Talk:Joseph McElroy

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

Introduction[edit]

I am unsure why the main entry (introduction) to this article states that McElroy "is noted for writing difficult fiction." Why difficult? I don't find his fiction difficult, and I've read everything McElroy has published, excepting a few reviews and articles that are pretty hard to track down. Why is difficulty of foremost importance, that it should appear in the introduction? Furthermore, Andrew Essex, who is cited, is not a well known critic. I know that the difficulty thing comes up frequently in discussions of McElroy, but I wonder how much that's a self-propagating description. I'm also concerned that putting the mention of difficulty in the introduction to the longer entry will lead to unnecessary dismissal and avoidance from potential readers, who might be scared off from the works' putative "difficulty." What do others think? Jacob (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who wrote most of this article, including the "difficulty" bit with Essex citation. So here's what I think. I do not, of course, "own" the article.
The pre-TOC introduction is usually called the "lead", although I prefer the newspaper spelling "lede".
Numerous critics and reviewers comment on McElroy being difficult. You are aware of this: your "I know" sentence. It seems to be so common, in fact, that it pretty much has to go in the lede. I cited Essex because he was easy to find and link to.
The rules for Wikipedia are to emphatically not pushing anyone's viewpoint, but to summarize verifiable consensus. Within that remit, there is certainly room for variation. But the assertion that McElroy's fiction is difficult, and that this is highly significant, is pretty much mandatory.
My personal perspective: I've read all his novels twice over the past 30 years, and about half of his short stories. I've also read all of Beckett (trilogy>10 times), Pynchon, Gaddis first two, half of Gilbert Sorrentino, most of Michael Brodsky, and so on. I'm attracted to literature with a difficult reputation. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I should also add that I am very high-level into math/science/tech, and overeducated in dozens of other subjects, so 90% of what the critics find difficult about these authors is quotidian to me.
I would welcome more people contributing to McElroy related material on Wikipedia. I started last September, and have slowly been working on all his novels, along with other projects, and it has been mostly a solo effort. But please no gross misconceptions about what the rules are. For example, I personally think of Women and Men as the world's longest shaggy dog story, with an amazing punchline on page 1190—the first of two times McElroy made me laugh—but I see absolutely no way such a comment can be added to the article. Choor monster (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your observations. I wonder if there might be a way to note the difficulty in a way that is more reflective of the variable responses to his work. Consider the Gaddis entry: "Because of their complexity and inventiveness in structure and style, his novels are often challenging to read"; [Identification of stylistic qualities that make the work challenging]; "Some readers find this a source of difficulty"; "others find it a pleasure unique to his work."
It's an interesting question, the difficulty question. It seems we lack a developed vocabulary for talking about what difficulty in literary narratives means. I will reflect more about what we can say re: this question. Complexity, ambition, and scope seem like more concrete qualities of the work than its "difficulty," at least to my mind at present. I need to read up on Wikipedia guidelines and will do so in the week to come. Jacob (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look how the Pynchon the "recluse" issue is handled. Way back when, the article just baldly stated in the lede that Pynchon was a recluse, which was changed to secretive, then reclusive, and eventually its current "very private". The role of "recluse" is now worked into the body of the article in a way which is informative, factual, and respectful.
One noteworthy attempt at understanding difficult literature is the Franzen essay "Mr. Difficult". While I've read all of Franzen's novels, I've generally not bothered to read his essays. But the Essex review of Actress in the House intrigued me, and I followed up by reading the essay and writing the entry.
Also read the McElroy/Mathews interview: "Should writing hurt?" Choor monster (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Hey! The two new articles I created on Ancient History and Women and Men have been turned into redirects back to this article. What on earth for? Sheesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choor monster (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to be adding articles for each of his novels. Not just stubs, either--I've reread them all this summer. (My references to the books are all based on the US hardcover first editions.)

There is no Pile Up.

The title is Plus, not PLUS. Yes, the book has the title in ALL-CAPS, on the cover, spine, and title page. But it is in Title-Caps in the two title references on the dust jacket ("Plus is the author's fifth novel", or something like that). In later books, the list of previous books is either in all-caps or in title-caps. When in title-caps, it's Plus. You can also check out the Tom LeClair interview, which calls it Plus. For what it's worth, A Smuggler's Bible and Women and Men were similarly published in all-caps on the cover, spine, and title page.

Preparations for Search is not a novel. It was first published in a literary magazine in 1984 as a forthcoming excerpt from Women and Men. Like several of the shorter chapters in WAM, also published as forthcoming excerpts, it can be read standalone as a short story. For whatever reason, McElroy did not include it in WAM, but eventually he revised it for independent publication as a small chapbook. Note that Ship Rock was originally published as a separate chapbook.

Choor monster (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary from article[edit]

Following commentary removed from the article:

Note: more than usual itty-bitty details are listed, since McElroy incorporates these into his fiction. For example, the Mayne family newspaper, the Letter, Cartwright married a Brit, the birth scene in Women and Men, and so on. I don't know a smooth way to mention this in the article itself. Some of the details come from the World Authors reference. Also, the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to McElroy's full name as Joseph Prince McElroy (no Jr) but I'm not sure how this gets incorporated here or even if it's true. The full name of the father comes from the World Authors reference, with no indication that he's a Sr or that JM has or had "Prince" as a middle name. The EB article seems a little off anyway, wrong W&M page count, silly summaries, and so on.

Cindy(talk to me) 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these had been in a comment on the page itself, an implicit request to editors to not reduce the value of this article, because these minor biographical details (and others) recur throughout his fiction. I'm not sure how to phrase this. I agree that just baldly listing itty-bitty trivia is normally not appropriate, but with McElroy they certainly are important. Meanwhile, I'd welcome positive suggestions about how to include such relevant trivia. (For example, one normally does not bother mentioning someone's high school, but characters going to Poly show up in his novels.)

Choor monster (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author webpage bio[edit]

Are we allowed to cite to the author's webpage's bio for citations, say regarding his fellowships? I mean, I'm sure there are people out there who list phony accomplishments, and I don't think anyone thinks JM is one of those people, and I can find almost verification in Colby World Authors, which lists grants, not fellowships, from the various foundations, and doesn't mention "twice" for two of them like McElroy does.

Choor monster (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeLillo influenced by McElroy?[edit]

Is there a reference for this? I mean, critics freely say Beckett or Pynchon influenced everybody, but McElroy is widely acknowledged to be unread. Choor monster (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a reference on this. It's been three weeks or so, and not even a comment. I'm familiar with most of DeLillo's and all of McElroy's novels, and I just don't see it. I know of one critical work on the two authors, but I don't recall influence being mentioned, just common concerns. I've commented out the DeLillo reference, but I'd like to be proven wrong.

My standards are pretty low: if you want to tell me Pinter influenced DeLillo, because both wrote something with scenes arranged backwards in time, sure, that's distinctive enough. Similarly, the film caper qualifies for Wallace (that he admitted it is just icing on the cake). Choor monster (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2nd wife and a son[edit]

Someone has reported on McElroy's 2nd wife and son. Is this usable? I know we're not to use Primary Records to spy on people, it's not clear if marriage status counts. Choor monster (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph McElroy. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph McElroy. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph McElroy. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McElroy&oldid=1203941095"