Talk:The Perennial Philosophy (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:The Perennial Philosophy)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Wahrmund, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on April 22, 2014. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

The Marketing Section is Bizarre[edit]

Is that entire section going by anything more than what's written on the dust jacket? The insinuation throughout that section is that the book was not just SOLD this way, but was written to be sold this way - a claim almost certainly false. Huxley wrote/compiled the book for his (sincere) reasons, and then the published bought it (or accepted it) and had to find a way to sell it. Of what possible relevance is this content? I've never seen it done for any other book, and millions of books have had writing on the dust jacket trying to sell them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Have shortened, simplified, and toned down the entire section - there was no need to mention the publisher, as the section is about context not marketing; the cover is of interest for what it reveals of the context, which is relevant to the book - the critics quoted in other sections make clear that the book is of its time and could not (for example) have been written in that way today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Needs more reviews (why so much coverage to Colombo?)[edit]

Thanks for expanding the article. But it should be noted that the critical reception section needs more reviews. There is no need to give so much coverage to Robert Colombo, a somewhat notable reviewer writing on a not terrifically notable website, when the book was widely reviewed in more notable outlets such as the New York Times, The New Yorker, and others. Here is a list of reviews gathered from Book Review Digest Retro:

  • Book Week (Oct. 21 1945).
  • Booklist v. 42 (Nov. 15 1945).
  • The Christian Century v. 62 (Dec. 12 1945).
  • Bull VA Kirkus' Bookshop Serv v. 13 (Aug. 1 1945).
  • The Nation v. 161 (Oct. 27 1945).
  • The New Republic v. 113 (Nov. 5 1945).
  • [done] The New York Times (Early City Edition) (Sept. 30 1945).
  • The New Yorker v. 21 (Sept. 29 1945).
  • Saturday Review of Literature v. 28 (Nov. 3 1945).
  • Springfield Republican (Oct. 14 1945).
  • New York Herald Tribune (Oct. 7 1945).
  • Wilson Bulletin (White Plains, N.Y.) v. 41 (Dec. 1945).

Even a sprinkling of these would add richness to the article. Plus, there must be at least a few other notable reviews published between 1945 and now, not just Smith and Colombo. Right now the reception section feels too narrow. -- Presearch (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

PS I have added quotes from and citation to New York Times review, to get things started, but don't anticipate having time to look up more. -- Presearch (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, the Reception section (and so the article as a whole) is already much improved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I see you're still hoping others will add summaries of (old) reviews - not much sign of takers and I'm busy elsewhere. Colombo has one (unique, I think) merit: he was there as a young man and has now reviewed both the book and his own earlier review reaction, and found book-and-review both a bit overexcited, which seems to me to sum up PP perfectly - it seemed really good a while ago, now a bit more ho-hum. So just adding more detail on the 1945 reviews actually runs a risk... but it'd still be useful, and equally, it'd be nice to find some other backward glances. If only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Colombo wrote a review in the 1950s? If so, it should be cited. The mere fact that decades later he recollected his earlier attitudes does not shed much extra light on the subject. There are other writes (Hustom Smith comes to mind) who will describe themselves as becoming more interested and engaged in something like the perrenial philosophy (though I don't know if he speaks of Huxley's book in particular). As to whether the perennial philosophy in general carries more or less influence now than it did then, I imagine one could make arguments on either side. So let's try to cover the reviews that were actually published in each time period, and not give it an overlay of what we think the deeper trends may be. I do think that Colombo is being given too much space on this page, though it's not a big issue, and correcting that imbalance is not able to be a priority at the moment. --Presearch (talk)

Ooops, didn't say what I meant. But agree more will be better. Actually there's very little of C's actual opinion of the book - I am now minded to add to it! - as many of his currently-quoted words are simply neutral description of the book's structure. When feeling strong, I (or anyone who feels like it) should replace the C descriptions with WP paraphrase or just uncited "Plot summary" description, and cite C on his interesting bits. But not now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)