Talk:Shirley Jackson/Archive 1

Archive 1

intro

It states "Although popular at the time'... "recent critic attn' those two are not exclusive concepts. you can be popular and receive attention form literary critics. You could receive any kind of attention from critics. The language here is misleading and little pointed to be in the introduction. Especially since this is an article about a literary figure we should at least have the sense to use language correctly. Reword the sentence to be something like "She was popular at the time and continues to receive attention...' and then later on one could introduce a dichotemy between past and present criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forcefieldmaker87 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lizziehaas.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Really bad summary of "The Lottery"

I really don't like this in the introduction:

"The Lottery" (1948), which suggests there is a deeply unsettling underside to bucolic, smalltown America.

Two problems: 1. This makes it sound like The Lottery is some kind of non-fiction sociology article that suggests some type of radical conspiracy theory. The Lottery is fiction and it isn't set in present-day America. It is set in an unspecified time and location, but it can be presumed to be set in the distant future, since in the story, the tradition of the lottery goes back a long way. 2. Is "smalltown" a word?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Craig (talk • contribs) 03:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I have yet to hear anyone suggest that "The Lottery" takes place in the future. In fac, based on various details within the story, it seems if anything to take place in Jackson's time or slightly earlier. Second, on a related issue, can anyone explain the rationale for labeling "The Lottery" as dystopian fiction? "Dystopia" implies some kind of pervasively negative society--poverty, chaos, bestial behavior etc. Yet the power of "The Lottery" lies in the fact that the characters in the story DO NOT LIVE in such a world. Instead the are seemingly normal people, living otherwise typical small town American lives, who happen to prform this ghastly ritual once a year. I'd fix the issue myself, but would first like to understand where this is all coming from. User:Snyrt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.55.2 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Vermont Vanishing section?

Why does this section contain: "The fictional college depicted in Hangsaman is based in part on Jackson's experiences at Bennington College, as indicated by Jackson's papers in the Library of Congress.[7] Jackson's short story. " Followed by a sentence about something else. Why is there a citation for the half-sentence "Jackson's short story" which seems to not belong with the previous statement or the following one?User:Snyrt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.167.192 (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyman Children

What happened to the Hyman children after their mother died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.49.182 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearer Reference Needed

At the end of the section "Literary Life", there's a long quote, preceded by the following:

Her other novels include Hangsaman (1951), The Bird's Nest (1954), The Sundial (1958) and The Haunting of Hill House (1959), regarded by many, including Stephen King, as one of the important horror novels of the 20th Century. This contemporary updating of the classic ghost story has a vivid and powerful opening paragraph:

There are a couple of problems with this. The first sentence introduces 4 novels and then says "regarded by many, including Stephen King, as one of ...." The next sentence begins with "This contemporary updating." In both cases, it isn't entirely clear which of the 4 novels is the "one" and "this." One might infer that it's the last mentioned novel (The Haunting of Hill House), but it certainly isn't clear to someone who hasn't already read them. At the very least a comma should added after "(1958)" to indicate this is a 4 item list and maybe a citation added for the block quote. Although it would probably be more helpful to the reader if that first sentence is broken up into two sentences; the second sentence could begin with the title of the novel which is "regarded by ... Stephen King, as one" and "this contemporary updating" or begin with some other specific reference, such as "The latter is regarded by many ...." I'm assuming it's the last of the 4 novels that is indeed intended. Ileanadu (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Believed she had magic powers?

"Jackson, who was very interested in witchcraft, believed she had supernatural powers." Is there a cite for this? thx1138 05:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, this sentence is a bit vague:

With information for Jackson's debut novel, The Road Through the Wall (1948), he described Jackson as someone who practiced witchcraft.

Is "he" her husband? Where exactly did he describe this? "Information for Jackson's debut novel" is a bit vague. Was it in a press release, in a "Forward," or ...? It probably needs a citation. Note that this paragraph comes immediately after a paragraph on the posthumous publication of some of her work (after 1965), while the "debut novel" that's the subject of this paragraph was apparently published in 1948. This is also part of the reason that "he" ambiguous; the two paragraphs don't appear to be related.

Why are the paragraphs in this order?

The introduction of the subject of witchcraft leaves many unanswered questions: Did the strategy in fact boost interest & sales? Was there any basis for the claim? What exactly did Jackson say about the claim made by her husband that she practiced witchcraft? Is that what she addressed in the children's book? Did she refute or admit it? Ileanadu (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove awards?

Is anyone else in favor in removing the award listings? A brief mention of the award seems okay, but a listing of all the winners seems a bit overboard --CutOffTies (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

removed for copyvio and reasons above. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Awards section was updated NOT added. Section has been there since 2007. Why was it deleted? Revert if necessary to 2007 version. It is reference to the official site. Language is what is used in press releases. Will find those references as well. Text was updated to reflect that this award is given with the estate's permission.

--User:Mbfitz 15 October 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC). 

It doesn't matter how long it was there. Again, this is an article on the subject, not an award. A brief mention of the award (if properly third party sourced) is fine but a listing of every award winner is not appropriate.

Wikipedia is not a place for press releases, and that is a copy violation.

If you have a problem with this, we'll just go through dispute resolution. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not intended as a press release. I mentioned it as an example of Fair Use and reflect that the estate of Shirley Jackson is aware of this award. Previous winners were listed and I updated it with more recent information. Other then dispute, would you suggest this be edited in another way? Shirley Jackson continues to be a strong influence on current writers and this award reflects that. Also why did you delete a section rather then revert? Not trying to be difficult, I just want to understand the reasoning behind your action User:mbfitz —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

This is an encyclopedia and text should be neutral and not like a press release. Despite what you claim, there's nothing to suggest that it's not a copy violation too.

More important - I'm not sure how to make this anymore clear, but it seems pretty easy to understand that an article about a subject should be about the subject. There shouldn't be a significant part of the article that lists every award winner. It strays from the subject. If you have a problem with this, I welcome feedback from other editors via dispute resolution --CutOffTies (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing to do is to create a separate article about the award. I'm not sure if it meets notability guidelines, but know that the complete listing doesn't belong in the Shirley Jackson main article. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion on this. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

My opinion is that CutOffTies was absolutely right in deleting the awards section from this article. No matter how appropriate the content is for the article, if it has been copied and pasted from a non-free source, it cannot be allowed to remain. See WP:COPYVIO. It wasn't just the list of awards that was copied, but also the preceding three paragraphs which described the award. With that said, the list of winners of this award doesn't seem to be so large that including it in this article is problematic. Most of the winners appear to be notable, as they have their own wiki articles. I think that if a short, neutral section were created which lists the award recipients, and the section was not a copyright violation, then I don't see any problem with that. In a few years, after a lot more awards have been given out, the list might grow too large to comfortably fit on this page. I don't think we've hit that point yet.—SnottyWong spill the beans 22:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Snotty, of course I agree about the copyvio, but I don't see why the award listing should be kept. An award named for her legacy deserves a mention (if you can find a third party source, which still hasn't been done), but the listing of everyone who has won the award is unnecessary trivia. Also, I cannot find coverage of this award in third party sources, so I don't know what makes it notable. I know you mentioned length, but would it be appropriate to include the list of winners in Joseph Pulitzer or Cy Young? I'm taking this to wp:rfc. --CutOffTies (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that a list of the winners of this award is worth noting somewhere in WP. I don't, however, believe that the award is notable enough for its own article. So, the next best thing I can think of is to include a small section on it in this article. SnottyWong ^verbalize 00:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I list this again on 30 to get feedback from another editor? Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Shirley Jackson Awards in Shirley Jackson article

Note, this was discussed at Talk:Shirley_Jackson#Remove_awards.3F.

In article about author, there is a section about award "in recognition of her legacy"

An award named for her legacy deserves a mention (if you can find a third party source, which still hasn't been done), but the listing of everyone who has won the award is unnecessary trivia. Also, I cannot find coverage of this award in third party sources, so I don't know what makes it notable. Would it be appropriate to include a list of all Cy Young and Pulitzer Prize winners in Joseph Pulitzer or Cy Young?

I've taken this to third opinion, but disagree with the advice given, and am looking for more input. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your examples aren't relevant, because in those cases the awards themselves are notable enough for their own article. That isn't the case here (presumably, although sources are not difficult to find [1] [2] [3]). If the award isn't notable enough for its own article, then the next best place to have a short section devoted to it would be here. SnottyWong ^yak 01:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Shirley Jackson Award is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, I creating it for it after checking Google news results. The information about who won and specific details about how the awards are giving out, and who was on the jury deciding, I believe should be in the article about the awards. They were named in her honor, but she didn't create them or vote on who to give them out to, so an article about her shouldn't include any information other than they were named in her honor. Dream Focus 08:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I concur wholeheartedly. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Authors she influenced

Under authors that Ms. Jackson influenced, I’m wondering if Tom Tryon should be included. Considering the prominence afforded “The Lottery,” I have to believe that Mr. Tryon had read it and had influenced (and possibly even inspired) his Harvest Home in which he seems to take the germ of Ms. Jackson’s macabre premise and weaves a somewhat plausible scenario around it (which is virtually absent in Ms. Jackson’s story).

On a side note, although I do very much appreciate her work, I have to say that Ms. Jackson was one of those authors in which it might be said that there was less there than met the eye. I view her as pretty much a prototype of later authors such as Stephen King and Tom Tryon. She had basically been a (very good!) spinner of escapist yarns and all the commentary and analysis of “The Lottery” (in particular) is misplaced. It resonated (negatively at first) simply because the ending is so unexpected; so unexpected because the scenario is not only absurdly implausible but impossible under the circumstances in which the piece is surrounded. I think the story was simply the product of Ms. Jackson’s rather mischievous wit projected upon the denizens of her hometown.

At least this is what I feel was the original genesis of “The Lottery.” After the story rose to such prominence, perhaps Ms. Jackson retroactively placed more significance on the piece than had been her original intent.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum. As for the influences, it should be verified in reliable sources. --CutOffTies (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced paragraph?

The section "Death" contains two paragraphs. Its second paragraph isn't about Jackson's death. Shouldn't that paragraph and the quotation in it go earlier? Cognita (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Section headed "Death"

There are two indications that citation is needed in the section of the article headed "Death". However, I tend to doubt it.

The Stephen King quote is from his book about horror storytelling in various media, "Danse Macabre". It is already referred to as a source for the article in the appropriate section.

The other indication or request for "citation" is ludicrous. The passage is from Jackson's novel "The Haunting of Hill House". The preceding sentence states CLEARLY that this passage is the opening paragraph of the novel.

However, I do agree with the person who observed, somewhere else on this talk page, that this paragraph which pertains to Ms Jackson's general achievements as a writer, belongs somewhere else than in the section specifically concerning her death. It appears to have meandered into this section by accident. Leapso (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Children's names; Library of America

The names of all of Jackson's children are listed twice. Once is probably enough.

The Library of America did indeed publish Shirley Jackson: Novels and Stories in 2010. It's fine to mention that fact, but it seems weird to treat it as a surprising revelation, credited to a podcast. Perhaps this information was inserted into the article in 2009, when it might have been newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.179.165 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I wonder: is it necessary to include individual short stories in the Bibliography section since many of those stories are included in the story collections? Might it be better to include the individual stories in separate topics, for instance moving a list of the stories that are collected in The Lottery and Other Stories> to The Lottery and Other Stories?

JoePeschel (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"in recent years"... sheesh

When was that? Is that now? Was it five years ago? Ten? You cannot use relative time w/o giving an anchor, *NOT* in an encyclopedia, at any rate.--jae (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Two Questions

1) Why did she die at the age of 48? What was the cause? (

ANSWER: I quote from the article: In 1965, Shirley Jackson died of heart failure in her sleep, at her home in North Bennington, at the age of 48. Jackson had suffered throughout her life from various neuroses and psychosomatic illnesses. These ailments, along with the various prescription drugs used to treat them, may have contributed to her declining health and early death. However, at the time of her death, Jackson was overweight and a heavy smoker. )

2) Who produced and wrote the movie, "The Lottery", based on her short story? Stevenmitchell 06:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Heart attack. See The Lottery. Pepso 11:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between heart failure and heart attack or cardiac arrest. Lately, it seems that journalists have been erroneously using "heart failure" to describe sudden cardiac arrest. I wish it could be clarified whether Jackson had suffered from heart failure leading up to her death, or if it was cardiac arrest due to other causes.

In Private Demons: The Life of Shirley Jackson by Judy Oppenheimer, published in 1988, the doctor who pronounced her dead at her bedside says that the cause of death was cardiac arrest. He says: "I think I put down 'arterial sclerotic heart disease.' " And the New York Times obituary written at the time says she died of an "apparent heart attack." It's clear that her death was sudden and was a big surprise to all. Heart failure does not result in sudden death--it results in a gradual death that people are generally aware of long in advance. I think the Wikipedia entry should be changed to say that Shirley Jackson died of cardiac arrest. VickiMeagher (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)