Talk:Patricia Highsmith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Patricia Highsmith was not bisexual, but a lesbian. Highsmith herself preferred the terms "gay" or "queer". This has been fixed in the article.

---

"she has been accused of racism, antisemitism, and even misogyny" - Accused by whom, on what grounds, and with what justification? PhilipC 04:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

awards

Any new awards? 141.157.83.56 12:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

new pictures

Thank you for the new pictures 141.157.74.120 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pathigh.jpg

Image:Pathigh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beautifulshadow.jpg

Image:Beautifulshadow.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Highnothing.jpg

Image:Highnothing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the following text based on my reading of one of Highsmith's anthologies: "Her 1987 collection of short stories "Tales of Natural and Unnatural Catastrophes," however, was acidly anti-American to the point of propaganda; in those stories she does not miss an opportunity to cast America and Americans in an unfavorable light." Trust me, I'm being charitable in that assessment. Read that anthology if you want a sense of someone who is working off a load of spite against a people.loupgarous (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What correction?

The article lists her as having many affairs with men and women, when her most recent biographer puts her last relationship with a man in 1949 (again, Mark Brandell). And one of the links under the bio says "bisexual." The article still creates an inference that is not true. Highsmith was gay.--Mjstreet (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Mjstreet

"suspected she may have had Asperger's"

can we cut it out with this bullshit please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.181.115 (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Whether she had Asperger's

I don't know whether it would be considered an authoritative source or not, since I don't know the rules, but she is included in the following book:

Asperger's syndrome and high achievement : some very remarkable people / Ioan James. by James, I. M. (Ioan Mackenzie), 1928- London ; Philadelphia : Jessica Kingsley, 2006. Songflower (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

new pictures?

Can anyone find a new picture of highsmith to place on the article?

Wow, talk about "man-hands"! 38.115.185.4 (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)HelenChicago

Personality - and Ruth Rendell

@Lapadite77: Highsmith's appearance on After Dark was notable for what were judged to be her cruel remarks and questions to a fellow guest, the father of a recently murdered girl. Father: 'I don't know if you can imagine the scene of my daughter's bedroom. Friends and neighbours had to go and clean that bedroom up. The stains and fingerprints. They had to take the carpet up, sandpaper the floor and get rid of the marks, buy a new carpet and put it down'. Highsmith: 'What kind of marks?' That's The Guardian reporting. Today wrote that "for sheer oddness, none has outmatched crime writer-cum-New York bag lady lookalike Patricia Highsmith...asking a series of staggeringly daft and insensitive questions to poor David Howden, whose daughter was strangled by a maniac." Wouldn't you agree that instances such as this are revealing of the subject's character and personality?

The Gnome, your edit stated, "she asked what to some critics were "a series of staggeringly daft and insensitive questions." - yet that is attributed to one critic. Deeming one's critic's view of her questions in a TV appearance as informative of her personality is undue weight for one. If you cited more critical opinion on her demeanor there, as it pertains to perception of her personality, then that would be appropriate. Otherwise, the After Dark appearance is perfectly fine in See also. Readers can click on the article if they want more information on it, including the critic's opinion you cited. Lapadite (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC

The relevant reporting cited in the Wikipedia article about her appearance in After Dark contains the work of two critics and not one. Their report confirms and amplifies what others (friends and acquaintances) have noted, too, about Highsmith's character. It is difficult to understand what you find so exceptional about the After Dark evidence; these findings are anything but controversial or contrary to accepted opinion about Highsmith's personality as such. -The Gnome (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You attributed "some" to one. Two is still not "some". Go for it, and please keep WP:NPOV in mind. Lapadite (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Neanderthal arithmetic" principles should apply: Zero, One, Many ("Some"). I truly know of no other way to qualify "some": would that be specifically three or more, four or more, what? As to the neutrality advice, there are no horses in this race for me. Not some, but zero. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Some" may suggest "a fairly large amount or number" or "unspecified but considerable in number, amount, degree, etc.". I think most people wouldn't consider two "some", certainly not out of an indefinite amount. If you can cite "some critics" then that's a different story, but that characterization without a citation would be original research. Better to attribute the opinions to specific individuals/publications without prefacing them with a summary. Lapadite (talk)

Actually, the image in the section already links to her After Dark appearance, so its inclusion in See also isn't warranted, per WP:NOTSEEALSO. Lapadite (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. One more reason to remove it from there and replace it with something appropriate. -The Gnome (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Ruth Rendell. A "See also" section, per Wikipedia's manual of style, typically contains "related Wikipedia articles," but also items that "might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of [the section] is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." The link to Ruth Rendell fits very well the requirements since she was a woman writer whose "brand of crime fiction...explored deeply into the psychological background of criminals and their victims, many of them mentally afflicted or otherwise socially isolated," like Highsmith's characters. -The Gnome (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

See: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent...Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic." See the example there. Is there something in particular that connects her to Highsmith? Merely being another female crime writer doesn't warrant inclusion. Lapadite (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If a description of Rendell's work would help alleviate the concerns raised about the "relation" of Rendell and Highsmith, this can easily be fixed. I urge you, however, to familiarize yourself not just with the entry on Ruth Rendell but with her work and, more importantly, what critics have said about it and its literary relationship to the PH oeuvre. See for instance here ("For would-be female crime writers today, part of [Highsmith's] appeal is that her protagonists are civilians, in contrast to other potential role models, from PD James and Ruth Rendell onwards, who staged a takeover of the police detective novel, although Rendell later developed a cop-free Highsmith-esque sideline as Barbara Vine"), here ("Like Patricia Highsmith, [Rendell] had a fixation on criminal misfits, whose psychological state she explored with incisive prose"), and here ("[Rendell] did more even than Patricia Highsmith to explore the murderous, psychopathic mind in an attempt to understand it"). -The Gnome (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, my point is that there's no particular connection to Highsmith cited in her article − particular connection in the spirit of the example given in the MOS: Related person – made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005. If there are RSs placing them both in a particular context, please cite that in the article (If it is cited in Rendell's article then she could be linked in this article's See also, but not if Rendell is cited in this article). So a particular connection/context should be established in either (or, if preferred, both) of the articles for readers. By the way, crimefictionlover.com doesn't appear to be a reliable site. Lapadite (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The best way forward, then, seems to be a simple link to Ruth Rendell in the "See also" section with a brief note indicating the relation to the subject. Detailed references in the Highmith entry, pointing out similarities to Rendell's work, would probably constitute unduly weighted information and invite subjective points of view. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you prefer that. I still suggest citing any information/connection put forth in See also that is not cited in Rendell's article. Lapadite (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand. Could you please clarify? -The Gnome (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Citing at least one source discussing both authors would provide more information and clarify a particular connection. Like I'd said, just writing in the same genre isn't sufficient, seeing as we don't add in every crime or psychological thriller writer. So we're discriminating here; emphasizing one specific writer out of many. Readers wanting to understand what supposed noteworthy connection Rendell has to Highsmith, beyond their writing topics, should be able to refer to reliable sources cited. Lapadite (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Ι see what you mean, now. Ruth Rendell happens to be a writer whose work travels along the same paths as Highsmith's. She's not alone in that, of course. We certainly could cite more than one, using "our editorial judgment and common sense." I'd leave that up to others. One purpose of a "See also" section is, per the guide you cited, to allow readers "to explore tangentially related topics." And one link is possibly too few. The guide states, "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." So, boldly add to it. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9, you may want to read this discussion. Lapadite (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting. I would still prefer not to list Rendell here. It strikes me as using "See also" in the manner of a Book Club's recommendations for further reading: "If you liked this, you should also consider..." But I also don't feel all that strongly. I do, however, object to the description of Rendell that has been in place, since it does not help the uninitiated reader understand why Rendell is listed at all. Those familiar with Highsmith's work will get the point, of course, but many readers who skim this Highsmith entry because of other concerns -- her use of a pseudoym, the Swiss connection, sexual orientation, film adaptations -- will just be puzzled. I've made a stab at a straightforward statement of why Rendell should be listed under "See also" and included a reference. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I lean toward not listing another author there, unless RSs have discussed them in a particular context, such as one being a significant influence on the other (not merely writing about similar topics). And in that case, it should be noted in the article, not linked in See also. I agree with your view of the apparent use of See also. But it's at least clarified now. Lapadite (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Sources should be in-line citations.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

PoS, a million sold

The paperback version of the novel sold nearly one million copies before its 1990 reissue: <ref>Patricia Highsmith (November 11, 2015). "Happily ever after, at last: Patricia Highsmith on the inspiration for Carol". The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved March 5, 2016.</ref>

It's best to cite a secondary source for this. Here are two secondary sources that mention selling a million: New Yorker, Vulture. Lapadite (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll get to it within the next 24 hrs. Vulture is the better source (the "over one million" has been tossed around and repeated, but I haven't found a means to verify the claim). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

please explain

"She was sometimes labelled antisemitic because of her support of Palestinian independance (she dedicated two novels to the Palestinian people.)" -> Exactly which novels are you referring to? Please explain by giving the name of the novels. 141.157.83.56 11:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC) ripley under ground is dedicated to kurdish and palestinian freedom fighters.

That is not true. It is dedicated to her Polish neighbors, which one would know by reading the first pages of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavidBurgess (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No - because she expressed antisemitic views. And 'but some of my best friends are Jewish' is an idiotic alibi. Moreover, Koestler??? Really??? The man who popularised the antisemitic 'Khazar' myth?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.25.119 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Quoting critics, scholars, authors

A word of advice for those unfamiliar with WP's guidelines for quotes. Per Quotations#Specific recommendations: "All quotes should be treated the same...The quote can simply be indented using a colon and enclosed in quotation marks."

Re block quotations, per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE: "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template)."

The only exception would be if you're quoting Patricia Highsmith, or a sentence or two from one of her works. In this case, using <blockquote>text</blockquote> would be appropriate. The decorative Cquote may be acceptable depending on how it's used on the page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Layout of article

Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) for biography articles is found here: WP:MOSBIO. In the search box on the right margin you will find under Layout the guidelines for article structure. You will also find a sample of article layout.

I think we can all agree that every editor has great ideas for how things could be done differently ... but Wikipedia has policies and guidelines in place that all editors are expected to follow. Think of it this way: when you play chess, checkers, monopoly, dominoes, mahjong, poker, baseball, rugby, soccer, football, basketball, hockey — any game and sport — you play by the rules. Editing Wikipedia is no different. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Opening paragraph: "...notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951"

Regarding the recent kerfuffle over the wording of the second sentence of the paragraph, namely: "Her first novel, Strangers on a Train, has been adapted for stage and screen numerous times, notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951."

FYI, this sentence comes from the description of Highsmith provided by publishers to libraries and appears in their online summary about her. For example, you find it in the third paragraph of the Author Notes in the Summary section for Little Tales of Misogyny by British public library service, LibrariesWest:

... Her first novel, Strangers on a Train (1950), was adapted for stage and screen numerous times, notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951.

The only difference between the library summary and the Wikipedia article is the changing of "was adapted" to "has been adapted".

You will also find it, for example, in the AUTHOR NOTES section within the "Summary/Reviews" tab of the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library, and the Author Notes in the "Summary" by the Washington County Library System. You'll find booksellers, such as Quill & Brush, using a similar description for a first edition of Strangers on a Train: "This title has been adapted for stage and screen numerous times, notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1951." Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

After Dark image?

Not sure if the picture of her tv appearance is now in the right place. The image may not have been correctly placed before but it doesn't seem to fit with sections on Religious, racial and ethnic views / Politics / Israel, given how specific her appearance on the programme was and how closely that programme ("How Do You Survive a Murder?") related to what she is best known for, see here. What do others think? AnOpenMedium (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Having the image in the //Sexuality// section did not make sense and that's why, per WP:BOLD, I moved it to a different area of the page. I tried positioning it in other sections, but the insufficient amount of text in them caused the image to spill into the section that followed and altered the page layout. The only other area where it can be located without creating the layout issue is the space between the //Writing history// and //Comic books// sections. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I see the problem! I've just tried another place, which (based on the description of what she did on the programme) seems to complement the nearby text pretty well. What do you think? AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's now a little crowded. You have the infobox - residence - After Dark files, one after the other, and the next image on the page is The Talented Mr. Ripley file. She's an author and her appearance on After Dark was because she was an author, so I think that the best location for the file would be in the //Writing history// section. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Unknowable Firsts

I have just corrected the statement that she wrotie the “first lesbian novel with a happy ending.” I suspect this was a misinterpretation of the line in Marijane Meakers' memoir recalling that it was “the only” such story available.

Most of the past is lost to us. Firsts are often very hard to pin down. Superlatives almost always require qualifiers: first known; first known English-language; first known English-language 20th-century; and so on, sometimes to the point of absurdity. Ms. Meakers' tribute and Ms Highsmith's achievement are not diminished by this.Merry medievalist (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"I suspect this was a misinterpretation of the line in Marijane Meakers' memoir recalling that it was “the only” such story available." – What you "suspect" is strictly your point of view. But your POV doesn't decide what is or isn't included in a Wikipedia article.
"Most of the past is lost to us. Firsts are often very hard to pin down." – That's your opinion. But if Marijane Meakers, who is not only an authority on lesbian fiction but also an author of lesbian-theme fiction during the 50s-60s (under pen names), says it is the first lesbian novel with a happy ending ... then that is what the article can also state.
Meakers wrote: "...Pat was revered for her pseudonymous novel, The Price of Salt, which had been published in 1952 by Coward McCann. It was for many years the only lesbian novel, in either hard or soft cover, with a happy ending."
Meakers' memoir is cited several times in the article (and if you had bothered to look at the references you would not have assumed that you creating a citation for the Meakers book was the first time that it was being used as a source).
The article also includes the following quote:
"The appeal of The Price of Salt was that it had a happy ending for its two main characters, or at least they were going to try to have a future together. Prior to this book, homosexuals male and female in American novels had had to pay for their deviation by cutting their wrists, drowning themselves in a swimming pool, or by switching to heterosexuality (so it was stated), or by collapsing – alone and miserable and shunned – into a depression equal to hell." — "Happily ever after, at last: Patricia Highsmith on the inspiration for Carol". Patricia Highsmith (11 November 2015). The Telegraph.
If you want to go against Meakers and remove content sourced to her memoir: seek consensus for it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)