Talk:F. R. Leavis: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:35, 15 October 2016 editThe Banner (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,724 edits →Peacock??: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:08, 15 October 2016 edit undoSleeping is fun (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users20,103 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 44:		Line 44:

	is it a peacock-statement that Leavis was an ''influeantial'' literary critic that should be removed? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 07:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)		is it a peacock-statement that Leavis was an ''influeantial'' literary critic that should be removed? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 07:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
			:Per ], yes. —] (]) 11:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:08, 15 October 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Literature

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

University of Cambridge

This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 04:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This entry needs rewriting from a NPOV. In places it reads more like a hagiography than an objective treatment of its subject. Leavis set himself up as a cultural enforcer, a sorter of the sheep from the goats, a Witchfinder General of lit. crit. Unfortunately for him, his grasp did not match his reach and, except to a cadre of disciples (known as Leavisites), he became to the greater literary world little more than a figure of fun. Leavis (as Simon Lacerous) and "Scrutiny" (as "Thumbscrew") were satirized by Frederick C. Crews in the chapter "Another Book to Cross off your List" of his amusing lampoon of lit. crit. theory "The Pooh Perplex A Student Casebook" (Barker, London, 1963, ISBN 0213171988).

The following paragraph was attributed to me (Gina L. Serman Reid). I did not write it, nor do I know who wrote it. Will the actual writer kindly take credit or remove the comment? Gina L. Serman Reid (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC) A.S. Byatt lampooned F.R. Leavis in her novel "Possession": "Leavis did to Blackadder what he did to serious students: he showed him the terrible, the magnificent importance and urgency of English literature and simultaneously deprived him of any confidence in his own capacity to contribute to or change it." ("Possession", First International Vintage Edition, October 1991, Copyright 1990 by A.S. Byatt, pg. 32, 2nd para.)

Have corrected one or two of the most egregious hagiographical bits. Straw Cat (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The reverse of the above is the case. I have started to make factual corrections but the article needs to be re-written as a whole. For example, Leavis's Readership and his Fellowship of Downing were not 'terminated'; his Readership came to an end in the natural course of an academic career when he reached retirement age (67) in 1962. In that year he became an honorary Fellow of Downing but resigned this position in 1964 as a result of a disagreement with the College over his succession. As another reader has suggested, there is no direct evidence that Leavis's health was affected by exposure to gas in the First War although his experiences as a stretcher-bearer and nursing orderly may well have contributed to his post-war insomnia. Richard Stotesbury's useful article is quoted as if it settled the question as to whether Leavis's later thinking can be described as 'philosophical', but it plainly does not. Ian Robinson has contributed helpfully to that discussion, as has Michael Bell in later work than that cited. Certainly some parts of his later works are highly original. Extraordinarily, the most complete source of information that we currently have, Ian MacKillop's F. R. Leavis: a Life in Criticism (1995) is not cited. The significance of Leavis's twelve years at the University of York is not brought out (indeed, the introduction states wrongly that Leavis spent almost his entire life teaching and studying at Downing), a significance brought out at the 2010 Leavis conference there. Leavis's reputation is surely by any standards very great (which doesn't necessarily entail concurring with him on individual judgments or even about his general approach) and it is surely not acceptable in any kind of scholarly article to confine this section to a few (arguably ill-informed) 'lampoons'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.86 (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above unsigned comment that more about his work at the University of York would be valuable: also a report of his activities during the second world war. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

Edit war?

2 edit IP spa 92.26.39.235 has twice removed a section of the article without explanation. Please discuss here according to the WP:BRD cycle. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC).

Citation style

What is the meaning of the numbers in the citations, such as (Bell 3)? The non-standard style is distracting, but I cannot see how cleanup should be done without understanding the existing style. - Crosbie 14:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Character and reputation

I forgot to log in, but I've deleted a bunch of POV material critical of Leavis. I'm not a great fan (I came looking for material on his role in The Two Cultures debate, where he was criticised by nearly everyone. But a collection of hostile gossip could be made about just about anyone in the literary world, and is not encyclopedic. Rather it is both WP:POV and, in the absence of a secondary source showing that the views presented are representative, also vioaltes WP:OR. JQ (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Peacock??

is it a peacock-statement that Leavis was an influeantial literary critic that should be removed? The Banner talk 07:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:PEACOCK, yes. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Categories: