Talk:John Fowles/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about John Fowles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Misattributed Woody Allen quote
...when Woody Allen was later asked whether he would make changes in his life if he had the opportunity to do it all over again, he jokingly replied he would do "everything exactly the same, with the exception of watching The Magus."[11]
IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON THE FILM "THE MAGUS," THIS QUOTE IS ATTRIBUTED TO PETER SELLERS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:A2B3:AC00:3090:CD33:97FF:81D1 (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
"Forefather of postmodernsim"?
Who are those critics who consider Fowles a forefather of British postmodernism? kurochka 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- It looks like there is a satisfactory link, now: Salami, Mahmoud (1992), John Fowles's Fiction and the Poetics of Postmodernism, Associated University Presses, ISBN 083863446x Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: invalid character
I haven't read any Fowles for a long while, but my impression was of a fairly conventional novelist. The ending of The French Lieutenant's Woman seemed just a clever trick. Surely readers have also been aware that authors make choices about endings; and endings have been changed before, including that of King Lear in the 18th century. Fowles certainly didn't seem to me highly experimental or postmodern -- not even a real modernist! Just compare him with Beckett. Rwood128 (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
If he's influenced by Camus and Sartre, wouldn't that make him an existentialist or nihilist? 173.79.249.88 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Biographies of Fowles request
Would it be appropriate to include in this article a list of books about Fowles? Literary criticism and the like. 150.203.2.85 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't he a socialist? communist perhaps? I'm reading his dump book about "the Whore" and I wonder...
I can't find any reference to his being a communist, but his works suggest that he was, at heart, a socialist - but politics does not seem to uniquely inform his writing - the technique is dominant. I find it bizarre that in the 1980s he was all-pervasive in bookshops, but now, he is hard to find, despite his perceived importance to the development of "the novel" 89.240.85.190 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I remember him once saying that democratic socialism was the only system he could ever believe in. Can't place the source, though. 109.157.20.61 (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Author photo
A new category has been added to this page with the following edit comment: "PhotoCatBot thinks this article may no longer need a {{Photo requested}} template. Can you check?)"
No author photo has yet been attached so one is still required. The new category will be deleted.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyright problem
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Disjointed, badly organized
I don't know about anyone else,but my first impression upon reading this, in the first couple of paragraphs was "What? Who . . .?" and found I had to keep going back in the narrative to see who was who and what was going on.
It just seems poorly organized and Frankenstinian in its writing style, as if four different people were writing one sentence after another's. Just my impression.
To wit: almost a complete non-sequitur, coming (and going) seemingly out of nowhere:"The work of Richard Jefferies and his character Bevis were Fowles's favourite books as a child." Is that the defining event of his entire childhood? That's it -- nothing more is said. Bizarre.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonbo0422 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree - abysmal article. Examples: "many critics now consider him on the cusp between modernism and postmodernism" links to one critic writing in 1992 - hardly a recent or consensus view (and for me, completely wrong); Woody Allen's joke about a film given more space than Fowles's last three novels on a page actually about Fowles; his teaching career given almost as much space as his "literary career" as though of nearly equal interest... Scrap the whole thing and start again from scratch is my advice. 86.155.90.246 (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)