Talk:The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter

Character section

Why is the entire character section basically the extended opinions of Nancy B. Rich? How is that a balanced explanation of the characters? Or even an explanation at all? Someone with more time than I have at present really needs to clean this up... 10:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.216.44 (talk)

Criticism section

Well, is it about the novel or about making irrelevant charges? Does it diminish diminish its literary value? dalegrett 16:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. This paragraph about how the novel offends members of the deaf community is completely overdone.I don't think thats a valid claim to begin with but if the description of the novel only gets a few sentences this criticism should hardly even be a footnote in the article.

I've taken out the paragraph about criticism of the novel. I see no point in making this article solely about criticism. Similarly, I edited the page on To Have and Have Not by Hemingway. That article was soley about how the novel contained the "N" word and was offensive, which is patently ridiculous. The same could be said about any novel which contains that word. Is that all we are supposed to learn about the book? That it contains a word considered offensive to modern readers but which was not considered offensive at the time? Why not contribute to a discussion of the novel's literary merits. Many who haven't even read the novel deign to post here debating the usage of the term "mute." That is the word that McCullers uses. It is dishonest to not use the word in reference to the book. It is a masterpiece. If modern persons with hearing and speaking disabilites object to that term, then they can either consider the term in context or refuse to read the novel. If they choose the latter route, then they have little credibility to post to this discussion or to edit this entry. Go edit a page on a topic about which you know something, not on a novel that you have never read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Williams (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing the criticism. If you want to improve the article, then add more to the plot summary (much of that was removed earlier because of copyright issues), or add information about strengths of the book. But removing criticism tears down the article rather than building it up. It also reflects a lack of sensitivity to the criticism itself, particularly in the Deaf community. You can read more about those issue on this very talk page and at Deaf culture, Deaf-mute, and Audism, as well as some of the links in those articles. Ward3001 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that criticism reflects a lack of sensitivity to the novel. I find it inchoate and superficial, more of a hatchetjob than a contribution to understanding McCullers' work. It appears to rest on assumptions it offers no warrant to. 69.227.214.230 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please put the spoiler warning about characters/plot? I don't know how to do it.

I haven't read this book but this paragraph seems to be contradictory: "John Singer - A deaf-mute...he is also a good and attentive listener, which makes him very appealing to others."

So... I think the "attentive listener" part should be reworded.

Note that the text was most likely taken from the SparkNotes page. It is explained below. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section is about a general sentiment of the deaf community and has no relevance to the novel whatsoever. McCullers never implies that deafness is the source of Singer's alienation. She even goes so far as to mention a deaf convention in Macon, Georgia, and to show three deaf people communicating fluently in a bar. This talk page is mainly about use of the term "deaf-mute," an issue which is not even addressed under Criticism. If there exists a critical deaf perspective of the book, it should be cited. However, the mere fact that Singer is both deaf and alienated is not grounds for the largest single section of the article just saying that not all deaf people feel isolated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.110.140.221 (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@Dalegrett: @Michael Williams: @69.227.214.230: @Ward3001: @Andy M. Wang: @158.110.140.221: I apologize for the ping and I know it's been years, or even over a decade, but I want to remind readers of this talk page that the criticism should be based on stuff in published sources. The prevalence of criticism in the article should be WP:WEIGHTed based upon how often it appears in published sources/how many relative to the overall body of literature about this book talks about it. If there's a sentiment in the deaf community that many sources talk about, perhaps it should be included. If only a few or almost nobody does, then it can be omitted.

Anyhow, for those I pinged, the good news is that I found some published sources in academic journals which can help flesh out this page! If you want copies, feel free to contact me and I can send them to you. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Deaf-mute

The term "deaf-mute" is almost universally offensive to deaf people.[1] It is equivalent to using the "N" word directed at African-Americans. The reason the offensiveness of this term is not as widely known as is the case with the "N" word is only because the Deaf community is a much smaller minority than African-Americans. To argue that use of "deaf-mute", AFTER the offensiveness has been explained, is acceptable because only a minority object to its use reflects gross insensitivity. At one time in history use of the "N" word was considered offensive only to a minority of people, but that did not justify its use. For additional details see Deaf-mute. If the same items are reverted again, especially repeated reversions by the same editor (with or with violation of 3RR), I will seek mediation and, if necessary, formal arbitration by Wikipedia. I am an expert on this issue, and I can produce additional expertise if necessary. Ward3001 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Ward3001's talk page has people commenting "oh, it's not such a big deal, only a few people object to it." This is patently false - most Deaf people do object to it. Just because the greater population either doesn't know or doesn't care doesn't mean it's less offensive. As an alternative to the N example, how about using the term "gyp" to describe being cheated out of something? There are not many Gypsies in the world, surely it's okay to say that, right? No, it's still offensive. I'm not saying we should cater to all sensitivities, because there will always be someone who is offended by something, but this is clearly offensive to most Deaf people the world over. The term is outmoded - it was used in the past, as in the case of the N word or Jap/Nip, but it's not used anymore. The excellent book "For Hearing People Only" has this to say, if you'd like an outside perspective. The (US) National Association of the Deaf has their perspective too. It's pretty universally rejected. -Etoile 18:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You two have taken the words right out of my mouth. I can't really add anything else to the argument. I am quite against the use of the term deaf-mute in Wikipedia, unless it's done within the context of a quote and then explained to be offensive to deaf and hearing-impaired people. Arria Belli | parlami 19:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been brought to my attention, so I thought I'd take some time to give my own comments. Ward3001 is absolutley correct the term "deaf-mute" is now considered offensive and not just in the minority of the deaf community. The term "deaf-mute" indicates that Deaf people have no speech or cannot create sounds with their voice, which is untrue as many deaf people do have some form of speech and can communicate via their voice. As said above ther term is now on par with the "N" word. I actually can't believe in this modern age there are still people using this term to describe Deaf people. Also the related term "deaf and dumb", is now considered offensive as the word "dumb" has connotations of stupidity and inferior intelligence, Deaf people most certainly are not stupid or lack intelligence! I would say that the only time the term could potentially be used is if it were used to refer to somebody from history, when the term was applied to Deaf people.--NeilEvans 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the opinions expressed so far. The term "deaf-mute" should be avoided.Twenex 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I always find it interesting when hearing people insist that the term should be able to be used since they (those hearing people) do not find it offensive. If you want to be informed, it is not hard to find a multitude of references saying this term is not acceptable. Qaz 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Having many deaf friends I always hear about it when someone calls them deaf-mute and how offnsive the find it. Also, based on the facts and opinions presented hear I strongly support the removal of the term "deaf-mute" in Wikepedia when appropriate per User:Arria Belli.Felixboy 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Deaf–Mute is not acceptable. According to the Department of Human Services Division of Rehabilitation, "Deaf–Mute" is offensive. The correct term is "a person who is Deaf and does not speak". "Mute" is also unacceptable. The correct term is "a person with a speech disability". Deaf is acceptable. Also there is a difference between Deaf and deaf. The spelling of deaf with a lowercase "D" indicates the person does not hear. The spelling of a Deaf with an uppercase "D" indicates the person is is deaf, uses Sign Language, and perticipates in the Deaf community. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf does not support "Deaf–Mute". Taric25 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been brought to my attention and I would like to show my support for it, I stand with everyone else here in saying that the term Deaf-mute is not acceptable on wikipedia and should be struck out. I can't add anything to what has already been said, there are already enough facts here to prove a point. I just hope something can be done now, things need to change. samh004 03:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the almost complete agreement on the issue, Incontrovertibly a candidate for Lamest Edit War Evah. Twenex 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"The term "deaf-mute" indicates that Deaf people have no speech or cannot create sounds with their voice, which is untrue as many deaf people do have some form of speech and can communicate via their voice". Why does it indicate that? It seems to me that it actually helps to make a distinction between deaf people who have no speech and those that do. Describing Singer as just a "deaf man", as the page now does, implies that all deaf people can't speak; having a separate term for deaf people who can't, to distinguish them from those who are able to, implies just the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.74.96 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this entirely irrelevant discussion. Surely, we can agree not to use an offensive word, but the fact remains that Carson McCullers used it, so are all of you arguing that we can't refer to her novel because it has that word in there? Perhaps we should erase this article and burn all extant copies of the novel? Would that suffice? This has got to be the most idiotic discussion ever, and this is definitely one of the worst wikipedia articles I've ever seen. From this article, all one can learn about McCuller's novel is how glaringly offensive it is, when it clearly wasn't offensive at the time. She referred to Mr. Singer as a "mute." That seemed to be a proper term to describe him considering the obvious fact that he could not speak. What term do you suggest that she use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.196.209.49 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Note regarding mediation

24.0.97.119 ignored the mediation request (neither agreeing nor diagreeing), yet continues to revert "deaf" to "deaf-mute". Ward3001 00:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's time to elect formal arbitration from Wikipedia. The Deaf community does not accept "deaf–mute". Taric25 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur Twenex 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, please seek arbitration.--NeilEvans 14:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking out the criticism section unless someone provides citations. The person who created the section may have been offended by the novel, but saying that this is an issue frequently discussed in the literary criticism of the novel needs a citation. I've read much of the criticism and never encountered such a thing.

If whoever wrote that section wants it back in, he or she needs to provide some proof.Michael Williams (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Singer in the novel both deaf and mute? In which case, surely deaf-mute is technically accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reesv (talk • contribs) 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say, if you want to include the fact that Singer doesn't speak (which is a rather important part of the novel's plot) you ought to say 'he does not speak' somewhere in reference to the main characters. Singer does, in fact, "speak" to his own friend at length. We are not privy to his conversation but he clearly has much to say to his friend. He simply chooses not to speak in any way shape or form to all the hearing folk who latch on to him. There's a signficant difference between a "mute" and someone who chooses to remain silent. Smibbo (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate. He speaks to Antonapoulos with hand signs. For that matter, there is a "way, shape or form" in which he speaks to the hearing people. He writes things down for them, buys a radio for Mick, looks into Jake's eyes as he did with Antonapoulos... Singer's communication with the hearing people is very significant. Your phrase "latch on to" seems unwarrantedly contemptuous towards these four people, whose emotional lives form a great deal of the novel's pathos and brilliance. 81.157.74.96 (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, somebody has a chip on their shoulder. The emotional lives of the four people Singer does not speak to are, of course, central to the plot and form a large part of the book itself. However, the fact that Singer occasionally communicates with them does not mitigate the fact that he does not, ever, audibly speak to them nor does he indicate that he is capable of Signing with them either. A central part of the story is indicated through Singer's chapter wherein he muses on their various characters and lives and as he sees it, their endless need to confide in him. Singer becomes infamous in the town for his "listening' despite the fact that often he does not understand what people are confessing and sometimes (as in the case of a visiting foreigner) does not even understand the language they use. His distinction from them is the fact that THEY believe he understands everything they say, implications, innuendo, extrapolation and everything unsaid when in fact he understands about as much as any other person. Singer's legend in the town becomes overblown and misunderstood even more than the four characters who yes, latch on to him. The novel makes it very clear that they, while not unwelcome by Singer, are not nearly so close to him as they believe themselves to be. Which is a deeper level of the pathos in the book. Singer CHOOSES not to speak to them, not on a personal level and certainly not to the extent with which they speak to him. Their relationships are all lopsided. My pointing this out does not mean I am contemptuous of them at all, it means I see more than just their character's pain, I see Singer's as well. Despite him being popular and well-regarded by the whole town, he himself feels lonely and alone. Hence the title. Smibbo (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

and also, "hand signs" are what baseball players use. What Singer uses is Sign Language. We don't know whether its American, British or Greek but its Sign Language, not "hand signs" Smibbo (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone here even READ the BOOK? Presumably if you're deaf, you can still read, right? So read the U&^%%%ing thing AND THEN post your objections. Because anyone, and I mean anyone who actually reads this book won't give a S**T about "deaf-mute" by the end of the book. It'll blow you across the room. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.178.224 (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

¶ It's a tad extreme to equate "deaf-mute" with "the N-word"; a more appropriate simile would be "deaf and dumb" -- in the stage play (not the movie) of Children of a Lesser God the deaf lead shows she can lipread that phrase and throws a punch at the person using it. Only into the 1980 was "deaf-mute" replaced by "non-oral deaf". Presumably in the novel Singer is using American Sign Language, but since Antonopolis hardly ever signs to him it is unclear if Antonopolis fully understands what is being signed to him -- one suspects that Antonopolis might be mentally disabled as well as deaf. It is worth pointing out that in the movie version Alan Arkin and Chuck McCann are not using real Sign Language but evidently making up their own gestures, so deaf viewers of the movie were completely baffled. Sussmanbern (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Overuse of phrase "deaf people"

The repitition of the phrase "deaf people" in one sentence annoys me. Nina 202.43.236.242 15:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

From the standpoint of writing style, I agree with you. The problem is that there aren't many other ways to say it. It's not appropriate to use some of the horrible euphemisms for deaf people that some (hearing) writers might be fond of, such as non-hearing, hearing disabled, hearing handicapped, the deaf (that implies that all deaf people are the same), and probably many others. I'll think about the sentence structure and see if maybe I can come up with some rewording to reduce the number of times "deaf people" is used, but it's not easy. Give me some time. Thanks. Ward3001 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how "the deaf" implies that all deaf people are the same while "deaf people" does not. They're different ways of stating the same thing. 71.128.153.97 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It can be a difficult nuance to understand (as well as explain, so my words may not be adequate). I think a possible analogy would be if we referred to the category of African-Americans as "the blacks", as in "the blacks think this" or "the blacks do that". There's something about that word the that hints at overgeneralization. I'll acknowledge that "the deaf" is not nearly as bothersome as "hearing handicapped" and others (the worst being "deaf-mute"), but it's something I've noticed that many deaf people avoid (that is, the term "the deaf"). But to avoid overuse of "deaf people" I may use "the deaf" at least once. I still haven't gotten around to making the edits, but I eventually will. Thanks for your reply. Ward3001 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PLAGIARISM?

I noticed that the summary and main character sections of the article may have been taken from the SparkNotes website describing the book. http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/lonelyhunter/summary.html Please consider revising the summary of this article or note that the SparkNotes website has copied off of Wikipedia, which is highly unlikely.

User:68.209.6.218 has two contributions to this page, most likely adding material from SparkNotes to here. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Love song for Bobby Long

Should it be mentioned that the book plays a rather significant part in the movie A Love Song for Bobby Long (perhaps in the novel too; I don't know) ?--Noe (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not unless you can provide some solid, reliable sources, and even then it may only deserve a sentence at most. The article is about The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, not Love Song for Bobby Long. There may need to be mention of THIALH in Love Song for Bobby Long, but again it would require some sources, not your personal opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

One sentence is what I had in mind. Sources - well, I suppose the movie is a source, even though you can't google the script. The mivoe's homepage is defunct, but on imdb, they give the tagline for the movie as "The heart is a lonely hunter".

The female lead learns by combining a letter from her mother with a dedication written for her by Travolta's figure in the novel "The heart is a lonely hunter" that he's her father; the most pivotal moment of the story.

I posted here on the talk page in the hope someone more knowledgeable than me could be inspired to add this info in a suitable way. That's still my hope.--Noe (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, a tagline and note in a book is not enough to include. And IMDb is not a good source. Ward3001 (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither is Wikipedia, from an academic point of view. 81.157.74.96 (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While many articles are currently not referenced properly, the ideal is that there should be several references for each and every Wikipedia article. While doing academic research, citing Wikipedia is not a good idea, but a good or featured article should certainly lead academics doing research in the right direction.

Oh and what does this have to do with the THIALH? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialism

Why is there absolutely no mention of socialism in this article? My wife mentioned this in the context of when she read this many years ago it was probably her first introduction to the word/concept. I confirmed this and then looked at many other summaries and reviews. I did not do a tabulation of my findings but I bet over 80%, probably way more, included something about socialism, and not merely a "passing reference". Looking at the Google results for the search "Blount The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter", the first entry was from SparkNotes and the first words in their article are, "Jake is a wanderer who comes to town with confused and passionate plans for a socialist revolt.". I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the summarizes and reviewers mentioned something similar. I'm somewhat concerned that Wikipedia is systematically being cleansed of negative references to socialism and liberal ideology. 71.223.76.10 (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)