Talk:John Osborne

What happened to Nolan?

As of 25.06.2006 it is interesting that Osborne´s disowning of his daughter Nolan, presumably because she was non-intellectual, has been airbrushed out: see earlier versions. Why the hagiography? The same problem occurs, after all, in the life of Ingmar Bergman: questionable personal behaviour as against Great Art.

I've restored the 'Women' section, including his unspeakable treatment of Nolan. I don't usually go in for revert wars but unless 216.175.113.47 wants to post some justification for deleting it I'm going to insist on it. Please sign contributions to talk pages. Thanks. El Ingles 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Drink?

Was his "serious liver crisis" the result of alcohol?Lestrade (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes -- his preferred poison was champagne. Heilpern pp 428-9 provides the medical details. --El Ingles (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Children

Apart from Nolan, mentioned in the article, did J. Osborne have any other child? --80.36.68.39 (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No. His wife Mary Ure gave birth to a son and named him Colin Murray Osborne, but the father was Robert Shaw, with whom she was appearing in The Changeling at the time. She married Shaw on 13th April 1963 and as a married couple they legally adopted Colin who then became Colin Murray Shaw. --El Ingles (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Space given to wives

User:NorthLondoner are you proposing to add a screen's worth of quotations for each of Osborne's wives? If so, I'd find that excessive -- the Ure material is of interest but highly selective. If you aren't proposing to add more wives to this compilation, could you possibly explain here why you single out Mary Ure for this treatment? --El Ingles (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi El Ingles, I am proposing to add all pertinent quotations relating to his wives, from 'Almost a Gentleman', Ure simply comes first due to chronology. The quotations about Ure are interesting as they represent his opinions on her (which can be taken in the context of his opinions of women in general) and insight into their relationship and hence his life.

Naturally anything I put there is open to editing / collaboration and if you propose any of the Ure material for deletion then let's discuss that and work towards making the section on Osborne's relationships concise yet also comprehensive.

One thing I wanted to do was gives some 'nicer' quotations to balance out both the negative things Osborne says about Ure and especially Bennett.

Always grateful for feedback! NorthLondoner (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I very much fear that this effort will unbalance the article. But go ahead — perhaps when you've done your extractions all editors of this article can opine. How about Osborne's many mistresses? He wrote of them too. --El Ingles (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Way too much about Ure. This is about Osborne and very little of what has been added adds value. If this was a more high profile biography this would have been removed PDQ. I'll wait a while but I will be removing it, pretty much wholesale, unless inclusion is justified. Leaky Caldron 21:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool cool, appreciate both of your feedback. On the basis that it's all source material therefore the worst case scenario is temporary 'over-information', could you give me a couple of weeks to make my extractions and an assessment can then be made of what is pure deletion, what is perhaps for migration (in this case, to Ure's entry) and what shall be retained and in what format.

I'll be focusing on wives but also adding in relevant mistresses. Given the amount of polemic on the subject there is justification for expansion on biographical grounds and because much of what Osborne wrote on the subject is very quotable, but only in context, therefore adds to character portrait.

Anyhow, enough to be getting on with for now. NorthLondoner (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be preferable if you familiarised yourself with relevent policy and guidelines on aricle content, balance and weight before adding further superfluous material. Leaky Caldron 22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. NorthLondoner (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who wrote the original brief Personal life section, I'm not delighted by NorthLondoner's work. Just as I feared, it is not in keeping with either the rest of this article or with articles about comparable British playwrights (cf., for example, Arnold Wesker, Lindsay Anderson, Edward Bond, Peter Gill). I seek consensus to revert the entire exercise. --El Ingles (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

By word count about 1/3rd is now taken up with the ex-wives content. Even accepting his prolific marriage record I am sure that there is way too much content in this section and I urged NL to consider policy and guidelines last week in order to prevent just what you are suggesting. It requires a major cull to make it more concise. Leaky Caldron 15:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. I would suggest that seeking to revert the entire exercise does not seem to be a progressive approach given that all of the content is fact-checked, sourced and relevant to Osborne's life. Osborne's life and work puts him in a different category to all of the playwrights El Ingles mentions. And in each segment of information about his wives, there is valid biographical information about Osborne himself. I have already culled the Mary Ure section and would kindly ask that instead of looking to revert what is essentially an expanding exercise, that editors focus instead on expanding the article on Osborne in general. NorthLondoner (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally El Ingles, I may be comparatively new to wikipedia but you do seem to be using rather proprietal and emotional language which should be flagged up as it would suggest that your motivation may be influenced by ownership of data and inappropriate emotions: *'As the editor who wrote the original brief' *'I'm not delighted', *'Just as I feared'. Surely best that we keep ego out of this and strive to achieve an excellent article? NorthLondoner (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering that I am requesting consensus rather than summarily deleting this extravagant exercise in quoting from a single work, I do not think an accusation of self-declared ownership of this article is justified. --El Ingles (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you felt it necessary to point out you were the 'editor who wrote the original brief' - something which is not relevant. My understanding of wikipedia is that once something has been submitted there is no direct 'ownership' of it, rather it is in the public domain and up to interested members of the public to collaborate and edit in order to make it into the best article possible. I am simply putting information up there and defending the case for expanding what previously was a good article but with scope for expansion. Having read the policy and guidelines Leaky Caldron pointed me in the direction of, it would be surely be the best approach for the future of the article to allow me to make the planned final few amendments and then it can be edited from there. Your talk of 'reverting the entire exercise' shows an alarming willingness to indiscriminately delete relevant, appropriate and factual information. However, I trust we can now conclude the 'personal' part of this discourse and focus exclusively on improving this article. NorthLondoner (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we let NorthLondoner finish it and then have a look at it all again? Agree with him that the women in his life are more important to his development than for some other playwrights - but surely you must do his relationship with Nellie Beatrice too? vultureofbook ~~

Thank you vultureofbook. Am pretty much done with the wives now however I agree with you, there is definitely scope for expanding the information on Nellie Beatrice and this is something I'm happy to be involved in, would also be good to have other editors involved. Additionally, some information on significant mistresses would be good. Expanding the wives section has provided additional biographical information on Osborne plus selected, contextual examples of his prose.NorthLondoner (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

On a re-reading, I agreed somewhat with El Ingles's point that this was an 'exercise in quoting from a single work' so have aimed to provide all quotations with a context and background and have, during the course of this exercise, removed what seemed to be superfluous quotations and encompassed both of Osborne's autobiographical volumes. Thank you for the time afforded me by other editors. NorthLondoner (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Late contribution to this discussion. Personally I don't think the space currently given to Osborne's various wives is inappropriate, since the man's lovelife was given a great deal of coverage after he became a literary celebrity, and in a sense this is part of his legacy: as I recall, it occupied a major part of the 1991 South Bank Show documentary about him broadcast to tie in with the premiere of Déjàvu. As the article currently stands, however, it's disproportionate to the space given to his work (rather than his life), which is somewhat skimmed over. The section titled "Critical responses..." doesn't currently cite a single critical response! I would be in favour of expanding the rest of the article rather than trimming the bit on Osborne's wives. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Per$1$tenceofv1$1on

England, My England

What about... England, My England (1995)? --194.144.23.124 (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Heilpern (p.476) writes: "Though Osborne was also credited with co-writing the script with Charles Wood, his contribution amounted to little before illness forced him to abandon the project. Wood wrote the script as a tribute to his old friend..."

There might nevertheless be a case for including it in the 'complete works.' I'm not willing to do it myself. --El Ingles (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Derek Elley's review of the movie in Variety seems to suggest (if I'm reading it correctly) that the rants of the Simon Callow character in the 1960s bridging scenes are the work of Osborne. Callow has one particular line, "Once, our native language was refined and free, like the old liturgy of the Anglican Church, or Pepys, Dryden, Purcell, each of whom tried to find a vibrant language in which it was possible only to tell the truth." This sounds very much to me like late Osborne. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just come across this line in one of Osborne's Spectator columns: "I think it was the French historian Michelet who said of someone that they wrote in a style in which it was impossible to tell the truth." (Damn You, England, p. 183.) As another contributor has said on this page, I'm not sure Heilpern's biography is a 100% unimpeachable source, especially since Ferdinand Mount's review [1] points out one or two errors in it. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Monarchy

We are told that Osborne was the "first" to oppose "monarchy". I thought that there was something against monarchy in the 17th century in Britain. This included a Civil War. I want less spamming for Osborne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.54.79 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Osborne/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

close to 'b' rating, but lacks: images, person infobox, navbox --Sapphic 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC) i feel that recent edits now qualify this as a 'b'-class article. expanding some sections (including the intro) would probably make it a Good Article candidate. --Sapphic 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Lead now expanded, Persondata added, infobox and navbox refined. El Ingles 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Looking good, but it would still be better to have a photo before trying for Good Article status. Surely there must be at least one that can be used? --Sapphic 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC) There's a picture here and this page indicates that they might be willing to grant permission for use here. I don't know what the rest of the procedure is, but I hope somebody who is more familiar with clearing pictures for use on the site can take over from here. Otherwise I may return in a bit to investigate how to get the picture uploaded legally. --Sapphic 22:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Osborne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628182920/http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2010articles/article2.html/ to http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2010articles/article2.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Too many unsourced statements

Greetings, fellow Wikipedians! I can see that much effort has been expended on writing (and debating the content in) this article. For that I salute you. It's well-written. But it seems to me that it contains too many unsourced statements. For example:

• "His personal life was extravagant and iconoclastic."
• "Look Back in Anger was largely autobiographical..."
• "...she cuckolded him with a local dentist." (This particularly bothers me. Who says he was cuckolded? How do we know whether this is true?)
• "...he possessed a native intelligence."
• "Osborne played the role of Shropshire squire with great pleasure and a heavy dose of irony."
• "Osborne's work transformed British theatre."

Perhaps all of this is factual, well-known or accepted by current literary thinking on Osborne. But it does not belong in Wikipedia unless it can be attributed to reliable, authoritative sources. It is inconsistent with Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" requirement, which states "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources...Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." See Wikipedia:Five Pillars.

I am happy to leave these statements in the article if someone will provide citations ( e.g. statements by published authors, newspaper articles, academic journals, etc.) to support them. If that doesn't happen within one week from today, I propose to delete them. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I know this is 3 years later than your initial comment, but I wanted to inform you that I also noticed the heavily subjective/biased language used in this article and attempted to remove as much as possible. In many cases I reworded the statements to be more neutral, but in some other cases I just had to delete the statement. A. E. Katz (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be replying 3-4 years late - a lot of the article in its current state is very indebted to Michael Ratcliffe's entry on Osborne in the Oxford DNB. This includes flamboyant non-Wikipedia-like moments ("Through the 1980s Osborne played the role of Shropshire squire with great pleasure and a heavy slosh of irony"), unsourced quotations ("a radical who hates change"), and unverified statements (he joined CND in 1959), etc. I feel we need to carry on the work User:A._E._Katz has done. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Per$1$tenceofv1$1on

I have a copy of Almost a Gentleman and I'll try to find time to forestall your slash-and-burn campaign. Stu (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Stu, for volunteering to address my comments. If I wanted to slash and burn, I would have already deleted those statements. But I prefer a collegial approach. So, if you need more time, by all means take it. As a fellow Wikipedia editor, you deserve to be treated with respect and civility... another of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Issues are resolved. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of unsourced statements, where does Osborne's self-description as "a radical who hates change" originally come from? This is one of many facts and quotations from the ODNB entry on Osborne that were incorporated into the article when it was expanded in 2007, but I have a feeling that these are the words of Jimmy Porter in Déjàvu, rather than Osborne himself precisely. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Per$1$tenceofv1$1on

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• John Osborne 1.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Overuse of John Heilpern 2006 book

I would say around half of the sources used in this article all link to John Heilpern's 2006 biography of John Osborne. This gives me some concern. Firstly, relying so much on one source is generally not ideal, but secondly, there are many claims in this article (some of which I removed) that seem highly subjective and I am not sure that this book can be relied on to give factual and unbiased pieces of information.

Providing more alternative sources would be helpful, if someone is willing to do so.

Thanks. A. E. Katz (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been looking for something to back up the anecdote about Olivier, Arthur Miller and The Entertainer, and have come across several online articles, all written by... John Heilpern. Is there a decent biography of Miller that covers this? Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Per$1$tenceofv1$1on

It's less than a seventh of the citations now, FWIW. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Per$1$tenceofv1$1on

Plagiarism?

I've just been reading the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on Osborne, and there are plenty of places where this article (in its current state) seems to lift whole phrases and sentences verbatim, e.g. this passage on his later life: "Through the 1980s Osborne played the role of Shropshire squire with great pleasure and a heavy slosh of irony. He wrote a diary for The Spectator. He opened his garden to raise money for the church roof, from which he threatened to withdraw covenant-funding unless the vicar restored the Book of Common Prayer." I think a thorough edit of this article would only be fair to Michael Ratcliffe, the author, as he isn't credited anywhere. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Per$1$tenceofv1$ion

Idols

The Osborne quote about Max Miller currently occupies a slightly disproportionate place in a section about his heroes/role models (being the only one), and I would have thought a few theatre professionals (George Devine) and playwrights (Strindberg?) would make more sense.Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Per$1$tenceofv1$1on

Politics

The lead section of this article says, accurately, that Osborne became notorious for the violence of his language not only in relation to politics but also against members of his family. The Wikipedia manual, no less than common sense, consequently requires the article to outline his political views in more depth than the one sentence in the section "Critical Responses, Idols and Effect" that outlined them in the article as it stood at the beginning of March 2023, so I have expanded this sentence into two paragraphs and made it a separate section. Because Wikipedia guidelines also say, reasonably, that the better an article is the more structure it will have, I've made it part of the "Personal Life" section, going ahead of the space devoted to Osborne's five marriages (I think this is the structure suggested by the lead section, and also by Osborne's life and career itself). Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Per$1$tenceofv1$1on

Violent Language

First of all I'd like to apologise to another contributor for reverting a change they've made, but I think the line in the lead section about Osborne being notorious for the violence of his language should be allowed to stand. The violence of his language against ex-wives and his mother is illustrated in several places in the article (particularly 'Personal Life'); the violence of his language re: politics I believe can be backed up by expanding the 'Politics' section, which I think should be done by citing, briefly, his contribution to Tom Maschler's 1957 Declaration anthology and the 1961 'Letter to My Fellow Countrymen'. I'm hoping to make these changes to the 'Politics' section quite soon, within a week or so, and would ask them for patience in the meantime. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Per$1$tenceofv1$1on

• An apology is kind of hollow after you reverted twice. You can't edit war while apologizing for edit warring. And again, no, it is NOT verified; I read through the entire article, and "violent language", no. Mistreated, yes--but that's a different thing. In addition, it is completely WP:UNDUE: this unverified claim takes up a quarter of the lead. So if you want to actually improve the article, remove that claim, and replace it with properly verified material, in a paragraph or two, that actually summarizes his life. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Hello and sorry again that we're in conflict. Honestly, I'm not someone who enjoys it. If it makes any difference, I actually apologised (twice) after reverting once, then reverted again after you'd made your change again. I have now had a reprimand from an admin for 'edit warring'; in my defence I'm quite new to Wikipedia contributions and still don't know the rules well enough. You are of course quite right that the lead is one of the parts of the article that needs work: personally I'd say that the last line should go, as it's far too broad-brush to be verifiable, and the fact that it's been backed up by a reference to John Heilpern's biography doesn't alter that. Also, for what it's worth, I believe it's one of the bits that been lifted from the Oxford DNB entry on Osborne. Removing this last sentence as well would leave the lead a little stumpy. I'd like to expand the 'Politics' section and am hoping to do this shortly, and maybe then we can add another sentence in the lead (whatever precisely the wording says) that summarizes the guy's life and works. All the best, Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Per$1$tenceofv1$1on
    • Apologizing for something while you are doing it is silly. If you're new somewhere, going around undoing what people are doing even as they are explaining to you why they're doing it is not going to make a good impression. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

While fixing the rest of the article is a bit beyond me alone at this time, I had a go at expanding the introdution. Original was very bare bones, this one actually mentions that he won a Tony and an Oscar, among other things. FreeBard42 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What's happened to the lede? As of April it seems to have shrunk to one short para again, with no attempt at seeking consensus. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this just yesterday, very strange. Even if you think the intro I wrote is a bit long/has certain things which could be excised/rephrased for brevity, simply deleting all but the first couple of sentences isn't the way to handle it. Have a couple of bits I could quickly rewrite to tighten it up a bit and then add it back in, or do you think it fine to just restore what was there previously? FreeBard42 (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, first of all I'd like to thank you for having already tidying up my work, which I only noticed upon checking my original draft, but also I've further condensed a couple of paragraphs:

"Based on his volatile relationship with his first wife, Pamela Lane, it was part of the kitchen sink realism movement, which made use of social realism and domestic settings to address disillusionment with British society in the waning years of the Empire. The phrase “angry young man”, coined by theatrical press agent George Fearon to describe the play, came to embody the predominantly working class and left-wing writers within this movement, with Osborne considered its leading figure."

and

"In 1958 he partnered with Look Back in Anger director Tony Richardson and film producer Harry Saltzman to form Woodfall Film Productions, in order to produce Richardson's 1959 film adaptation of Anger and other works of kitchen sink realism, becoming a major part of the British New Wave in the process. This included Osborne-penned adaptations of the Entertainer (1960) (co-written by Nigel Kneale), and Inadmissible Evidence (1968), as well as the period comedy Tom Jones (1963), for which he won the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay."

Additionally, I could see a case for leaving the half-paragraph about his politics, Shropshire, and the Spectator out of the intro, since they're less important than the other stuff but do also give a more complete picture in not too many more words. FreeBard42 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you think we might remove the mention of Flash Gordon in the lede? It does give a bit too much prominence to a cameo appearance. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I really only included it because it's well-known and shares a director with the film he actually has a major role in. FreeBard42 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Since you’ve mentioned removing some stuff from the lede about Osborne's later life, how do you think this reads, in place of what's now the last two paras:

Osborne wrote two volumes of autobiography, A Better Class of Person (1981) and Almost a Gentleman (1991). His final play was Déjàvu (1992), a sequel to Look Back in Anger. He was married five times, but the first four were marred by frequent affairs and his mistreatment of his partners.

Thanks very much for the work you've put in. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

So, in light of the bit about his early politics now being in the second paragraph, as I realized it fits in with and was key to his "Angry Young Man" image (thoughts?) I think that could stay, but I'm even more sure that the bit about the Spectator can go. I like your edit, though I think the bit about his death should stay given it's that sort of introduction. I also think that, of his later work, the non-fiction collection has a better case for being there than his final play, which is the sort of thing that I felt ought to be there as a capstone, but aside from its connection to Anger is entirely covered by the early allusion to none of his later plays doing well.

How about:

Osborne wrote two volumes of autobiography, A Better Class of Person (1981) and Almost a Gentleman (1991), and a collection of his non-fiction writing, Damn You, England, was published in 1994. He was married five times, but the first four were marred by (frequent) affairs and his mistreatment of his partners. In 1978 he married Helen Dawson, and from 1986 they lived in rural Shropshire, where he died from complications of diabetes on 24 December 1994 at the age of 65.

Osborne was married five times, but the first four were marred by (frequent) affairs and his mistreatment of his partners. In 1978 he married Helen Dawson, and from 1986 they lived in rural Shropshire. He wrote two volumes of autobiography, A Better Class of Person (1981) and Almost a Gentleman (1991), and a collection of his non-fiction writing, Damn You, England, was published in 1994. He died from complications of diabetes on 24 December of that year at the age of 65.

Both cull those last two paragraphs to one, and whilst near-identical in length I feel the second flows better. Also note the brackets around the possibly unnecessary word. FreeBard42 (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

References