Talk:Joseph Conrad

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


Ewa Bobrowska[edit]

Joseph Conrad's mother's given name has been changed in our article from Ewa to Evelina.

According to Zdzisław Najder (Joseph Conrad: A Life, Rochester, Camden House, 2005, p. 6), her given name was Ewa, but when Conrad's father, Apollo Korzeniowski, first met her, "probably in 1847... Ewelina [was] the fashionable version of the name Ewa".

In other words, her name was not "Ewelina"—and certainly not "Evelina", spelled English-fashion with a v—but "Ewa".

This is not the first example of name confusion in Conrad's family history. His complete name has sometimes been given in the incorrect order: "Józef Konrad Teodor Korzeniowski".

And, of course, among family and friends he was always known not as "Józef" but as "Konrad".

I am reverting Conrad's mother's name to the correct "Ewa".

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Conrad. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2017[edit]

Under CINEMA, please add the following entry:

Secret Sharer (2014), inspired by "The Secret Sharer", directed by Peter Fudakowski

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Peter Fudakowski (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"enigmatic" does not describe Kurtz's last words[edit]

The word "enigmatic" does not describe Kurtz's very last words in "Heart of Darkness" (though it might properly describe some of his rantings as he is nearing death). On the contrary, Kurtz's gift of eloquence is said (by the story's narrator, the witness of Kurtz's final words) to have found its ultimate--even triumphant (in spite of being self-condemnatory)--expression in its brilliantly clear summing up of the horrors of the existence which he, Kurtz, has embraced. It seems that Conrad is at pains to show the clarity of this expression, i.e., that it is anything but enigmatic, as in the narrator's words, referring to Kurtz's last words: "He had something to say." "He said it." 2602:306:80F6:FA0:B4F7:9794:D5EE:FC03 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have substituted the word "iconic". Perhaps you can suggest a better expression for the passage. Nihil novi (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I question whether we should use any uncited adjective or descriptor. (Also, doesn't he say the word twice? I can't remember.) Softlavender (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. Nihil novi (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Bloat[edit]

Nihil novi, you just added 7,000 bytes of text, without a single edit summary, to an already massive (148,000-byte) and meandering article. I have just now trimmed a lot of blatant editorialization, unattributed quotes, and an unnecessary quote from Conrad. Please in the future (A) leave a clear and thorough edit summary for each and every edit, and (B) please exercise restraint and discretion. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

These two quotes seem reasonable, although not the commentary surrounding them:
"Those who read me," he wrote in the preface to A Personal Record, "know my conviction that the world, the temporal world, rests on a few very simple ideas; so simple that they must be as old as the hills. It rests, notably, among others, on the idea of Fidelity."
"For Conrad fidelity is the barrier man erects against nothingness, against corruption, against the evil that is all about him, insidious, waiting to engulf him, and that in some sense is within him unacknowledged. But what happens when fidelity is submerged, the barrier broken down, and the evil without is acknowledged by the evil within? At his greatest, that is Conrad's theme."
But I assume this has all come from Encyclopedia Britannica. Perhaps that's why it's disliked? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The second quote is unattributed. I have no intrinsic objection to the Conrad quote, other than the fact the article is already at nearly 150,000 bytes, and do we really need another meandering Conrad quote? Maybe trim it to its essence ("Those who read me know my conviction that the world, the temporal world, rests on a few very simple ideas; .... It rests, notably, among others, on the idea of Fidelity.") and also avoid any editorialization in Wikipedia's voice. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was all taken from Encyclopedia Britannica. Perhaps User:Nihil novi could enlighten us? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
It was simply a cited quotation with no in-text attribution, which is why I deleted it: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, yes. That "Themes and styles" section is not exactly tiny, is it. Perhaps we ought to invite User:EEng over for one of his usual gentle reappraisals. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the trims to this article's "Themes and style" section. I was about to make the same cuts when my computer connection crashed!
Nihil novi (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

List of authors "influenced by" in lede[edit]

There is currently a laundry list of authors "influenced by" Conrad in the lede, not particularly well cited (no quotations from the sources, most citations are from articles or books on Conrad). Firstly, the lede is not a place for such a laundry list, so if anything it should be moved to a "Legacy" section. Second, you'd be hard-pressed to find a 20th-century literary English-language author who was not in some way influenced by Conrad, or read Conrad, or said somewhere that s/he liked Conrad, so I think the laundry list has little utility without direct quotes from the authors themselves (either in text or in the citation). Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The lead lists 19 writers influenced by Conrad. The "Legacy" section lists 22: the 19 that are in the lead, and 3 more. An author writing on Conrad speaks of "dozens" of American writers who have acknowledged Conrad's influence. The list could be deleted from the lead, without loss to the article. Nihil novi (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Done; removed from lede. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joseph Conrad. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

"he was a master prose stylist" is not a neutral point of view. It's a flagrant violation, in fact, of the policy that requires articles to be written from a neutral point of view. That policy is not negotiable and has no exceptions. To make this sentence comply with the non-negotiable core policy requires the addition of a single word only. The people who are removing this weird and have done so repeatedly for months are either too stupid to comprehend what they are doing, or so arrogant that they don't think they have to obey the policies of the encyclopaedia. Either way, they are nothing more than vandals. As long as they keep vandalising this article, I'll keep fixing it. It would be better for everyone if they stop their idiotic behaviour, now. 218.102.34.81 (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources use this kind of terminology then it's perfectly fine and compliant with NPOV, though perhaps it should be attributed. Volunteer Marek  07:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
What unbelievably clueless bullshit. There is no reliable source on whether Joseph Conrad was a master prose stylist. It is a subjective opinion. There are only reliable sources on whether people have said that he is a master prose stylist. That is an objective fact that can be verified. Can't honestly believe someone would genuinely misunderstand that so badly. 218.102.34.81 (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)