Talk:Terry Eagleton

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

Incomplete[edit]

This page seems incomplete. Eagleton is regarded as a great critic of literary theory. What are his theories? What does he study? How has he changed his given field? Why is he still studied? Acoulter 16:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Good points, but I am not in a position to assist! The article is certainly not as long as those for people of similar significance, such as say Germaine Greer. When Eagleton was on the BBC Radio 3 programme Night Waves, about six weeks ago, it was mentioned that funding for his Manchester post is ending. I have not managed to find out, from the web, when this takes palce. He is still in post, if the recent reviews of Holy Terror are reliable, so presumably it is at the end of this academic year. Does anyone have more concrete information? Philip Cross 18:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Once the University appoints someone to a chair they are not going to be made redundant because the University is short of cash, especially true with the University's 2015 ambition and an iconic appointment like Eagleton. More likely he is going to reach the age of 65 in 2008, the normal retirement age for academics.Billlion 20:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As it now stands, this article reads more like an attack upon Eagleton than an article about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.246.64 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Degree[edit]

'Eagleton gained a doctoral degree at the age of 24...'. Not sure what the relevance is of his age, but if it is supposed to suggest that he is a prodigy of some kind, then it's a bit misleading. It is not at all unusual for UK doctoral students to graduate at 24 or 25- a 3 year UG degree followed by a 3 year PhD. Of course this is impressive, but not unduly so. I suspect that this was even more common in the past, before 4 year UG degrees and master's level courses became more common. Can anyone explain the edit? Is it just expository filler? Badgerpatrol 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Link[edit]

A link I had placed to an article by Prof. David Womersley - Warton Professor of English Univeristy of Oxford - has been removed.

This is a very critical piece on Eagleon, but I believe that it is impartant to also include critical comment. Do others agree this is a worthwhile piece? 195.54.230.14 16:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes especially to make a point that Eagleton is a controversial figure.Billlion 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Having both read the piece and assessed its provenance, I'd say no, as it is thinly disguised right-wing propoganda. By all means link to reviews of Eagleton's work, but balance should be shown. 202.182.90.30 05:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

SWP?[edit]

When was Eagleton in the SWP? ISTR he was in the WSL (Weasels)...--Red Deathy 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He was a member of IS in Oxford in the early 70's before, as you say, joining the WSL.Haldraper (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

review of Dawkins' The God Delusion[edit]

Edited to make explicit that the quoted sentence in fact begins the review. He (perhaps deliberately) echoes the British Birds bit at the end of the review when he accuses Dawkins of a particularly English narrow-mindedness, Whiggishness ... Nice rhetoric, at least. BAPhilp 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The section of the article on this contains this: " But Eagleton seems to throw into his criticism statements which underlie the very type of opaque religious obscurantism which Dawkins would find fodder for his argument". The example quoted is scarcely obscurantist; it's (for an academic) a reasonable simple statement of what Dawkins fails to get about religion, and pretty obvious to any intelligent Christian. I've therefore removed this sentence and cleaned up round the edges of the edit. David Aldred (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Irish descent[edit]

Why has the category "People of Irish descent" been removed? I believe Eagleton himself has commented on his Irish ancestry. I'll check on that later. -Mia-etol (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

*Former* Catholic?[edit]

When did he leave the Church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.108.79 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't leave the Church, you can only (like me) become a lapsed Catholic.Haldraper (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
From the metaphysical point of view you can't, but since "Eagleton isn't convinced (...) God exists" (from Tim Adams's The Armchair Revolutionary, linked to on the bottom of this article), this suggests he is currently an agnostic. 37.190.158.177 (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Reincarnation?[edit]

"Formerly Eagleton was Thomas Warton Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford (1992-2001) and John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester until 2008." I believe this sentence was intended to mean something else unless it is supposed to mean that the man was Thomas Warton and John Edward Taylor in his previous lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.143.97 (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe there are certain chairs and positions at universities that are named in honor of an important figure. In other words, Eagleton held a position at Oxford that was named in honor of Thomas Warton.24.18.243.32 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Greatest living English literary critic"[edit]

Just b/c Professor John Sitter, Chairman of the English Department at the University of Notre Dame and Editor of The Cambridge Companion to Eighteenth Century Poetry opines something does not make it so. (see WP:POV) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I was peeved as well. It is rather absurd. There are the many links citing how he is the most living influential literary critic, which just prove that in total 5 people claimed at some point that he is widely influential. Influential for what? What are his ideas that influences whom? This claim of being influential seems to be repeated among Britain's socialist circles. Further such claims of 'being the most widely regarded' doesn't seem encyclopedic. Even F.R Leavis in wikipedia is merely called an influential critic- and everyone knows he was influential. I am going to edit. Doogely (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A strangely hostile article. Goes beyond controversy. Why? Tessalonika (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Fictional characters[edit]

Who was the Lady Elizabeth Howard who allegedly was the sister of Colin Howard ? I do not believe she ever existed. And why is Colin Howard notable ? What rôle did he play in the life and thought of Terry Eagleton ? Is dated gossip about tangential or fictional people relevant ? --Clifford Mill (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

One imagines that 'Lady Elizabeth Howard' refers to Sir Kingsley Amis's former wife, Elizabeth Jane Howard, mentioned previously in the text; whether or not she ever called herself 'Lady Elizabeth Howard', notwithstanding what I believe would be a fully correct entitlement to being called 'Lady' as wife of a knight, I do not know. Colin Howard, then, as the ostensibly homophobic Kingsley Amis's homosexual brother-in-law, is certainly not irrelevant to a discussion of the matter, particularly as his comment appears to derive from a source provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.27.186 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

religion: western philosophy?[edit]

The sidebar says Eagleton's religion is "western philosophy". Maybe this is true, but it's an unusual claim, so surely it needs a citation. --Allen (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed all those stange infobox claims. Eagleton is just not a philosopher. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Argues If"?[edit]

"Argues if the scientific and rationalist attack on religion is misguided."

No: one argues that, or perhaps wonders if. Since I haven't heard the lecture, I don't know which is correct, but "argues if" is wrong. GeneCallahan (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)