Jump to content

Talk:Frank Norris

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

Uncle of Chuck Norris?

[edit]

I can find nothing outside of Wikipedia that validates this claim--I wonder if this is a deliberate joke or a misunderstanding over the fact that Frank Norris had a brother named Charles. It is also in the entry on Chuck Norris himself, presumably put there by the same editor. Can someone verify this? A Runyon 18:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

A picture of Norris would add to the article. --MosheA 20:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting v. reporting commentary

[edit]

At present, the article says

Norris has been criticized for the apologetic stance his work seems to take ok

but there is no indication that this criticism is notable. Without a proper citation, the subsequent commentary operationalizes as that of the editor who inserted it. I have added a {{fact}} fact tag so that, if there is such commentary, from a notable source, then the source may be noted.

(A quotation of a criticized passage is of course not the same thing as showing that the criticism itself is notable.) —SlamDiego←T 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism??

[edit]

Norris may or may not have been antisemetic in life, but having read "The Octopus" I'm afraid I don't see the "strenuous antisemitism" that Levi seems to read into this novel. I've read the book several times and I don't believe the words "Jew" or "Jewish" appear in it at all. Nowhere is it even hinted that Behrman might be a Jew; the entire novel is a critique of unchecked Capitalism and the abuses perpetrated by the robber barrons of the Gilded Age.

In McTeague, while it's true that the character "Zerko" is described as a Jew, he's certainly not the only villain, or even the central villain in the story. Indeed, every main character in this novel has villainous traits. Furthermore, Norris strongly implies that Zerko's villainy stems not from any inherrent evil, but from insanity.

Seems like Levi is being a bit over-sensitive here, and perhaps another quote or two from other writers is in order to provide some balance and further insight on this topic? Or have we really reached the point of political correctness at which no writer dare mention the word "Jew" in anything but a 100% positive context, less he risk being labeled an "antisemite"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I recommend folding this subsection into a section called "Critical Reception" with the following text:

Norris’s work has not fared well with critics in the late 20th and early 21st century. As Donal Pizer writes, "Frank Norris's racism, which included the most vicious anti-Semitic portayals in any major work of American literature, has long been an embarrasment to admirers of the vigor and intensity of his best fiction and has also contributed to the the decline of his reputation during the past several generations." His work is often seen as strongly influenced by the scientific racism of the late 19th century, such as that espoused by his professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Joseph LeConte. Along with his contemporary Jack London, Norris is seen as “reconstructing American identity as a biological category of Anglo-Saxon masculinity.” In Norris’s work, critics have seen evidence of racism, antisemitism, and contempt for immigrants and the working poor, all of whom are seen as “falling by the wayside” in a Social-Darwinian struggle for existence. Additionally, his “exaggeratedly muscular novels” seem to posit women as biologically subordinate to men.

These are citations from a handful of articles collected in the Columbia History of the American Novel (1991). Perhaps the long block quote from the critic Richard Levy. Note though, that critics agree that Norris was openly antisemitic in his fiction and nonfiction writings. I haven't added the actual notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhunt2usfca (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Career Needs Work

[edit]

The "Career" section consists mainly of a one paragraph description of a single work -- the Octopus. Seems like more depth is in order here. Or at the very least a similar-sized paragraph on Norris's most highly regarded work, McTeague. But it seems to me that a "Career" section should say less about the plots of his novels, and more about what, when, and how he published; what public reaction was to his work; his view of what he was trying to accomplish; and whether he was able to support himself with his work, had any patrons, or had to carry a "day job" like so many other artists.

74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Norris. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]

The section about critical reception dwells entirely on negative reactions based on his portrayal of certain groups. The section contains nothing about how his work was positively appreciated in his time. His books sold well, so certainly there was much positive reception in his day! This section is almost entirely about very recent reactions to his work, a good example of Presentism, past events being evaluated only by present views. I hope an author with some literary knowledge adds some historical evaluation of Norris' work. Pete unseth (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Norris&oldid=1209414377"