Talk:Nadine Gordimer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


debut short story in biobox[edit]

So the bio info box lists "Face to Face" as her "debut short story"; but the article itself says her first published story was "The Quest for Seen Gold" at age of 15. When was Face to Face published, and by what criteria is it being listed as her debut short story? I'm going to shift the biobox but bringing it up here first in case there's a better explanation for Face to Face. --lquilter 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen "Come Again Tomorrow", published in Forum when she was 14, cited as her first work. ... Really need to go get some definitive critical biography for this. --lquilter 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is alot of confusion in regards to Nadine Gordimer's 'debut literature item'. "Come Again Tomorrow is the most likely one, though i'm no expert on the subject! I think, though, that the media should be ashamed of themselves; they still haven't published a proper article (newspaper) on Nadine Gordimer's achievements, even though she won a Nobel Prize for our country! Perhaps the newspapers should consider interviewing her, and asking her opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.95.156 (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Faux "Banned by the Apartheid Gov't" assertion[edit]

I noticed with astonishment the claim that...

"July's People was also banned under apartheid, and faced censorship under the post-apartheid government as well: In 2001, a provincial education department temporarily removed July's People from the school reading list, describing it as patronizing and offensive."

I lived in South Africa from 1981 to 1993 during the end of the apartheid government there. I read "July's People" having bought a copy at a CNA (Central News Agency), a chain of shops in South Africa selling magazines, newspapers and books, in Pretoria shortly after it was published in 1982. I don't know how it could have been banned when you could buy it at the CNA.

I also noticed...

"In 2001, a provincial education department temporarily removed July's People from the school reading list, describing it as patronizing and offensive."

which is a sentiment that I totally agreed with.

One thing that wants remembering is that all sorts of books in South Africa were "banned" for a period of a few days to a few months and subsequently achieved wide sales to the public in South Africa. The implication in biographical faux-historical screeds like this one is that the banning was permanent till the ANC took over and sometimes not even then. Nothing could be further from the truth on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaasjaapie (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will find many purportedly anti-apartheid writers like Gordimer and Hope among many others who claim that this or that one of their books or short story collections were "banned under apartheid". More often than not these were marketing ploys by their publishers to drum up sales, not serious attempts at censorship on the part of the apartheid gov't of that era. Christopher Hope makes a similar claim for his 1981 book, "A Separate Development".

http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth50

I bought that one at the CNA in Pretoria, too, a few years after it was published. Hope had it over Gordimer at that time of being able to write a narrative that didn't ooze self-righteous pretentiousness, a fault that Gordimer has never seemed to have been able to overcome. Plaasjaapie 14:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The book is widely cited as "banned", so I'm reinstating the sentence (which also states that it was censored post-apartheid), along with references. If you can dig up more specifics about how long it was banned, that would be great, or if you could find a published source stating that it was available for sale during those times, that would also be great. Alas, personal anecdotes about finding the book available for sale don't really qualify. (Moreover, I would note that an item might be officially "banned" or "censored" and still be widely available. "Banning", as you note, can refer to a lot of things, and doesn't necessarily indicate how long, what level of enforcement, etc.) At any rate, I've now rewritten to clarify that only two of her works were banned for lengthy periods of time; and I plugged in several cites. --lquilter 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I'll see if I can find something about how long her stuff was banned.
"Alas, personal anecdotes about finding the book available for sale don't really qualify." The personal anecdote was mentioned here in discussion, not on the article page as a challenge to an unsupported assertion that the works mentioned were actually banned.
"or if you could find a published source stating that it was available for sale during those times, that would also be great." Most things are "available for sale" barring going out of print. I'll see what I can do, though. Plaasjaapie 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen any progress on this since I added a bunch of explanatory information providing further details and cites about levels of censorship, official ending, and so on. Assume this issue is resolved? --Lquilter 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

restructure "work and themes" section?[edit]

The work-by-work material in there now is clunky and amateurish,* and (a) I believe it would be more graceful and useful as a review of Gordimer as a writer if there were a section primarily looking at persistent themes in Gordimer's work, and tracing when they started arising and how they were handled over her works. (b) I'm ambivalent about the work-by-work section. I realize that some readers want to get information on each individual work, and it is a useful place to chart other chronological issues, such as awards, censorship/availability, relationship to Gordimer's biography, etc. But work-by-work alone is not adequate for a literary biography. Thoughts?

* (Yes I'm the one who mostly put in the material in a work-by-work format but I excuse myself because getting *any* useful information in the article was difficult at the time.) lquilter 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added a subheading to reflect a break between generic discussion of style and work-by-work discussion. Will flesh that out more over time. --lquilter 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

flags[edit]

An editor recently put two little country flags in the Gordimer infobox. I'll say it straight out, that I really don't like flags for the most part: I find them visually intrusive, first of all. And I find them simply inappropriate for private citizens, since they imply an affiliation with a government, and at least imply that whatever that flag represents is something important about that person's identity. The visual emphasis of the flag is what creates or strengthens the implication. ... That said, I accept that many editors find them appropriate and not distracting, so I'd rather raise the issue here for discussion. --lquilter 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the old South African flag from Nadine Gordimer's birthplace per WP:FLAG (merely a proposal) which strongly suggests to not include birthplace flags in infoboxes. In fact it urges against birthplace flags in at least three different places in that proposal, which, although it hasn't been accepted, suggests that birthplace flags are particularly problematic. (I agree.) Discussion? --lquilter 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left the new South African flag in for now because it is her current citizenship. However, as a private citizen who has no particular affiliation with the SA government, either as representative to the world or as participating in the government, I don't think it's necessary to include the flag. Discussion? --lquilter 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way it is now, with the small South African flag listed beside her nationality, is fine. I certainly don't see it as her endorsing whatever values might be implied by the flag, or any sort of governmental role. I think it is simply a little icon listed beside the country name. It is not unusual to see this in the real world. I think it merely adds a little color to an otherwise drab black and white page. Plus, it's tiny.
Of course, I realize that these aren't reasons to leave it in, but merely reasons not to take it out. Those are two seperate issues. But for all the recent peace this page has seen, I agree with you that we should not be too hasty removing the flag. Andyparkerson 00:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The feeling on WP:FLAG is that in infoboxes it's distracting and redundant of information already present (the country). Just FYI. --lquilter 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing policy, and I'm sure that others have thought more about this than I have. I just think flags are pretty. Andyparkerson 07:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your "flags are pretty" with a "flags are ugly but the SA flag isn't as ugly as most". <g> --lquilter 13:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant you that flags aren't as pretty as butterflies and daisies, but if we peppered the pages of wikipedia with unicorns and rainbows, we'd have a Hello Kitty version of wikipedia. Hey..... maybe that's not such a bad idea. What better way to end edit wars than with Hello Kitty? Andyparkerson 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Monday For Sure[edit]

The short story collection "Some Monday for Sure" (published in 1976 and appearing in the Heinemann African Writers series) seems to be missing from the bibliography. Can it be added?

And what (if anything) does it owe by way of inspiration to Virginia Woolf's short story collection "Monday or Tuesday"? The naming cannot be coincidental, I should think.

Mangodog (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacked in home[edit]

Where would it be appropriate to include the recent attack and robbery of Gordimer in her home? Her "Biography" section cuts off before the 60s.

Also, advice on whether the more factual article by the Guardian or the more detailed article by the Times that passes this off as symptomatic of South Africa, is the more appropriate reference? -Kez (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • significant discussion about this in the talk archives. please refer there if any questions. the short of it is that while it was newsworthy, it wasn't encyclopedic (i.e., a major feature of her life). --Lquilter (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the WHAT prize?[edit]

In the infobox on the top right of the page, it is stated that that Nadine Gordimer won "the Penis Prize", 1991. Eh, right. Have replaced it with the Nobel prize, but I though I should notify you that someone apparently thought this was funny. Hope they won't try it again... Jantien (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Could we try to get a better picture--one that includes more of her than the interviewer? Thanks, Sontag12 —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • looks like a pretty good picture now. --Lquilter (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Afrikaner racism[edit]

The article misses out on her Anti-Afrikaner racism i.e. equating Afrikaner women to plants. http://www.oulitnet.co.za/gras/nad.asp --41.151.70.149 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The citation appears to be an "open letter" to Gordimer, in at least a somewhat satirical vein; we should take the comment from User:41.151.70.149 in a similar vein, I suspect. --Lquilter (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the quotation given in the later is indeed from Nadine Gordimers book "The Conservationist":
“The [De Beer = Afrikaans] child will sink, she will drown if she lets go of her mother, yet her clinging is flirtatious, she tries to make him look at her so that she may at once hide her head against the mother’s thigh. She’s a beautiful child as their children often are — where do they get them from? — and she’ll grow up — what do they do to them? — the same sort of vacant turnip as the mother ... To go into those women must be like using the fleshy succulent plants men in the Foreign Legion have to resort to.”
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=9YxWEDt7ca0C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Nadine+Gordimer++%22succulent+plants%22&source=bl&ots=zVVvhOeTIE&sig=P8_pP7IpcbuURLUke8RUvRuS9QI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wAFcUrl-45DUBanVgPgH&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Nadine%20Gordimer%20%20%22succulent%20plants%22&f=false --105.236.37.38 (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

roberts unauthorized bio controversy[edit]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: - Editor Red Pen of Doom flagged the two paragraphs on the Roberts unauthorized biography as "undue" (diff), then removed the separate subsection for that material (diff) which put it into the previous subsection, on literary reception. I agree a separate subsection is probably too much ("undue"), and further recommend we carefully edit that content down to one paragraph. However, the content doesn't fit well with the "reception" section, which is about critical response to Gordimer's works. Instead, I moved it to the section about Gordimer's activism & professional life, and modified the subsection header to reflect the change. Roberts' allegations center around the content in this section; and the dispute b/w Gordimer & Roberts seems to me to be more related to her professional conduct than about the literary reception of her work. Any other thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

seems reasonable approach. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nadine Gordimer. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 02:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nadine Gordimer. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The house gun[edit]

Why is there a link on The house gun on this article that links back to this article? If there's no article for The house gun it should not have a link I would have thought? Sterry2607 (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link – that's a circular link. Thanks for pointing that out. —Bruce1eetalk 08:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History politics[edit]

What was the nature of the resistance to the apartheid in 1950 41.246.31.78 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read do your own homework. —Bruce1eetalk 14:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nadine_Gordimer&oldid=1204144301"