Talk:Ravelstein

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Yuck, this article is weak and entropic. What critics? I am glad we know that Bellow "never wrote the perfect novel", without wikipedia that would never come to light. Too POV to be useful. Where is the long view of Bellows other novels too? Overall shabbily rendered.--Mikerussell 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edited this POV assessment. Who died and made this person literary editor at wikipedia? You could use this quote as an example to newcomers how not to infuse your own opinion into an article without citing at least one source for the evaluation. Despite the controversy, Bellow's book is largely an (over-) affectionate apologia for Bloom that avoids the sticky questions of his elitist ideas and presents him as a sort of superhuman gourmand of life's sensual pleasures and sexual and emotional attachments. In the end, Bellow asks that the reader look beyond Bloom's writings and see him as a complex, flawed, but avid mind that left a unique, indelible impression on students, friends, and lovers.--Mikerussell 14:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make the article worthy of the subject and not just some loose thoughts by someone patching together a stub-filler.--Mikerussell 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it ain't great, but I think it is a little better, and maybe somebody else can go further .--Mikerussell 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:K. G. Griffiths additions

Added info box and I heavily edited the article, some of the stuff was so badly written I had a hard time believing it- percisely because I think I was the one who poured out the slop months ago, but there was also a lot of additional material from a new editor. Some of the material I tried to synthesis in the "The text" section, but a lot I simply edited out. There was in my opinion too much subjective opinion, not that it was uninteresting opinion or off-topic slander, to the contrary it was interesting stuff, but suitable for a book club coffee clutch not a wikipedia article. The comparisons were too personal and quite frankly difficult to completely understand- again, the stuff of good conversation- as in 'why would you say that', but not here in an encyclopedia entry. If the writer can amend it to make it more generic and objective, he is welcome to re-add. At least that is my opinion, and if i had more time i'd look over more but now I got to go. --Mikerussell 05:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sentence without a verb

"Although Bloom, in the wake of his literary stardom, at a Harvard University gathering, published in Giants & Dwarfs, that he was not a conservative, though he was much admired by right-wing publications, like William F. Buckley, Jr's National Review."

This sentence many clauses but regrettably no verb. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all out of gold stars, off to Grand & Toy for a big box for Antaeus. Fix it, geez.--Mikerussell 00:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph strongly implies that Bellow, at some point after publication of his book, explicitly stated that Bloom was a homosexual; however, there is not one footnote!

"Upon publication, Bellow revealed that Bloom, a philosopher and social critic aligned with many American conservative ideas and ambitions, was anything but conservative in his private life. Accordingly, some took the book as a betrayal; however, Bellow vigorously rejected such speculation, citing many conversations between Bloom and himself where the subject urged Bellow to tell it all, ‘warts and all’. Bloom was not a 'closeted' homosexual, for many of his friends, colleagues and former students knew of his sexual orientation; although he never publicly spoke of it. He was a bachelor and never married or had children."

So I gather that there is no such explicit statement; and that it is all reader's implication that the book refers to Bloom and outs Bloom's sexual orientation. You'd think that Bellow would make the point explicit, if that's what he was trying to do. Brent Poirier 216.246.135.252 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the book? It's pretty obvious which characters are meant to represent Bloom, Strauss, and Bellow. Many of the issues they actually studied or wrote about are referred to in the book by Chick. For example, look at all the mentions of the "esoteric language" that Davarr created and Ravelstein and his students adopted. Furthermore, it's obvious that Ravelstein is a homosexual. He has a rather Platonic (not in the contemporary sense of the word) relationship with a man half his age. There's no question that Ravelstein is a homosexual and that Ravelstein is a stand-in for Bloom. The question is if the entire equation is transitive or not. 167.206.19.130 (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]