Talk:Roy Campbell (poet)

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

POV complaint[edit]

This article strikes me as less than neutral. Support for Fascism is now "having the courage of one's convictions" and "refusing to be 'politically correct'" (with the implication that this is a good thing). Please just give the information and leave out the editorializing.

If Sartre, Aragon, G.B. Shaw etc. wasn't blamed for supporting Communism and banned from public space, why Roy Campbell shoud suffer? I truly don't understand the opinion expressed above. On top of that, he de facto supported Nationalists, not Fascists. People, who defend their motherland against communism, are always scapegoats. Read somenthing about the Spanish Civil War, before you claim that this article is POV. - Svantevith (pl.wikipedia)

Sypmathies with communism can hardly be equated to sympathies with fascism, the former preached unity (for all the absurdities that came out of it) the other race hate and division. You are splitting hairs with your Nationalist/Fascist differentiation, in the Spanish Civil War they were both. Franco seriously flirted with Hitler and Mussolini to the extent of allowing them practice mass terror bombing on Basque civilians soon to be used throughout Europe. The Franco regime was up to it's neck in torture, murder and ethnic discrimination and sought to wipe out Basque, Catalan language.

I disagree. I think uncritical support for Communists and Fascists are about equally negative. However I don't think this is the place to get into how pro-Communist authors articles should be altered. If this guy was pro-Fascist, rather than purely anti-Soviet, I think that's a negative and there shouldn't be an apologetic for it.--T. Anthony 11:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Umm I just looked at George Bernard Shaw's article. It doesn't shy away from his support of Stalin and I don't think it could be said to make that support look good. according to Shaw, "Stalin... made good by doing things better and much more promptly than parliaments." I think for any modern person a statement that Stalin was great would be seen as negatively as this guy praising Franco. (If not it should)--T. Anthony 11:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"People who defend their homeland against communism are always scapegoats." - ???? Sounds very much like Mc Carthyite red scare paranoia with lurking extreme right mindset beneath

The article notes how Campbell was more at home in a traditional Catholic Authoritarian environment (Salazar's Portugal) than a Fascist state. His support of Franco was a support for the lesser of two evils (which in fact it was: Bolshevism was a far greater evil than 'Falangism'.) It consistently surprises me how authors who supported right-wing movements are brought to task, but those who supported communism, i.e. Christopher Isherwood, are forgiven for their 'misguided youths'. Algabal 12:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Campbell was known for his fascist sympathies long before the Spanish Civil War broke out, and that he never recanted them. His commitment to Franco was not just a matter of "support for the lesser of two evils". Furthermore, there is no evidence that he is so little known and read today because of his political views.

TuckerResearch==>
Really? Maybe next time you'll do some research, see the article from the National Review, for instance [1]:

"There are any number of reasons for this critical amnesia, but the political motivation outweighs all others: Campbell was simply on the 'wrong' side of the Spanish Civil War. Our half-century-later perspective on that bitter rehearsal for World War II reveals just how pernicious both sides were in the struggle for ideological dominance. Nonetheless, the intellectualoids of the Left have never forgiven Roy Campbell's refusal to endorse, in those days, the dawn of a new age."

And please, sign your posts, so we know who we're dealing with.
TuckerResearch 06:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quoting the opinions of some guy called Thomas McDowell. That is not "proof" of anything.

Ojevindlang 19:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's reputation[edit]

All of Campbell's bios make the claim that his right-wing views have impaired critical perception of his poetry. That Ezra Pound was an avowed Fascist and still critically lauded is not proof that Campbell's support of Franco is not the reason he is not critically lauded. They are two discrete examples with two discrete reasons; they are mutually exclusive. I have read two full length bios of Campbell: Peter Alexander's 1989 Roy Campbell: A Critical Biography and Joseph Pearce's 2001 Bloomsbury and Beyond: The Friends and Enemies of Roy Campbell (under its revised 2004 title Unafraid of Virginia Woolf: The Friends and Enemies of Roy Campbell); I have thumbed through others, and read Pearce's introduction to Roy Campbell: Selected Poems (London: Saint Austin Press, 2001). The latter puts it succinctly (p. xxv): "For many of the rising generation of poets and critics Campbell was anathema, a literary untouchable." I have provided an image of the page here: [2][dead link]. See also, for example, this line from his short entry in the Columbia Encyclopedia [3][dead link]: "Campbell's enthusiasm for Franco during the Spanish Civil War, expressed in Flowering Rifle (1939), has long interfered with an unbiased assessment of his work." Hmm.

And the statement by Ojevindlang: "You are quoting the opinions of some guy called Thomas McDowell. That is not 'proof' of anything." Sure it is proof.

All proof is, in a way, subjective - especially in the arts. Who gets to pick that Ezra Pound is a "good" poet? Literary critics. Literary critics say he was a major figure in 20th century poetry so the Wikipedia article rightly says he is "a major figure of the Modernist movement in early- to mid-20th century poetry." Okay. Personally, I don't like Pound's poetry, but the critics decide, not I. Thus, I turn to critical bios and sources on Roy Campbell and they say his reputation has been impaired by his political views - thus I rightly place that sentiment in the article. I don't see a problem with this. Shall I pile on and cite more critical sources? Find me a citation by a literary critic that says, "Roy Campbell is ill-remembered today just because he sucks, sucks big time" and we'll place that in the article.

As to the fighting on the side of the Nationalists but not with a formal Nationalist regiment, I hope the we can decide on the proper wording. How is the current revision? My concern here is to be precise.

TuckerResearch 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not changed your quibbling over his participation in the Spanish Civil War, though all his admirers like to say that he "fought for his faith in Spain", so if what you say is correct, then some element of untruth must have insinuated itself into the Roy Campbell story, and it wasn't put there by the evil left-wing mafia. He simply can't have fought as a one-man army which was active as a journalist at the same time.

As for your "critical sources": You quote a person called Thomas McDowell who uses turns of phrase such as "the intellectualoids of the Left". In other words, he does not seem to be a very impartial and balanced observer. You also quote Joseph Pearce, a former member of the British National Party who left the BNP when he converted to Catholicism but whose opinions do not appear to have moved all that far towards the centre. That is to say, your "authorities" are very much ideological warriors. When you quote them, all you prove is that those particular people (and no doubt quite a few others with similar ideas) claim that Campbell's reputation as a poet went into decline because of "the literati" and "the Left". I have not removed the claim that politics and the hostility of the literati were what hurt Campbell's reputation as a poet; I have simply inserted a statement as to why this may not necessarily be the case. Let me add that this is the opinion held by most people interested in literature.

The entry in the Columbia Encyclopedia conveniently forgets that Campbell had celebrated Fascism long before the Spanish Civil War, in Broken Record (1934). Hmm, indeed.

I keep reinserting Pound because he is one example (of many) of people with opinions far to the right of Campbell's who still are read and admired today. It is a valid argument, and you should respect it. Let people draw their own conclusions. If I found a so-called authority who wrote: "Roy Campbell is ill-remembered today just because he sucks, sucks big time", I would most certainly not quote him, because I would regard him as just as biased and unreliable as McDowell and Pearce.

Campbell did celebrate fascism in his writings, but there is no proof for the claim that he sank into oblivion because of that. He slowly ceased to be read, a fate that happens to many poets, whatever their politics.

Oh, and as for "all Campbell's bios" - I don't suppose it has occurred to you that they were all written by people who sympathized with Campbell's political views? No one else takes much of an interest in him any longer, at least not because of his writings; he is mostly remembered for having physically attacked Stephen Spender and Jacob Epstein, got drunk with Dylan Thomas, charmed Edith Sitwell and so on.

Ojevindlang 12:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


_______

"I don't suppose it has occurred to you that they were all written by people who sympathized with Campbell's political views." No, I guess I'm a dimwitted fool. It's not like I'm a historian or anything - I've never ever heard of bias. Thanks for pointing it out for me.

I guess you skipped over where I wrote, "All proof is, in a way, subjective - especially in the arts." And I made no mention of "the evil left-wing mafia," I am not that partisan. Yes, McDowell is writing for the National Review, a conservative journal here in the U.S. (I don't know where you're from, I'm assuming Britain or a Commonwealth Realm), and yes, let's all denigrate Pearce because he USED to be a racist. We shouldn't listen to anything he says. Most poets are written about by people who like them. Peter Alexander's biography of Campbell says the same thing. Shall you ad hominem him as well?

As for my (what I assume you believe is childish) "quibbling" over the "fighting for the Nationalists" - he, in fact, did not, even though Campbell claimed he did. The fact that you say: "his admirers like to say that he 'fought for his faith in Spain', so if what you say is correct, then some element of untruth must have insinuated itself into the Roy Campbell story..." tells me you are dealing not with his biography but his mythos. From the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (which must be as right-wing, biased, and forgetful as the Columbia Encyclopedia, I'm sure you'll end up saying): "His sympathies were for the nationalists (a result chiefly of his conversion to Catholicism), although he never fought for them as he claimed to have done." He did do some shooting, was beaten by Republican thugs, but he, like most poets and artists, pumped up his own biography and mythologized it. (Think Hemingway.)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography also says: "The most striking of his Spanish Civil War poems were the fine lyrics of Mithraic Emblems and the long and partisan poem Flowering Rifle, which glorified Franco and did Campbell's reputation great harm." But I guess they are wrong about the last six words, because you can point to Pound. I assume the editors of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography must all be "people who sympathized with Campbell's political views." Well, according to you, they must be because Pound is still admired. Pound, Pound, Pound. That and you "add that this is the opinion held by most people interested in literature." I'm glad you took a poll. You should write Oxford Press and mention that Pound guy to them and tell them they're wrong.

My point is that the weight of sources, biased or not, say his reputation has been impaired by his pro-Franco views. This is, I think, quite a valid argument and probably the correct one, as the divide over the Spanish Civil War bitterly divided public opinion, especially among the intelligentsia, of Britain. The fact that Pound is still read means nothing. As I said, in the particular case of Campbell, according to those who write about Campbell, his right-wing views have impaired his reputataion, that should be noted. Find me a source that says his poetry is ill-remembered now just because he has faded into obscurity and not because he was pro-Franco. Perhaps we could move your Pound example down to the actual bio section where his support for Franco is talked about? Would that be acceptable?

P.S. Spender deserved it and even afterwards "Spender refused to press any charges, saying, 'He is a great poet… We must try to understand.'" I guess because Spender thought he was good poet he must be one of those "people who sympathized with Campbell's political views."

TuckerResearch 14:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC) _______

When "The Columbia Encyclopedia" writes: "His sympathies were for the nationalists (a result chiefly of his conversion to Catholicism"), they are, as I have already pointed out, ignoring his celebration of Fascism long before the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.

"Campbell's reputation" is not the same thing as "Campbell's literary reputation". Your comment that "Spender deserved it", that is, deserved to be physically assaulted, is sufficient to make me feel that I want future discussions between us to be kept at a minimum. Spender's statement after having been attacked by Campbell makes me think that Campbelll's poetry was of the kind that is admired for a time and then fades. That, as you no doubt know, is often the case with poets. I also think Spender's comment shows generosity and magnanimity. Still, I take it you'll agree to let people read about Campbell, read about Pound and draw their own conclusions. Ojevindlang

________

So, what you are saying is, when the ODNB is talking about a poet and they say "reputation" it has nothing to do with literary or poetical reputation? You're going to hang your hat on that semantic parsing? Okay. And, since you have denigrated me as a quibbler, some right-wing nut-case, and an historian who doesn't know what bias is, you should realize the "Spender deserved it" jibe was just that, a statement made in jest. And: "I want future discussions between us to be kept at a minimum..." - don't get your feelings hurt so quickly, this happens all the time on Wikipedia and I am a sarcastic debater. I do await you're letters to the various reference presses to tell them that they are wrong. You should request that Campbell just be a footnote to the Spender and Epstein articles as well - take him out, he is forgotten.

As to the Pound reference. You'll notice I haven't touched it since you replaced it the last time. I have suggested we take it out of the preamble, and you have not. Still, I have left it. I am all for letting folks "draw their own conclusions." Perhaps some other Wikipedian without a dog in this hunt will take it up.

I have this article is on my watchlist because I pumped it up more than a year ago from a basic stub to the full-blown article. (See the "Revision as of 20:46, February 21, 2006").

Ever sarcastic, TuckerResearch 23:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have changed "contradicts" to "challenges," as "contradicts" sounds so authoritative. Good change?

TuckerResearch 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have put the (verified) statement that the Mosleys were still active Fascists after the War back in, since the fact that Campbell did not hesitate to write for a magazine published by such people is relevant information.

10:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. You are trying to ad hominem him by association. Let's forget that an overaged Campbell joined up in Britain to fight the Nazis in World War II - he was no Nazi. You'll notice I didn't remove the whole Mosley bit, just the "oh and she was an unrepentant Nazi" bit because I think it is a sly underhanded way to smear Campbell. "He must be a Nazi too!" is the subtle implication. At least you changed it to Fascist. And the addition of the note about the KwaZuluNatal website is, I think, out of place. It adds nothing to the conversation/article. I already had the website as an external site in the sources section below. I have moved it to a footnote about his early life.

And how dare you tell anyone to "Leave the statement about the Mosleys still being Fascists alone; it is a matter of record and menetioned in the DT obituary." First, this is egotistical. Second, you have no such right to pass such a "law." Third, I have pointed out many things that are a "matter of record" and "mentioned" in many print sources, but you have seen fit to mock them, contradict them, and change them. This is open-content Wikipedia, not Ojevindlang's Encyclopedia - a place for debate, not unilateral fiat. We have come to reasonable accomodations on the "fight with/alongside" issue, the correct wording of the Pound example (All glory to the Pound example!), and so forth - don't get all prickly.

And do you honestly believe that Spender didn't know that Encounter was funded by the CIA?

TuckerResearch 23:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Try not to get emotional. Also, the fact that after the war Campbell still liked to write in a magazine edited by an unrepetantant Fascist and with other old Fascists as contributors is incriminating, whether you acknowledge it or not. It says something about the company he kept. As for your claim that Campbell couldn't be a Fascist because he joined the British Army during WW II - Mosley also tried to enlist, though he was rejected and interned instead. A British Fascist can be willing to fight a German Fascist for patriotic reasons and still remain a Fascist. So I have struck out a couple of words there.

There is a difference between the factual statement that the Mosleys remained active Fascists after the war (they supported the post-war successor party to Mosley's British Union of Fascists) and an (unprovable) claim that a poet became obscure because he was marginalized by left-wing critics.

As for Pound, I am no great admirer of his poetry, though I do think he's a better poet than Campbell; I simply cite him as an example of a full-blooded Fascist and anti-Semitic who, all the same, is still acknowledged as a great poet.

As for Spender, isn't he very much a side issue? He was just a left-wing poet whom Campbell assaulted physically.

And when I am asking for cited sources, that is part of the project to improve Wikipedia articles.

Ojevindlang 23:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very emotional - not as much as you seem to be. Sure Campbell wrote for Ms. Mitford - okay, sure, this shows he was still a sort-of fascist. In Campbell's later years, he was a bit wary of Franco and considered himself more of a libertarian. Portugal was more to his liking than Spain in the 1950s. Campbell's support for Fascism was primarily motivated by his Catholicism and his loathing of the Communist/Socialist hatred of religion. Sort of an enemy of my enemy is my friend thing. (I am reminded of Churchill's statement that if Hitler invaded Hell, he'd have a nice thing to say about Satan.) I can pull Pearce out of my library and give you a few good quotes, but, you wouldn't care what Pearce said, as you've smeared him as little better than a Nazi. (To tell you the truth, Pearce's biographies of Campbell and Wilde are a bit laudatory and biased - they were both converts to Catholicism like Pearce; this doesn't mean we can't take anything from them.)

I dislike Pound's poetry as much as I loathe Spender's. I appreciate Campbell's translation poems of Baudelaire and St. John of the Cross the most; some of his nature poems next; sometimes his satirical poetry is good and biting, most of the times it is stilted, juvenile, and forced.

As for the citation - I have no beef with that.

As for Pound, like I've said time and again, just because Pound is still well-received doesn't mean Campbell's reputation didn't suffer at the hand of Leftists due to his support for the Nationalists. History is not some mathematical equation where you plug in one name and then another and come out with any proof. Pound + Fascism = Good reputation and Campbell + Fascism = Bad reputation doesn't mean Pound=Good poet, Campbell=Bad poet.

TuckerResearch 02:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You say: "As for Pound, like I've said time and again, just because Pound is still well-received doesn't mean Campbell's reputation didn't suffer at the hand of Leftists due to his support for the Nationalists. History is not some mathematical equation where you plug in one name and then another and come out with any proof. Pound + Fascism = Good reputation and Campbell + Fascism = Bad reputation doesn't mean Pound=Good poet, Campbell=Bad poet."

Yes, that's precisely what I have tried to make you grasp, over and over. You can't prove that Campbell is no longer appreciated as a poet for political reasons. One can prove that he was a fascist, a drunk and a mythomaniac, though.

Ojevindlang 14:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've told you again and again - it is not ME (the "You" of your quote) that says his reputation has been harmed by his fascism. It is a score or so of biographers and literary critics. I have quoted them, I have pointed you to others, but you still insist it is just little ol' me and a cabal of crypto-Nazi's that say that. Let me take your childish tantrum of a quote: "You can't prove that Campbell is no longer appreciated as a poet for political reasons." Prove to me it is another reason besides the "example" of Pound and your anecdotal "poets just fade away" mantra. I gather you have read none of his biographies because of the fallacies you have tried to pass off and the stubborness you show in not recognizing the impact his pro-Franco stance had on his reputation. Please read one of his biographies! Start with Peter Alexander's since you won't even consider Pearce's.

And to the statement: "One can prove that he was a fascist, a drunk and a mythomaniac, though." How? This information comes from the same biographies that state his critical reputation suffered because of his take on Franco. Why do you accept them in one instance, but not the other? The general tenor of the statement indicates to me that you have some ideological ax to grind - but I assume you think the same in my case.

But let us consider this, you say it is "naive" of me to state that Campbell signed up to fight the very Fascists he was accused of supporting. How did you put it: "naive statement intended to show that Campbell 'wasn't really a Fascist.'" I believe I said he wasn't a reflexive supporter of all fascist regimes. You balk at this suggestion, but feel free to intimate he was a Nazi by pointing out he wrote articles for Lady Mosely's magazine. So, you get to insinuate he was a Nazi and I can't insinuate he wasn't a Nazi? This is the height of hypocrisy. You point out that even Mosely too tried to sign up for the British war effort. Yes, the British authorities arrested him, but allowed another prominent fascist, Campbell, to join up. Seems to me the British government thought Campbell was okay.

But I guess Churchill was a fascist too, huh? What did Churchill say about Mussolini? I await your changes to the Churchill page to indicate that Churchill was a crypto-Nazi.

Why don't you just change this article to read: "Roy Campbell. Poet who sucked so nobody reads him today. And he was a Nazi." and be finished with it. All this without having read a Campbell biography and denigrating all the literary critics who say his right-wing views have kept his poetry from being considered without bias. Hell, you've even told me that when the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says, "The most striking of his Spanish Civil War poems were the fine lyrics of Mithraic Emblems and the long and partisan poem Flowering Rifle, which glorified Franco and did Campbell's reputation great harm" that the word "reputation" referring to a poet and in tandem with two named poems has nothing to do with his poetic reputation! What arrogance! I could point out too that the article refers to "fine lyrics," but they must be wrong again because you've intoned from on high that Campbell is just a bad poet that no one today thinks is "fine." So Ojevindlang has written, so let it be done.

Oh, I stumbled across this from the reference work Contemporary Authors: "In Flowering Rifle, an epic poem, Campbell praised Franco and his colleagues and in the process earned the enmity of English literary critics, who accused him of fascism." Key word, "enmity." But, I guess they didn't let that "enmity" cloud their assessment of Campbell's poetic output. Ojevindlang says so.

I tire of your petulant insistence on getting across your notion that Campbell was just a bad poet and the Spanish Civil War had nothing to do with his current reputation.

TuckerResearch 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For the last time: You can't prove that a poet (any poet) is no longer widely read and appreciated because a cabal of intellectuals and critics have conspired to hurt his reputation. It is speculation, at best. Give up, already.

Added: The Talk section for a Wikipedia article is not intended for protracted arguments and flame wars. It exists for the purpose of discussing what to include in the article, and how to present it. Neither of us should write anything more here unless there is new material to discuss.

Ojevindlang 15:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote the first sentence of my last statement again: "I've told you again and again - it is not ME (the "you" of your quote) that says his reputation has been harmed by his fascism. It is a score or so of biographers and literary critics."

TuckerResearch 01:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tucker, you are quite right that Campbell's reputation has been hurt by his political affiliation. This fact seems quite clear to me based on what I've read on Campbell, and I'm puzzled as to why Ojevindlang is so resistant to the notion. Algabal 04:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about Campbell's *literary* reputation. Of course, his reputation as a decent human being took a beating from his expressed sympathies, as did that of Ezra Pound. But Pound's literary output it still admired, whereas Campbell's isn't. Since Pound's anti-Semitism and Fascism were even more vile than Campbell's, I find the proposition that politics has anything to do with Campbell's literary eclipse very doubtful. It would be nice if you and Tuckerrresearch would grasp this simple point, which I have repeated a great many times. Ojevindlang 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on Campbell's status as a "good human being" isn't of much help here, is it? Pound's story isn't really irrelevant, also: just because his reputation did not suffer for political reasons doesn't mean Campbell's reputation didn't suffer for those same reasons. It is generally accepted by the scholars who have written on Campbell that his reputation has seriously suffered because of his affiliations, and that trumps any opinion you might have about Pound remaining popular, which would constitute original research. Algabal 07:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Because I disagree with the mighty, all-knowing Ojevindlang, I am not intelligent or enlightened enough to "grasp [a] simple point." TuckerResearch 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Algabal, I have been up this road with Ojevindlang many times, as the debate above readily points out. I have cited book after book stating that his politics affected how literary critics viewed him, but he doesn't want to hear it. I didn't think of the "original research" angle, as he, in fact, has not given any proof in print to butress his claim and Pound example. I have decided not to go up against his bull-headed self, but if you want to make some changes, you have my support (as long as they are legitimate and NPOV, etc.). TuckerResearch 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm spanish, my family fought in the so-called republican side but I must stand for what I know is true. I've been studying the period for over two decades and I must say that to equalize nationalists with fascists, and fascists with national-socialists (nazis) is pure communist propaganda, a pure communist tactic embedded with the global strategy of the "popular fronts". It's been a communist tactic since the 30's (when it was established by the Commintern) to denigrate the enemies of Communism with the label of "fascist" and to mess in the same group the historical fascists and the nazis. I'll put just one example: the popular front killed in the spanish civil war, just in three years, between 10 and 20 times the number of civilians than the italian fascists in Italy in twenty years. The erection of the historical fascism to the category of "Absolute Evil" has been one of the mayor achievements of the left-side control of the cultural and academic life in western societies since the fifties, especially since the sixties. It serves the goal of vilification of all movements which stands at the Right of the political spectrum.

One of the main arguments in order to save face of Communism is the "good goals" argument. Communism, it is said, was about "equality" and "social justice". Obviously every person who has lived under Communism knows how false it is that point. Communism is about totalitarian statism, hate of class, utopian violence, mass murder, and terrorism. These outpus have not been "errors of application" at all. Communism uses the word "equality" for colectivism, statism and totalitarianism. Communism calls for "war of classes". Communism calls for the hate of the religious people, the bourgeois, the wealthy, the "counterrevolutionary" workers and farmers, the traditional values, the traditional structures of society, specially the family, as it is in the way of total control of the individual by the state, for hate of ALL hierarchies (no matter its justice or its necessity) EXCEPT the ones of the sacred Party. Communism has hate in its DNA. There are not "errors" in its application.

Communism has killed 110 million people and has sponsorized countless revolutions, wars, coups de etat, terrorist groups et al. I've said countless. Communism has opressed 2000 million people in the world or more. But its control of the cultural production in the West has managed to save its deathly and ominous face. So, even today, it can pose as a "freedom ideology" while a good man who supported "nacionales" in the spanish cvil war is a sort of devil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.162.17.87 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"to equalize nationalists with fascists" Not all nationalists were fascists, but the ones in the Spanish Civil War were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.29.29 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The memoirs[edit]

If this article is accurate, then his autobiography 'Light on a Dark Horse' must be regarded as some kind of fiction, especially concerning his claimed active service record in both the world wars. It might usefully be stressed that this highly readable (and believable) book should not be used as a source for research. 109.154.9.232 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Source?[edit]

A major source for this article is Joseph Pearce who isn't a literary scholar or a historian. He claims to recant his former opinions which were white nationalism. That fact alone should be extremely wearisome, but the fact that he's also a Roman Catholic convert who is not a professor of literature, philosophy, or history would seem to strain credulity as to why he's being sources as some sort of neutral expert on Roy Campbell from either a literary or political perspective.

Just because he wrote a biography of Campbell, he's not therefore a source of neutral content. Pearce himself virtually cannot be considered a neutral source on figures specifically notable for links to fascism or nationalism, given his potential conflict of interest/sympathies.

If he is a source in this article, it would seem to me that he should be properly qualified as the type of figure he is rather than as a historian or definitive source for facts about the life or critical reception of Roy Campbell. Perhaps, an apologists section or something to that effect. Otherwise, this article is extremely misleading with how Pearce is referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.222.241 (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of books aren't written by scholars or historians. Have you read Pearce's book? (I have.) He researches in proper sources, he cites them, he writes using them. He does everything a scholar is supposed to do. True, (a) Pearce is currently a Catholic apologist. Now, one does gather from reading his book that it stresses Campbell's growing Catholic faith, but that, in and of itself, does not disqualify a work. He (b) used to be a nationalist/racist. I don't know why that should disqualify a work? He was once a racist? (I should think we should be happy someone is no longer a racist.) To follow the logic of your sentence: "Pearce himself virtually cannot be considered a neutral source on figures specifically notable for links to fascism or nationalism, given his potential conflict of interest/sympathies" - we must disqualify every historian of Marxist sympathies from writing about the Soviet Union, every German from writing about the Nazis, every African American from writing about the American Civil Rights movement. Et cetera. Because they might be biased. Also, note your use of the word "potential." You know of no actual things wrong with his work, you just think there might be. Instead of attacking Pearce (argumentum ad hominem), attack the work. If it is a bad, biased, and illogical book, it should not be used. But, it is none of those things. This is much ado about nothing. That said, we do need more citations, and more citations from another book would be nice. Perhaps Peter Alexander's fine, but staid, Roy Campbell: A Critical Biography (Oxford University Press, 1982)? TuckerResearch (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roy Campbell (poet). 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 05:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)