Talk:List of novelists

Contents

1 Request for Refactoring 2 organization of the list 3 Organization of the list (AGAIN) 4 Move 5 Eca de Queiros 6 Eca de Queiros again 7 WikiProject Authors?

Request for Refactoring

I suggest we refactor our respective comments on this page into sections, as it is getting very confusing:

• why this list page as a whole is good / bad (touches on the topic of list pages in general: maybe move to a "Wikipedia:" namespace page)
• why some authors should / shouldn't be on it (quality of their work)
• why some authors should / shouldn't be on it (nature of what they write: novel vs essays etc)
• how much detail there should be
• the organization of the list (I've made a start on this: see below)

I'll leave this up for a while & then endeavour to mercilessly refactor it all myself ;-) -- Tarquin 04:07 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

---

Mr, anonymous 209...our convention here is to add text to the BOTTOM of talk pages. Please follow it. The rest of my comments will be there.

To Eclecticology

*= Opinion

Arthur Hailey, (1920- ) indefatigable* researcher Gabriel García Márquez, Nobel Prize for Literature (1982), One Hundred Years of Solitude? (1967), journalist, publisher, enthusiastic8 third-world leftist, avatar* of magical realism?.

Jeffrey Archer, peer, perjurer and author of best-selling but poorly-reviewed* novels. (* this is more than opinion - it is false. There was much critical acclaim for Kane and Abel: check the NYT - London Telegram etc. etc. etc.).

G. Ballard, disturbing* novelist, wrote Crash, Empire of the Sun (Disturbing to who? Not to those who bought the book and certainly not Kronenberg and the masses that flocked to his movie.)

Daniel Defoe, journalist, wrote Robinson Crusoe (1719), Moll Flanders, wrote more than 500 books, accounted the most prolific* author in English. (False: Dame Barbra Cartland wrote twice as many)

Rudyard Kipling, journalist, imperial propagandist*, masterful short-story writer, poet, author of Kim (1904) (Subjective - History shows things change, i.e. George Washington, Thomas Edison and his slaves. Place in time is relevant because of the then world perspective.)

J.R.R. Tolkien, described by one critic as a `radical Luddite'* ??(This OPINION adds value? To whom?), he wrote the most popular work of fiction of the 20th century. (How did he arrive at ?Most Popular? Seems to me, most popular can only be defined as unit (book) sales. Therefore, the most popular (by far) is Robert James Waller ?Bridges of Madison County) at 60.13 million. ) Should I keep going with this nonsense that has no place in an ?Encyclopedia? The "List of Novelists" is not. And an idex with notes and personal (subjective) opinions does not exist in any encyclopedia in any language in any country. Do you want an Encyclopedia or a personal toy for a few?

It was my understanding this is an encyclopedia not a place for organizing personal preferences that are factually incorrect. As such it should be factual if it is to be of assistance to the world at random. If this "List of Novelists" is limited to only those who write novels, that is fine. But, people like Frank McCourt, du Chatelet etc. cannot be listed here. (And, I can assure you he does not wish to be listed as a novelist or she anything but an essayist.) According to Websters' - Brittanica etc.: Novelist: Someone who writes novels ---- Novels: An extended fictional work in prose; usually in the form of a story.

Why then start creating dozens of catagories when, in fact and according to Websters' - Brittanica etc.: Authors / Writers: Writes (books or stories or articles or the like) professionally (for pay). Too, because the list is long why clutter an "Encyclopedia" with comments & opinions on the index page. If one does it, more and more will start adding their own comments and opinions. (Aside: Encyclopedia's do not contain opinions of any kind). Eventually the additions will become so plentiful, the names of the AUTHORS will be lost and it will take forever to search the list. The joy of those who appreciate the literary world is discovering more info about a known author or learning about a new or unread author. One accomplishes this easy, by quickly scanning a list and clicking! .... 209

A one or two line factual comment after an author's name is not mere opinion. It helps us in choosing which author to pursue. I support the joy that you express about discovering a new author, but I don't agree that clicking on a naked list will accomplish this. The longer the list the more useful it is to show distinguishing characteristics, otherwise I might as well read a phone book. Eclecticology 18:08 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

If you like 209 I can move this list to the more generic List of authors (unless somebody complains). But please do not destroy added value mark-up placed on this list by others. --mav

I actually prefer novelists. I think it is more specific. Danny

I classify that as a valid complaint so the current title stays (I prefer more specific titles too -- since there are separate authors lists lurking in the pedia). --mav

---

To the anonymous 209... who is removing some of the short glosses: stop it. If you want to replace them with some you think are more neutral, that's fine, though I honestly can't even see any problem with the ones you removed--they were simple statments of fact--indeed, one was just the name of a book! This is not editing, it's vandalism. "Naked" lists of links are boring and pointless; a little extra information with each helps to better identify and provides a little extra info. --LDC

---

I removed this commentary, but it does bring up a good issue:

These are authors, some of whom are poets, biographers, journalists, or authors of other non-fiction, who are only known as authors. Novels are works of fiction ONLY. (See wikipedia definition of "novelist") Frank McCourt won the Pulitzer Prize for his Biography. He did not win it for a novel because novels are works of fiction. These authors of various kinds of literary works are listed by country.

I don't disagree, and we need some criterion for who to include on this page. My personal preference would be "anyone who has, at any time, published a novel", regardless of what they might be more famous for. If they don't qualify on that score, then yes, move them to "list of noted writers" or something. Please don't remove the info though--move it to the right place. --LDC

Basically agree. Winston Churchill should be on the list even though he is more famous for other things. Winning a Pullizer for anything is completely irrelevant. There will still always be a grey area between novels and novellas, but I would give the benefit of the doubt to inclusion. Eclecticology

Just a note here, don't anybody change anything, but a hundred years ago there was a famous American novelist named "Winston Churchill" who no longer matters and doesn't deserve a mention, but it is interesting and important to know that the British politician with the same name did write a novel (and also won a Nobel Prize for Literature for his writing, which is given for a lifetime's work.

As for 209, if you want to remove Frank McCourt, do so, and add a comment, "removing Frank McCourt because he never wrote a novel", but You have got to stop removing valuable, accurate factual information from this list on your stupid whim. Christina Stead did write a novel, one that is probably more famous by title than she is by name and it is plain stupid and harmful to take the name of that novel off this list. It was added for a reason.

The reason it was added is that to have long lists of names with nothing else does no one any good. Nor does it do anyone any good to change "list of novelists" to "list of authors". Why not change it to "list of people"?

Take your precious Frank McCourt and put him on another list, "autobiographers who don't want to be taken for novelists because people might think they made the whole memoir up", but stop messing up this list.

This is taking a lot of psychic energy that I'd rather be devoting to loftier pursuits than chasing some Frank McCourt fan. Ortolan88 19:22 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

---

About Stefano Benni, I apologise for my previous removal, merely due to a general local consideration, here, that does not usually include him among the most important italian novelists (right or wrong might it be); as a matter of fact he IS a novelist, and I admit that judgements and classifications in this field very easily risk to be non neutral or extremely subjective. This obviously was not in my intentions, and Benni had to be there. A list should be potentially infinitive.

Now, there is also space, I believe, to considerations that might take into account the cultural enrichment (when merely examined as an historical datum for what it produced or otherwise caused) that each author effectively gave origin to by his works: not to decide by this criterion whether to include him or not, but simply to have intellectual pens listed just a minute before ideological pencils. It is not a political position: Emilio Lussu, due to a general local consideration, here, is usually included among the most important italian novelists (right or wrong might it be), and he had an undiscussed different political weight on the same side of the barricades. Usually Emilio Lussu comes to mind just a few minutes before Benni.

It was only strange (to me) to see that Wiki's list mentioned Benni and not D'Annunzio. Est modus in rebus. --G

Please add d'Annunzio, and add a line saying why he is important, then write an article about d'Annunzio. I don't really know anything about Benni, just looked him up on the web for fun. Ortolan88

---

209, I think you misunderstand the function of the short glosses added to list items. They are meant to be short bits of identifying information, not serious article content. They serve several purposes; one, they help people find authors they might be looking for without knowing the exact names; they make the article itself more interesting to read rather than a boring collection of links; and they serve as the most basic "stub" info for entries that have no article at all. They are not intended to be full-on article content. If some of them are too long and distracting, feel free to shorten them. In this case, I think most of the comments should just be the name of a novel or two, or some other info by which someone might remember the writer.

It's perfectly OK for these comments to express brief opinions, especially if they are widely held. The articles they point to should take more care to attribute all opinions and report any controversies (it can still have opinions of course, as all articles can--if you think otherwise, then you further misunderstand our neutrality policy), but since the short glosses here aren't meant to be real content, and must be short, it isn't as critical to do that. Of course, you're still free to replace these comments with others if you think the present ones are seriously flawed, but a simple thing such as "early master of science fiction" for Jules Verne and such are perfectly fine.

Yes, it is also a problem that some of the entries here aren't "novelists". Well then, help us out--ADD some information about those who you think shouldn't be here, put that information here on the talk page and we'll decide where to put it. Our job here is to create information, not destroy it.

Finally, you would gain a lot of credibility here by logging in with a user name and participating as part of the community here rather than being anonymous. --LDC

Written while LDC was at work, repeats some of his points.

The purpose of the list pages is to bring every novelist together under one heading, not to be an index page. The wikipedia is indexed via software. The wikipedia is also rife with bare lists that could have some value if they had some information in them. The purpose of the annotations is to identify the list members in some brief, interesting way, to add value to the list, not to serve as the final word on these authors.

Arthur Hailey is an indefatigable researcher and that is a salient characteristic of his novels, certainly not any artistic value, and I don't think he'd say any different. Indefatigable means "tireless" btw.

Kipling was an imperialist propagandist, a fact that has to be dealt with by anyone who deals with Kipling seriously. Your comment is reasonable, but too long to be in an annotated list. It belongs in the article on Kipling (perhaps a bit more thought through; I don't think Thomas Edison had too many slaves).

Ballard is disturbing. That is his stock in trade. In Crash, the eroticism of auto accidents is disturbing and it is supposed to be disturbing. Ballard made it that way on purpose.

Some of the other annotations may be more dubious, so edit them, explain your changes in a summary line, or if they need more explanation, on this page. Don't hide in the weeds and snipe.

The line about Tolkein as a "radical Luddite" is quite striking and revealing, and God knows we've got enough serious stuff about Tolkein in the wikipedia. Bill the Pony has his own article. The Luddite comment is worth at least as much.

avatar -- "embodiment in a person of a concept, philosophy or tradition". Best to look words up if you don't know what they mean.

I note those you are sticking up for, Frank McCourt, "Dame" Barbara Cartland, Robert James Waller, Jeffrey Archer. I also note you remain anonymous.

Add Waller to the list and put his 60.13 million (that .13 is just precious) sales next to his name. Then write an article about him.

Ortolan88 20:34 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

I wrote the line about Tolkien and I'll stand by it: he's regularly voted the most popular in reader polls, to the despair of `literary' critics, and his books are still selling like hot cakes, nearly fifty years on. That sort of staying power doesn't happen to many authors, literary or otherwise - it's not happening to Waller, for example. I'll track down where I saw the luddite comment and add it to the Tolkien entry - I quoted it because it seemed so exactly right about one element of his appeal. I read it very recently, so it must have been from Tom Shippey, I think

Malcolm Farmer 01:56 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

---

organization of the list

The intro (which I just rewrote, but not in that part) says "by country", but it's a mix of by-country and by-language (Catalan, Yiddish). I'm tempted to move "Catalan" to be a subentry under "Spain", but "Yiddish" is a trickier problem. Vicki Rosenzweig

It would be easy to change "Catalan" to "Catalonia", but that would only solve a tiny part of the problem. Perhaps a phrase like "by country or other cultural affinity" might improve things once the debate settle down. I'm still considering what to do with the citzens of Cosmopolitania. I've also wondered about those people who have been put in both Canada and France. There is more to being a two country writer than simply moving there. Nabokov is one of the very few to accomplish this. Eclecticology

May I suggest the following scheme of SEVERAL pages, the same way there are several versions of the Periodic Table:

• List of novelists (purely alphabetical by surname or pseudonym)
• List of novelists by language (more interesting than by country, I feel)
• List of novelists by century
• List of novelists by country

Language is a closer indication of cultural affinity than country, I think -- Tarquin 04:07 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

Quoted above: The purpose of the list pages is to bring every novelist together under one heading, not to be an index page. The list did not bring "novelists" together, it brought "Authors" together. Repeat for the umpteenth time: Novelists write only fiction. Example: Hemingway was not a novelist but an author because he wrote for newspapers etc. Same thing applies to many on the list. Plus, many have never written even one novel. If you like I will start removing everyone on your "novelist" list who is not. It will shrink dramatically which would be stupid. Anyone who searches Wikipedia for du Chatelet etc. would never look in novelist but they would look in authors. Change it to authors and put (leave) everyone there as is. Authors covers it all. Putting in personal comments opens the door to promoters and becomes a self-serving list only. The note serves to draw attention therefore those with a twist or passion etc. for certain genres or authors will promote theur view or their own/relatives/friends etc. book. Get rid of opinions, dates (now how that is relevant to literary ability is beyond me) if this is an encyclopedia because encyclopedias are for learning factual information. Exploring a list, making a discovery and LEARNING is what this site is all about.Or maybe I just don't understand that "Wikipedia" is really a forum for opinions and should be avoided by anyone with a thirst for knowledge of facts. Arthur Hailey would in fact object. I can guarantee that. AVATAR: The manifestation of a Hindu deity (especially Vishnu) in human or superhuman or animal form. Amen. God bless America. ... 209

Anon, you have some good points. The difference between novelists and authors is not clearly obeyed, although this list should not be restricted to people that have ONLY written novels (Hemingway wrote some, if I'm correct). So you could move the rest to the list of authors, and maintain the real novelists here (as the poets at the list of poets).

About the annotations that are being added; these are useful for me, because then I can quickly look at why that author has deserved an encyclopedia article, without reading it first. If there's something incorrect in these annotations, feel free to correct them! We are striving for a NPOV, so if some things are subjective, please remove them. As for birthdates/deathdates, these can also be useful in placing authors in a specific period. Jeronimo

P.S. Tarquin 04:07 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)said: Language is a closer indication of cultural affinity than country, I think. -- Nuts! Nancy Huston is a Canadian citizen living in Paris who writes her NOVELS in French and in English. She does not translate her work. She writes in both languages as do a few others on this list of "novelists". Why start segregating into more areas? This list is fine the way it is, just rename it so that the title is correct and reflects what the list contains.

Alphabetic is fine with me, but if it's going to be per country maybe language is better. Jeronimo

Anonymous person, maybe you should read what I said: I suggested the principal list be purely alphabetic, with some ancillary lists by language, century and country. Language is a marker of culture, ask the Welsh or any other linguistic minority (Catalan, Oc, Breton, etc). I didn't claim it was the only marker, but the current classification is getting into trouble with Catalan, Yiddish, etc (and what about Esperanto...?). Plus for readers, it's more interesting to see which authors one can seek out to read in the original language, than which country they are from. -- Tarquin 07:09 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

P.S.S. I note from certain bios and comments is the frustration many express over the editing. If you express an opinion, or make an incorecct comment, on the INDEX, then the editing starts. Before long, this "LIST OF NOVELISTS (AUTHORS!) will be one more incomprehensible jungle. Is that what you want? Take the time to put your comments inside. And, if you have time for an opinion etc. on the INDEX why not click and print it where it belongs. That way it is neat, precise and can in fact be edited, added to etc.

I have no idea what you mean here, sorry. Jeronimo

While I'm at it, here is a perfect example quoted from above: Kipling was an imperialist propagandist, a fact that has to be dealt with by anyone who deals with Kipling seriously. Your comment is reasonable, but too long to be in an annotated list. It belongs in the article on Kipling (perhaps a bit more thought through; I don't think Thomas Edison had too many slaves. Here we have someone saying his/her comment is okay but another one is not. Who makes him/her judge and jury? Alas, the editing will begin on the INDEX page!

What makes him judge and jury? Maybe the fact that he's working within the law: he logs in (under a pseudonym) so other editors know who they're dealing with, includes summary descriptions of most edits, and when making major or potentially controversial changes explains them on the talk page. The other judges and members of the jury work by the same system, making an attempt to engage in constructive dialogue with each other when they don't agree; you would do well to learn by their examples. --Brion VIBBER

So if someone logs in using a phony name and an e-mail address for that purpose, it gives them credibility? At least I can be tracked by my computer number.

It shows you went to the effort to log in with a consistent phony name, yes, and your contributions can be tracked more reliably using a name rather than an IP address that may change from time to time. Additionally, your user page's associated Talk page serves as a convenient message post where other editors can reach you indirectly to comment on or ask about your work in general. On the other hand, the combination of never logging in, never filling the Summary box when you make edits, rarely signing your notes on talk pages, and arguing constantly and incoherently makes you look like a crank, which takes away from your credibility. Sorry, but humans are shallow and looks do matter. --Brion VIBBER

I have a phony name because it amuses me and because it is a long-standing tradition both on the Internet and in the Wikipedia. I have been on the Internet since 1978 and in the Wikipedia since March of this year. My real e-mail address, which I have been using since 1992, is given on my user page, along with my real name, which I have been using since 1940. And at least I know the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Edison. Ortolan88 07:26 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

Listing by country, in my opinion, has been a good thing. I think that someone from a particular country will be motivated to 1) Provide input on existing names and 2) to insert new names of authors from their country. If it is puerly alphabetical, few people have the time or inclination to search to see who or who not from their country is or is not listed.

My suggestion was to have several pages. Tarquin

Now we have this page unmaintainably duplicated as Authors by someone who thinks that Hemingway is not a novelist because he wrote memoirs and journalism as well, and who can't be bothered to take Frank McCourt's name off the novelists list even though he has complained mightily that he is on here. I must keep Schiller's Law in mind and just go about my business, I guess. It takes too much energy to do otherwise. Ortolan88 08:14 Jul 27, 2002 (PDT) PS - I'm outta this one, can't stand it any longer. See my page if you care why. PPS--avatar like many other words, has more than one meaning, moron.Ortolan88 11:54 Jul 27, 2002 (PDT)

I merged the useful parts of the breakaway list and redirected it back here. I don't think we would ever want a list with several tens of thousands of entries anyway. "Authors" just includes too many notable people. --mav

---

LDC: Yeah, but the difference between your reworking and 209's was that your's makes sense. His didn't. user:sjc

Am new to Wikipedia and found it interesting and useful. However, after reading this list of "novelists", I must agree that the title is in fact very misleading. The personal called 209 is right in that a novelist writes only fiction while this list contains numerous persons who are not novelists at all. (example: Patrick White of Australia won the Nobel Prize for a biography) Someone searching for some of the people on this list would never dream of searching under the name "novelist", so perhaps a better classification might be Authors of Books which covers everyone in this list and is more specific. Thank you. Susan J.

Every writer has written book reviews, criticisms, non-fiction this and that, some with great distinction. Vladimir Nabokov was a truly great literary critic and a notable lepidopterist, but guess what, his obituary will call him a novelist.

As was suggested to the other 209 person (is it the water?), if you see a name on this list of someone who isn't a novelist, do the following:

• take the name off the list,
• note in the summary that you are doing so,
• move the name to the list you think they do belong on, even a new list
• note in the summary why you put them on that list.
• check the main entry for that person to be sure it is correct
• if there is no main entry, write one, since in moving the name you show you care how that person is treated in the wikipedia.

If they are distinguished in more than one field of literary endeavor, take the following steps:

• put their name on every list it belongs on
• note in the summary line, "not just a novelist, also biographer"
• check the main entry for that person to be sure it is correct
• if there is no main entry, write one, since in adding the name to another list you show you care how that person is treated in the wikipedia.

That way, everyone can see what is going on. And, please don't make a list called "Authors of books". There is no way that grouping is more "specific" than novelists. Would you want an encyclopedia with three entries -- People, Places, Things?

The other 209 complained repeatedly about Frank McCourt's name being on this list, but never lifted a finger to remove it. I, his adversary, had to do it.

We should be making short, specific, useful annotated lists, not heaps of names. Ortolan88 11:44 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)

Hi again, I'm guessing that anyone not "logged in" is a "209". Have to say this, but I have examined some Wikipedia pages and think they are well documented, informative, and professionaly presented. However, this "List of Novelists" is confusing and is factually incorrect. What this is, is a list of Authors, some of which are novelists. Therefore, for professional presentation and CREDIBILITY, I think, for factual purposes,it should be labeled as nothinhg more than "Authors" with only the list of sub-categories as above, one of which would be (is) novelists (those who are principally known for books of fiction). Then, volunteers can start moving from the list of novelists, those who actually belong in a different category. Also, add new catagories such as "Journalists", i.e. Woodward or Bernstein etc. Too, I agree with the other 209 person that in an encyclopedia, which by definition is a presentation of facts, is no place for personal opinions, points of view, or comments. Facts yes, like Pulitzer Prize winner. Thank you. Susan J.

P.S. I also do not believe that this is a proper place to refer to someone as an "adversary" or any other derogatory term when they are expressing a point of view that one may not agree with.

OK, if the list is factually incorrect, then it needs to be fixed or separated, not re-named. A list of "authors" is like a list of "men" or a list of "people" (as previously stated.) I am willing to do the one-by-one work of weeding out those not novelists, alright? Now, what should I do with the deleted ones? Transport them to where they DO belong? (I'm pretty new)Sara Parks Ricker

I'd say move to List of writers, for now at least. It strikes me that this page is doomed anyway: it can't possibly include ALL novelists, and if it is selective then it's in some way NPOV.

Sara Jane, everybody, I would be glad to join in this effort (and expand it immensely). I have been thinking a lot about this, and whether I find it confusing or not (and I don't), other people do find it confusing. Therefore it needs to be fixed. Recent attempts to fix it by twiddling around with the top few lines of List of novelists are only adding to the confusion. We need to move a lot of names. The question, as you say, is Where?

I think the two things that lists need are

• shortness (comprehensibility, organization of information)
• annotation (aid to further clicking, make lists more useful)

I discuss these separately, so people who don't like the annotations can skip that part and concentrate on the organizational issues.

In aid of shortness

How about creating a hierarchy of lists like so:

List of authors, containing only other lists:

List of biographers

List of critics

List of journalists

List of novelists

List of poets

List of translators

List of travel writers

....

Each of those lists could then contain other lists:

List of novelists

List of Canadian novelists

List of Catalan novelists

....

Any individual who belonged on more than one list could easily be added to more than one list. Nabokov could be on list of critics and list of translators as well as list of novelists. All these would point to the Nabokov article, where all his many talents are discussed.

Likewise, any list that belonged in more than one place could be easily called from more than one article. List of Canadian novelists could be called from Canadian literature as well as from List of novelists, but the list itself would be only in one place, saving maintenance nightmares.

I do think the higher level lists, like List of novelists might also reserve a place of honor for those few names who transcend nationality and language. Tolstoy, Hemingway, Cervantes, may be as important in Japan as they are in the United States, and should get top billing over, say, Arthur Hailey. This might cause a little tension, but that's what talk pages are for, right?

Implementing this would be disruptive in the short run, but ought to end confusion in the long run. It could also serve as a model for other fields. What do people think? We can't just keep adding names to lists and hoping it will get better on its own.

In defense of annotation

The purpose of the annotations is to make the lists more useful, not to provide the last word on the subject.

• An annotation can point a reader to the right article.
• An annotation can provide some information when there is no article.
• When I see an unannotated item on a list, I usually think, I guess there isn't anything to say about that person. I wonder why they are on the list?

Simple lists of names without any other identification only work in simple situations. Any list of value will have names worthy of being distinguished, at least by or country involved, if not by more subjective criteria.

It is worth knowing that Mark Twain was not only a novelist, but also a humorist, journalist, short-story writer, platform lecturer, travel writer, etcetera. I see only value, and no harm, in stating in an annotation on the list of novelists that Twain wore more than one hat, but others seem to find it confusing.

Since it is contrary to the nature of the Wikipedia to prohibit people from adding annotations, they will be added anyway. If they are truly flippant (like some of mine), someone else will come along and change them. I see no harm in a bit of humor or wit in an annotation, but that's the way I'm made. If the comment isn't too far out of grim encyclopedia mode, no one will complain. If it is too much, they will fix it. I had added a comment to Hermann Hesse "Hippies loved him". Now this is true and concise, but someone else called it "ignorant" and removed it. Someday I will go back and put in something like "His quest for meaning in life made him popular with young people, particularly in the 60s", which says the same thing, less precisely, but with more solemnity.

Ortolan88 09:09 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

I hope there's a middle ground between "hippes loved him" and "His quest for meaning in life...". I like the tree idea for pages -- though I'm not sure by country is the best sub-classification of writers. By language or by century -- but since we're committed to some duplication, why not have all 3 ways? -- Tarquin 09:19 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

The beauty of trees is that they have many branches (See Connecticut quarter). If lists and sublists are reasonably short, they can have all sorts of categories.

Mr. 209 just started implementing this solution on his own. See Authors. I think it should be List of Authors, but otherwise, his instinct was excellent.

Hesse -- "Mystical, existential, for the young at heart"

Ortolan88 09:27 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

Yes, it's looking like it's all coming together. Or unravelling itself. Choose your metaphor :-) I can move Authors -- I now have magical sysop powers :-) In fact, let's go discuss on talk:authors, this page is taking forever to load now! -- Tarquin

Dear 209.91.166.26, What´s the point of removing valid pieces of information and referring to this process as NPOV? Is humour per se biased? Best wishes, 80.108.19.76

Organization of the list (AGAIN)

Despite discussion above, this area of the Wiki seems to be a bit of a mess - we have a whole lot of cross-cutting lists, all requiring to be maintained separately (a good illustration of the sort of thing a database does better than a hypertext).

As a first step to sorting out the chaos, what would people think of the following modest proposal: where we have a separate page giving a list of novelists for the country, we abolish the section in this page referring to that country, and replace it with a link to the separate page (transferring any names that aren't duplicated, of course). So this page would gradually become a list of lists, except for countries whose novelistic output is rather small.

To go further would involve deciding how many types of list we really need. I would suggest that there are three - lists by nation, lists by genre, and lists by period. That would mean someone writing an article on a new author would just (!) have to make sure that s/he was entered on the three relevant lists.

That still leaves unresolved the relationship of this page (and its various families of daughters) with the wider List of writers family, though. A global list of all writers, or a list of all writers from any major country or language community, is bound to be too long to be useful. But I can see the use of a list of Breton writers (regardless of what sort of writing they did), for example.

Finally - whoever got the idea that only someone who only writes novels could be called a novelist? "Maugham was a fine short story writer, a good novelist, but no better than a journeyman playwright" is a perfectly sensible thing to say (I have no idea whether it is true of Maugham, though) - just as it is sensible to describe me as "a fast cyclist but a poor swimmer".

seglea 08:50, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Move

[List of novelists] redirects here. It no longer makes sense to have the article at [List of novelists by nationality] when the shorter title is available. No other list exists. --Jiang 02:30, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Eca de Queiros

The Portuguese novelist Eca de Queiros is shown as a blank here. However a perfectly good stub already exists. Can someone make the link please?

Eca de Queiros again

I have only just spotted the problem. This page has a mis-spelling. It should be Queiros not Queiroz

WikiProject Authors?

I was very suprised to find that there wasn't a Wikiproject for Authors/Novelist (whichever you wish to call them, I understand there has been considerable debate and the lines are now clearly drawn), as the biographies I have seen are disorganised and unclear at times. Being a German language student, I was extremely surprised to find that Friedrich Duerrenmatt wasn't even listed as a German writer. A wikiproject could be useful in organising articles, and drawing attention to them. It would also not be too difficult, as there is already a wikiproject biographies. Unfortunately, I am not very qualified, except possibly in "Der Besuch...", being only 17!

Some reaction would be nice, to gauge the interest and the potential level of involvement, and also whether i have got something very wrong!

Thanks, Mark Lewis 18:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)