that confirms that the original artwork for her books is no longer under copyright. I can send it to you or OTRS. Bannon also gives an interview where she discusses the fact that the cover art for most of these pulp novels is no longer copyrighted. For the Cleis Press editions, other 50s and 60s pulp art was recycled on the Cleis covers. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• It would be best to send it to OTRS. They can then re-tag the images. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you check OTRS tickets? --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, I'm not on the OTRS team. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The email has been sent. I've asked Moonriddengirl to check it. I don't know if she's around. In the past it's taken weeks for OTRS to respond with a ticket number. --Moni3 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the covers add substantially to the article and hope they can be re-added. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• The non-copyrighted covers, sure, once they clear OTRS. The copyrighted, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The copyrighted, no. - Author Bio articles are improved by the inclusion of book covers, which are discussed in the article, they provide a visual narrative which is important in establishing the identity of the author, it's more than just decorative. Also, Wikipedia articles are meant to be stand-alone, that is, the article content could be re-produced in any medium (CD-ROM, printed in a book with no hyperlinks, copied to another website) without the need to have the rest of Wikipedia.Org to make it whole - each article is a standalone unit no matter where or how you read it. The rule about "only 1 copy on Wikipedia" breaks that model in this case, it assumes the reader will have access to the main articles about the books. In any case it sounds like these covers did not have their copyrights renewed, like the vast majority of things published between 1923-1963, they are now in the public domain, it's really a question of proving it was renewed, not a question of proving it was not renewed, which is the norm, not the exception. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

typo at top of article

I am glad to see this article on the main page, but I too was surprised by a weakness. The main photo was by Tee Corinne, except the name wasn't linked. I thought the photographer notable enough that we would probably have an article on her; I tried to link it and discovered the spelling was wrong, so I corrected that. It is trivial, but nonetheless not what I have come to expect from FAs, especially several hours in, when thousands of people have, presumably, read it. (And TC's Cunt Coloring Book is still in print, and on sale internationally, so it is not as if she is that obscure.) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well. Of all the mistakes I've made on Wikipedia, I acknowledge this is the gravest. Shame on me. --Moni3 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not shame on any one individual. Kudos to the editors who did the work, and the editor who did most of it. It just struck me as an oddity that an error (an admittedly minor but unambiguous one, "above the fold") could slip through the FA checking process. That is where the weakness lies. I pointed this out only that it might aid us in tightening up our systems. (E.g. should it be standard to run a check on names in FA candidates? Google would pick up typos, of which goodness knows I make enough.) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article several times since it became featured. I may have added Corinne's name following its promotion. I honestly can't remember when I put that in. --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

Isn't the pulp fiction term much older than the 50's? This section seems to be misleading and should be clarified. 76.111.71.133 (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Pulp paperbacks are not. Pulp magazines go back farther. --Moni3 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)