Category talk:Bloomsbury Group
 | LGBT studies Category‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Literature Category‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Membership (Group - Cat)[edit]
OK, let's get this sorted (first version Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)):
YES[edit]
Core members[edit]
- Clive Bell, art critic
- Vanessa Bell, Post-impressionist painter
- E.M. Forster, fiction writer (LGBT)
- Roger Fry, art critic and Post-impressionist painter
- Duncan Grant, Post-impressionist painter (LGBT)
- John Maynard Keynes, economist (LGBT)
- Desmond MacCarthy, literary journalist
- Lytton Strachey, biographer (LGBT)
- Leonard Woolf, essayist and non-fiction writer
- Virginia Woolf, fiction writer and essayist (LGBT)
Extended list (L. Woolf)[edit]
'Old Bloomsbury':
later additions:
- Julian Bell (LGBT)
- Quentin Bell
- Angelica Bell
- David Garnett (LGBT)
Other lists (Lee)[edit]
- Lady Ottoline Morrell (LGBT)
- Dora Carrington (LGBT)
- James Strachey
- Alix Strachey
Accepted into the group (Clark)[edit]
NO[edit]
Near but *NOT* Bloomsbury Group[edit]
- G. E. Moore
- T. S. Eliot ("Hogarth Press published author")
- Katherine Mansfield ("Hogarth Press published author")
- Hugh Walpole
- Vita Sackville-West (LGBT, also "Hogarth Press published author")
- D. H. Lawrence (LGBT? See: Francis Spalding, Duncan Grant: A Biography. (1997) p. 169-170: (around 1915 Lawrence warned David Garnett against homosexual tendencies like those of Francis Birrell, Duncan Grant and Keynes:) "Lawrence's views, as Quentin Bell was the first to suggest and S. P. Rosenbaum has argued conclusively, were stirred by a dread of his own homosexual susceptibilities, which are revealed in his writings, notably the cancelled prologue to Women in Love" - so in his way also Critic of Bloomsbury, critic of its sexual moral, while nonetheless very near to the core members of the group in the era at Bloomsbury)
- Bertrand Russell
- Arthur Waley
- Harold Nicolson (LGBT)
Critics of Bloomsbury (also *not* in group)[edit]
Unaccounted for[edit]
Other "Cambridge apostels"[edit]
- Thoby Stephen (died before Omega Workshop (precursor to Bloomsbury Group) came into existence)
Bloomsbury "set"[edit]
(basically: frequent interactions with the group in Bloomsbury, but not part of the Bloomsbury Group as a movement)
- Mulk Raj Anand
- Garman sisters
- Gwen Raverat (continued letter exchanges with Virginia Woolf after moving to France)
Interactions only starting after key members left Bloomsbury, not part of movement[edit]
- Bernard Meninsky
- Frances Partridge ("Ham Spray house" & "later additions" extension, or straight extension of LGBT extentions)
Later offspring[edit]
- Cressida Bell, daughter of Quentin Bell
- Burgo Partridge son of the widower of Dora Carrington (also: married daughter of Angelica and David Garnett)
LGBT extensions[edit]
In main cat:
Only in LGBT subcat:
- Francis Birrell
- Mary Garman (also "Bloomsbury set")
- Jane Ellen Harrison
- Arthur Hobhouse
- Harold Nicolson
- Vita Sackville-West
- Roger Senhouse
- Ethel Smyth
- W. J. H. Sprott
Rather Ottoline Morrell circle[edit]
Hogarth Press personnel and published authors[edit]
- John Lehmann
- Julia Strachey (also: offspring (Lytton's niece))
Unclear[edit]
(e.g. Bloomsbury not mentioned in biographical article)
Sorting out the "unaccounted for"s[edit]
Suggestions welcome! --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Francis, I think you're trying to use categories for something they're simply not meant to be used for. All of the above - "close to the movement but not part of it but was the boyfriend of someone who was in the movement" etc, all of that belongs in an article, not in some sophisticated category tree. We should create a subcategory of this one called "Bloomsbury group members" and add anyone about whom reliable sources regularly say "X was a member of the Bloomsbury group". Otherwise, the rest should just go into the article per sources, describing their interactions with the group accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned everything is sorted now, with the additional subcats, structured list, and removal of questionable inclusions from the main cat. Won't say a tweak here or there woudn't be welcome, but overall I think the direction is OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Francis, I think you're trying to use categories for something they're simply not meant to be used for. All of the above - "close to the movement but not part of it but was the boyfriend of someone who was in the movement" etc, all of that belongs in an article, not in some sophisticated category tree. We should create a subcategory of this one called "Bloomsbury group members" and add anyone about whom reliable sources regularly say "X was a member of the Bloomsbury group". Otherwise, the rest should just go into the article per sources, describing their interactions with the group accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)