Jump to content

Talk:Susan Sontag/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Introduction

Susan Sontag isn't a "Jewish Supremacist." LiteratureHumanities 8:43, 16 Feb 2012 (UTC)

Life section of the article

The fourth and fifth paragraphs of the life section contain phrases and sentences that seem, in my opinion, unencyclopedic. Nthdegx 13:00, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the first three paragraphs for clarity and ease of reading.

Well, I still think phrases like "She avoided, in her prime, all pigeon holes" need attention grammatically and syntactically. Nthdegx 12:37, 12 Oct 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. As the editor of two large Routledge reference works, I find it dismaying to think that our stuff is so dull and formulaic, people assume it's a characteristic of the reference genre! Profhum 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who appreciates all the factual work available on Wikipedia, I would like to say that the "controversies" part of articles like this almost always detracts from the otherwise good information. As you can see reading the dumb back and forth that goes on below in this talk page, nothing much good comes of including these kinds of things. Sontag had a lot of ideas - present them. Let people decide whether they're accurate or flawed and why. Compared to these actual ideas, superficial things like what Camile Paglia or Andrew Sullivan thinks about her are People-magazine-level gossipy. Please let's not fall into a high school-level "teach both sides of the argument" drivel. You have to know something about the subject before you can have an argument, and the purpose of a wikipedia entry should be to introduce the reader to Sontag and give as much information as possible about her life and work - NOT random other people's opinions of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.118.111 (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth

If we're going to list two different birth dates and write "depending on the source," we should footnote our sources. Sandover 01:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everybody else says January 16th, you say January 28th; what is the source for that? I have not seen it anywhere else.

Keichwa, as a general guideline, the Wiki styleguide suggests grouping external links together at the bottom of articles (except in the case of citations), but if you want to place a link to the speech in the text, I am not going to make a fuss about it. But at least do the job properly. You undid my last modification only partially; you left the link to the speech under External links (where I think it belongs!). Either one place or the other! BTW, Are you going to write something on the Friedenspreis? I don't think it is well known in the Anglophone world. -- Viajero 09:38, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There should be an "== Works ==" section (something done by the writer, artist, poet); then we have "== Literature ==" which covers printed books and articles on the subject (artist, poet, etc.) and finally there is "+== Ext. Links ==" which also covers stuff written about the author (not by the author). Since the link mostly represents her speech, it belongs under "== Works ==" (and can go away from "Ext. Links". --Keichwa 17:05, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Cause of death

Just heard on the BBC News that cause of death was breast cancer. N12345n 18:35, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

According to the NY Times obituary, the cause of death was complications of acute myelogenous leukemia. [1] Rebrane 20:35, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, just read the BBC News Online webpage which confirms this. N12345n 13:45, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
Guardian obituary names "uterine cancer" as the cause. N12345n 22:27, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

9/11 comments

Can we have a link to the whole article or whatever for her 9/11 comments please - Andrew Roberts

Done. Jliberty 17:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Her most famous quote: "The white race is the cancer of history"

I'm not sure that is her most famous quote; out of context it doesn't represent her at all.

Most people do not know who Susan Sontag was. Of those that have heard of her, probably a strong majority could only tell you, "Oh yeah, she was that feminist who said that whites were the biggest cancer on the human race." It may not be her most famous quote within liberal or academic circles, but outside those circles, it is probably just about the only thing she is known for, fair or not. Such is fleeting, fickle fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.230.128.44 (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan has his parody Sontag Award for egregious moral equivalism regarding the war on terror. I did the link on this page, but someone keeps removing it without comment. It is a legitimate controversy and Sullivan still gives out the "award."

Andrew Sullivan's "Sontag Award" seems legitimate (but only barely) to mention here—although to my mind, it's always seemed more of gimmick on Sullivan's part than anything else. I'm a reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog, and in spite of myself, am a longtime grudging admirer of him and his work. But the "Sontag Award" always seemed to me a bit of a pot-accusing-the-kettle situation, coming as it does from a fellow intellectual who is well-known, and even celebrated, for his own moral hypocrisies large and small. (Sullivan's controversies are widely discussed elsewhere, so not worth getting into here. But I have to ask: how would Sullivan feel if an "Andrew Sullivan Award" were handed out every time some right-wing holier-than-thou type was caught performing and even advertising for some sexual service he was outwardly preaching against? How would Sullivan feel if an "Award" were established to forever memorialize his lowest public moment? Sullivan himself is much more than his scandal; can't he return the favor to Sontag? That Sullivan continues attacking Sontag for her supposed hypocrisy in her immediate 9/11 comments, and continues to do so even after her death, shows what a small-minded character he is. But then again, Sullivan's controversies will no doubt outlive him, too.)
Leaving that Sontag Award aside (and letting it stand in the entry, at least for now), I must object to the other Sullivan reference, because it's simply inaccurate to credit him or even single him out for raising or promoting the controversy around Sontag's sexuality and its treatment in the mainstream media after her death. Sullivan was neither the first nor the only person to draw extensive attention to this matter. The New York alternative press (and many others online) had made it a minor cause du jour well before Sullivan did. I even noticed a mention of this controversy in Newsweek, with a response from the New York Times's Daniel Okrent defending the Sontag obituary. Sontag's relationship with Annie Leibovitz was illuminated here in the Wikipedia entry on the day Sontag's death was announced (yes, I added it myself), and was soon followed here by a number of quotes discovered by other Wikipedists in other newspapers, including a highly illuminating Guardian interview from a couple years ago, in which Sontag openly acknowledged her homo- and bisexuality. Again, this all appeared in Wikipedia before Sullivan mentioned the matter at all. So perhaps Sullivan read it here, and made it part of his blog? In any case, he does not deserve credit for raising the flag first, because he didn't.
If any entity deserves a "hat tip" for quietly pointing up the controversy about the Sontag obits just after her death, and the fact that they generally left out mention of Leibovitz (though not, by the way, the Kansas City Star, interestingly enough), it's good old Wikipedia. Sandover 05:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow Sandover, cheap shot indeed about Sullivan's sexual practices. Sullivan has consistently been a social and sexual liberal and a fiscal conservative. His view on foriegn policy are to the right, but he was very critical of the Administration's handling of post war Iraq and is highly critical of abuse of detainees. There is no "sex controversy" with Sullivan. I think he would laugh if someone came up with a legitimate (and funny) "Andrew Sullivan Award." What I object to is your culling items from the Sontag story without explanation. The Sontag Award is a legitmate parody of Sontag worth mentioning. 24.18.59.229 16:58, 13 Mar 2005

I've revised my comments accordingly; I am a fan of Sullivan's work, though not uncritical of it. Face it, there is a sex controversy about Sullivan. He was condemning sexual irresponsibility in the gay community at the time he himself was advertising online for unprotected passive anal intercourse. He got busted by the left-wing gay media who publicized his private online sex ad. To his credit, in his long self-rehabilitation, Sullivan has made excellent blog about the "myth" of AIDS superinfection and other detailed issues relevant to the health of sexually active HIV positive gay men with multiple partners. Yet another reason to take notice—whether you agree or disagree with Sullivan, it's always worth noting the position he takes, the scope of his intellectual interests, and the elegance of his writing.
Plese be aware that I am not the person who most recently reversed your most recent edits about the Leibovitz issue. There seems to be a consensus among those watching the Sontag page that the "Sontag Award" is worth inclusion, but it's just de trop to credit Sullivan for raising the flag about the obits. Sandover 17:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I don't care if Sullivan is given credit or not. I agree he is not the first voice on the issue (and if wikipedia was the first voice on the issue that is worth noting too). What is strange is the issue apparently can't be raised at all on Sontag's listing. As soon as it is put on someone removes it (without comment). That is not NPOV, that is some folks who think they have to "protect" Sontag. Strangely enough, that is inconsistent with Sontag's own beliefs and positions on honesty and truthfulness. Sontag was private about her personal life but she was not in the closet. For obits to suggest her only sexual or significant personal relationship was with her ex-husband is misleading. 24.18.59.229

You will note that I deleted the line you added to Susan Sontag, citing Wikipedia's NPOV (neutral point-of-view policy). The line read as follows: "Andrew Sullivan complained that Sontag got more of a pass by the media on her extreme leftist political affilations after her death than the late Philip Johnson did on his fascist past. [2]"
My objection is threefold: first of all, the notion that Sontag was an "extreme leftist" is highly simplistic. She was left on some issues, right on others. The fact is, she was a hawk (and out-hawked many conservatives) when it came to U.S. military intervention in Bosnia, and I believe time has proven her correct in her political views on this issue.
My second objection is the old Andrew Sullivan issue, discussed already on the Talk page -- this is not his entry, he is not Sontag's biographer, and his own biases should either be mentioned here or they should disqualify him outright from being called on as sole arbiter of Sontag's reputation. I've known Andrew for more than 15 years, and even as a friend, I can tell you he's not always objective (and there's a whiff of misogyny in this Sontag attack, as there often is with Andrew...remember, I say this as a friend of his). Was Sontag an "extreme leftist"? Obviously not. No extreme leftist I know of was an open and passionate advocate for U.S. military intervention in Bosnia -- at a time when Andrew Sullivan, as editor-in-chief of the New Republic, was in the habit of openly mocking her for directing "Waiting for Godot" in Sarajevo. Andrew's own conversion to interventionism in the Balkans was late... perhaps this is all a cover for it, because Andrew certainly wants to be on the right side of history. But that's the sort of discussion that belongs on his page. Not on hers.
My third objection is just the nature of the quote, which stretches into irrelevance: adding Andrew Sullivan is one thing, adding Philip Johnson and fascism is another (and it's a false analogy as well). Maybe you need to start a page about obituaries and labels? But Sontag's page shouldn't bear the weight of what people said or didn't say about Philip Johnson, of all people -- and, by the way, the New York Times gave ample treatment to Johnson's fascism, so I don't really know what Andrew is talking about here. Sandover 05:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your position. That is a persuasive argument.

Neutrality of article disputed

There was a legitimate controversy over Sontag's obituaries that failed to mention some signifcant same sex relationships she had, most notably with Annie Leibovitz. This was widely reported by Andrew Sullivan [3] [4] [5] and the alternative press [6] [7], and the Daniel Okrent defended the NYT's obituary on the subject. Depsite posting it accurately, it is removed repeatedly without comment. Sandover raised some good points I thought about Sullivan (see above). Criticism and editing for accuracy is fine and welcomed, but this seems to be driven by some need to "protect" Sontag. That is strange since Sontag was always for truth and honesty and she was not in the closet about her sexuality.

Someone keeps going on and deletes all references about NPOV and the controversies that involved Sontag (such as the omission of Leibovitz from her obituaries). Sontag may have been a private person, but she was not a liar and she was definitely not a coward. 24.18.59.229

24.18.59.229, Who is saying Sontag is a liar and/or a coward? What are you talking about? Are you really defending her against such accusations? If there is a "legitimate" controversy about her sexuality and its mention (or not) in her obituaries, why are you taking it out on Wikipedia? After all, her sexuality gets broad discussion here already, in the opening section. To my mind, her encyclopedia entry is about her life and the significance of her work. This issue about whether her sexuality was or wasn't raised in obituaries just doesn't merit going on at length.
I can't speak for other users, but I suspect the thing that prompted the edit reversals was not your mention of the post-mortem obituary controversy, but the fact that you make a whole paragraph about it, that you cite a lot of Andrew Sullivan (who came to it after others had broken the story), and that you repeat information (the mention of Leibovitz) that's already in the article at the top. This isn't censorship. It's simply about reversing an edit that's insensitive to the existing structure and content of the entry.
You may not realize that you are coming across as insensitive. It isn't helped by the fact that you don't sign your comments on this Talk page. (For the record, you can get a UserID, and even if you don't, it is appropriate to sign ALL contributions here on the Talk page. For a shortcut, type four tilde characters ~ in a row after your comments. That gives your IP address and the time and date of your contribution.)
I feel it was inappropriate for you to add NPOV to this article, and that is why I have reversed the edit (citing vandalism). The NPOV designation is for substantial ongoing disputes about the neutrality of an entire article or a significant portion of it. The NPOV designation is only merited after a consensus cannot be found on the Talk page. This dispute has not had that; in fact, it's less than 24 hours since you made your first edit here, and now you are claiming, apparently because it hasn't all gone exactly your way, that there is a neutrality issue for the entire article. Wrong!
And it's all the more bizarre because Wikipedia has never censored issues about Sontag's sexuality. In fact, one could argue that the whole post-mortem controversy began because Wikipedia wasn't shy of mentioning this aspect of Sontag's life, whereas many media outlets were shy about it. You have no right to vandalize the article with an NPOV designation (which taints all the information contained in the article) simply because the few lines you are attached to simply don't fly.
You may discover that there are more people on your side than you realize; Wikipedia is a matter of following etiquette, nuancing your additions, making compromises, finding a consensus in wording and structure. Surely, if a lot of different people have reversed your edits, they have good reason. So why don't you ask them? My recommendation: post your proposed paragraph about post-mortem Sontag on this page (you can simply copy it from an old page you have made), and ask for comments about it. But definitely get a UserID, and definitely sign your Talk page contributions. That's standard Wikipedia courtesy. —Sandover 07:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is hard for you to speak of "courtesy" when you delete cited references witout comment. Isn't there a wikipedia rule about that? Want to keep Andrew Sullivan out of it--fine with me. Why delete the entire entry? There was a dispute about her obituaries and Daniel Okrent defended the NYT's descision to print what it did. It was posted in the "controversy" section of the article--which only makes sense since it was disputed. By a "whole paragraph" you mean two sentances? There is a whole paragraph for some dispute Sontag had with Ed Koch over Israel (which I never heard of). So be it. By the way, I never said Sontag was a liar or a coward. Sontag was certainly no coward and she made a very public commitment to the truth (as she saw it). I said people who delete references to her they disagree with with out comment are liars and cowards. They also show a lack of standard wikipedia courtesy. I posted a paragraph properly cited and reasonably short. Let's see if anyone goes and vandalizes it. 24.18.59.229

The changes made by somebody (I assume it's being done by Sandover) seem fine. Better than deleting it. 24.18.59.229

I think this is an amazingly uninformative article about Sontag, a highly influential figure on American literature and culture regardless of your political view of her. I see very, very little about the writing she was best known for. It seems the article is solely focused around (a) her response to 9/11 and others' response to that response, and (b) the fact she was bisexual, mentioned over and over again. I'm not saying these facts should be excluded, but I do think they should not be so heavily emphasized; I have a strong suspicion this was written by someone who wants to somehow impugn her legacy, and agendas have no place here. As far as political controversies involving her, there's plenty too having to do with Vietnam and, most famously, her critiques of Leni Reifenstahl. Where's that? And is her bisexuality of so much interest in understanding her thinking that it must be reiterated so many times in the article at the expense of NON-redundant info? This article is merely designed to diminish her. Until someone wants to actually add detailed info on her works, I suggest what's here should be reduced, not maybe to a stub, but just down to the most necessary info. gilesgoat

I agree that her works and influence definitely need to be fleshed out here — why don't you give it a try? The trivia about her life will then assume its proper proportion. However, I don't think the solution is to cut down the article. She was a controversial figure, a lightning rod, and people seem obsessed by the sexual 'controversy' (a non-controversy, in my mind) and the notion that she was somehow unpatriotic in her 9/11 comments. Judging by the many months of vandalism since her death, I think cutting this stuff back will just invite it back, and in a less nuanced fashion. I am a great fan of her writing and would be very pleased if someone like you were to begin addressing her works and influence. Jump in! Sandover 17:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just came across it and wasn't aware it had been a target of vandalism. That's terrible. So I may do that, at least a bit. But oy, the work it would take. I have to say, I really do want to cut a lot of the extraneous and redundant stuff. It really does anger me that we find out more about Andrew Sullivan(who, in and of himself, I have nothing against and read from time to time, but he can have his own entry where they can talk about his attacks on Sontag all the way through if it's so important)) than Sontag; the bit about the "Sontag award" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry at all, and neither does what Ed Koch said. Someone reading this coming across her for the first time would wonder why the heck she even rated an entry. gilesgoat

If you deleted the Andrew Sullivan award and the Ed Koch comment, I wouldn't argue at all. I struggled mightily to mitigate both of them. Sandover 23:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One huge problem I see with this article is its overly adulatory tone. The discussion of Sontag's work especially needs to be written more soberly. I hope writers/editors will use more of the sources out there to speak for and against Sontag and the quality and impact of her work.Scrawlspacer (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Much of this article seems to have been written by -- if not a press agent for Sontag, someone who's clearly a Sontag booster. This is not neutral. The write-up of her book "On Photography" is silly. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Glamour

Jliberty, I liked your edit on this page, which sets up the Ed Koch 'controversy' paragraph well. (In fact, I don't think Koch's mention of Sontag created anything like a controversy at the time -- I don't remember it, and this seemed to appear on the Wikipedia page after her death simply as a way of attacking Sontag. But no matter. It's a representative sample of the kind of attack often made against her, a little unhinged and emotional, and as such deserves to be part of the way she is remembered.)

I'm curious -- of whom are you thinking when you mention other American intellectuals who were or are household names or public figures? They weren't in "Annie Hall" playing themselves, were they? Sontag was different, she was apart from the rest. That needs to be said in the entry. Whether it was her shock of white hair, whether it was being a woman in a man's world, whether it was her effort (or her apparently effortless ease) in staring directly into the media glare, she had a certain kind of mojo through a long public career. As for her intellectual trajectory, charted in such a public way, I can find no easy parallel (at least in the U.S.). She was, in the memorable phrase of Elaine Showalter, one of my college professors, "the dark lady of her generation." I don't quite know how to phrase all this on the Wikipedia page, but something about her peculiar public role and her curious glamour needs to be articulated here as the entry continues to develop. Any suggestions? Sandover 04:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Published talks

So here's a question. I have a short publication that is a transcript of a speech she gave at an acceptance ceremony for an award (I believe the Prince of Asturias Award). So while it's hers, and it's a publication, it's not something she wrote. Should this be included under a section of her works? If so how, where?

Saline 05:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought about it for a second more and I suppose she did technically write it, she just probably never intended it to be published (although I'm sure she agreed to it). Anyway I hope ya'll understand my little question.

Saline 05:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Saline, it seems unlikely that anyone else would have written a speech for her, so the speech must be her words, whether prepared in advance or given off the cuff. Is the document you have hardcopy (ie, paper) or is it in digital form online? If the former, has it been published, is it freely avaiable? If not, it probably wouldn't make much sense to list it. If it is online, feel free to add it as an external link under "General". If you are not sure how to do this, just paste it here, and I will take care of it. I hope I have answered your question. -- Viajero 10:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the long time to respond. It is a hardcopy publication (with a bent, scuffed cover, someones got some 'splainin to do) titled "Literature is Freedom" and its already listed under General, the "Friedenspreis acceptance speech". Thats what I get for posting from school when I can't check my books. Anyway, thanks for the assistance.

Saline

On Photography article

The article On Photography has been listed on Votes for Deletion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/On Photography) because it only contained a list of chapter headings. I've changed this to a stub, but I don't know much about Sontag and I've not read the book so I was hoping someone working on this page might expand it purely for the selfish reason that it sounds interesting and I'd like to know more. SteveW | Talk 21:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Under the section Works in this article, On Photography is the only thing written about at all, and it is talked about in almost too much detail without any citations whatsoever until one gets to the second portion of the section, which is obviously another attempt to write about On Photography WITH citations (still improperly done from Wikipedia's perspective) but aborted or simply not yet finished. I think some of this information could easily be moved to the On Photography article. Someone needs to do something about this, and I unfortunately don't have the time right now.Scrawlspacer (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline of prestige

Quite apart from the meaninglessness of the idea of "prestige", isn't it possible that the relative scarcity of references to Sontag in commercial films in the last fifteen years says more about mainstream culture than it does about Sontag's prestige (whatever that actually means)? What kind of "prestige" are we talking about, anyway? --Chips Critic 04:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Posthumous reputation

What on earth is that nonsense about her not being mentioned in commercial films now doing under the category of "Posthumous reputation"? Confusing "reputation" (in the sense academics and thinkers would understand it) with "name recognition" will make this project a laughing-stock. Drastic action must be taken: I suggest removing the offending material until we work out the purpose of its inclusion. --Chips Critic 01:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Racist

Susan Sontag's outspokenness about the white race being the cancer of human history sure qualifies her as a racist, and it would in fact be both helpful and appropriate for this article to state so. It is true that Sontag was Caucasian, but the term can certainly apply to a person who espouses self-hate -- something that Sontag did in a virulent, aggressive, provoking, and unmitigated form. In light of this, I would like some satisfactory and logical explanation as to why the article glosses over this matter, and why my edits pointing out her famous and infamous anti-white views (her "cancer remark" is probably the most famous quotation of hers) were deleted. If no legitimate explanation is provided, I shall have to revert this article so that it does include my contributions.

20.137.68.52 17:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It already mentions her calling the white race a cancer in the "controversies" section of the article. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Todays European Jews are the product of two thousand years of genetic mixture with Caucasian Europeans. There is no such thing as

the Hebrew race. The Hebrews were one specific Semitic tribe that lived in Palestine over two thousand years ago (before the diaspora). When the term "the Jewish race" is used today it is to specify a group of people who follow the Jewish religion and claim descent from the ancient Jews of Palestine. The Jews themselves have three main ethnic divides: Ashkenazi(Caucasian) Sephardic (Iberian)and Mizrahi(Arab),as per the Wikipedia article. There are even black Ethiopian Jews called Falashas. So it is highly likely that being of European descent Susan Sontag was a Caucasian possessed by the phenomena we call self hate.

To use the term "Jewish race" is to use it in the same way the Victorians used the terms: English race, Scottish race, Irish race, French race,etc. that is based on nation not racial genetics. but since the Jews came from the country called Judah. (The word Jew(from the Latin Judaeus)was simply someone who came from the kingdom of Judah) and Judah is no longer in existence it is no longer applicable to use it in this way, and since the ancient Hebrews were of the semitic racial group and 95% of todays jews are of the caucasian race it is also not applicable in this sense either, so the only instance when the term Jew can be said to be accurately used is in the religious sense and that alone.
When it comes to Sontag's comments about whites as the cancer of humanity, I think we can let the reader decide whether her comment is racist or not. It would be especially helpful and completely within the scope of this article as encyclopedic rather than an expression of personal opinion (see the rules about neutral point of view [NPOV]) to find sources who called her racist as a result of this comment. It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor/writer to insert his or her own point of view into an article.Scrawlspacer (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There were many Jews in the 1950s, '60s, 70's and '80s who did not identify themselves as part of the "white race." This was wholly or in part a recognition that the "white race" (WASPs) did not consider them "white" when they came to the United States, just as they did not consider Irish Catholics, Italians, etc. "White." So, to say she's a racist we would have to know her views on this subject, whether "Jewish Americans" [see note below] were white, and whether she considered herself white. To be frank, as a "pink" or speckled person (primarily Celtic), I don't see her observation about "white people" to be that out there. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A Jew calling another group of people a cancer? Absurdity at its best. Gentile Western civilization was and is the greatest culture the world has and for the foreseeable future will witness. She is a woman of hate, a non-creator, a nihilist attacking the creator of ideas. It is easy to make a career breaking things down. That is the non-Israeli Jewish mind at its best. It doesn't create but destroy and gets labeled 'genius' due to the shock of the immediate complexity of destruction by those who have to live around the debris. Her Jewish self-hate wrought onto the world...you see it every year during Christmastime when these types express their insecurities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.174.192 (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

99.55 -you sound like a particularly bright fellow and amazing psycho-analyst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish American?

Jewish American? What kind of identifier is that? Am I a Protestant American? Was I a Baptist American who became an Atheist American then an Agnostic American then a Congregationalist American? It sounds stupid. And is essentially meaningless. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No Shemp, what is stupid here is you. Your ignorance of Jewish culture is appalling. Only a primitive could then utter the remarks you have. Religion is only one component of what can make you a Jew. The other is what type of vagina you popped out of. If you popped out of a vagina that is considered Jewish, then you are a Jew even if you father was Kunta Kinte. It's a messed up system but one that has allowed essentially a 'made up' people to continue to exist. It gives you all the advantages of racism without the overhead of maintaining the race. Genius.

I came to this entry to find the date of Sontag's death and was shocked to see her defined as a "racist" writer at the very beginning of the article as if that category defines her life's work, rather than stemming from one infamous quote. This is not the encyclopedic NPOV style I expect from Wikipedia and I can't believe it's been up there for so long. This really makes Wikipedia look bad. Controversy should stay in the Controversy section! And the fact that the discussion devolved into some weird semantics about the "jewish race" is just pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.144.213 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this place is full of scary stuff, but the concrete instance was only there for a couple of hours and has now been removed. Favonian (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Bisexuality

The bisexuality section mentions Sontag's lesbian relationships in detail but glosses over her heterosexual relationships. Sontag herself admitted she was about 50/50 in terms of attraction and the article should acknowledge this. --unsigned comment from 71.230.170.211, 30 July 2006

Where's the glossing over? Sontag said it best in her own words, which are already part of the article: She says she has been in love seven times in her life, which seems quite a lot. "No, hang on," she says. "Actually, it's nine. Five women, four men." Sandover 11:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Still, even though I'm a gay man, I think it would be much more encyclopedic, accurate, and just plain interesting to mention all nine of the people she was in love with.Scrawlspacer (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"an exhibition currently on view"... will probably need editing..~js —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.162.168 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Susan Sontag was a lesbian, not bisexual. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sontag later committed relationships with...." Would I be right in guessing there's a word or two missing from that sentence? Asat (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pornography

In The Pornographic Imagination Sontag described the legitimacy of sophisticated pornography as a genre in literature. From her point of view Pauline Réage's Story of O, Georges Bataille's Histoire de l'oeil' and Catherine Robbe-Grillet's L'Image were perfect samples of such high class material in sharp contrast with trivial masspornography. --Nemissimo II 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Trip to Hanoi

The present version of the article states that Sontag "went to Hanoi, but she wrote of the experience with distaste". This is inaccurate, if not simply false. In her Trip to Hanoi, Sontag is very appreciative of North Vietnam ("But I do know that North Vietnam, while definitely no Shangri-La, is a truly remarkable country; that the North Vietnamese is an extraordinary human being...", etc.). If no one objects here, or edits the present version of the text, I will edit it myself... InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Works

I suggest that much more space be given to Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors, considering the importance of both (esp. the former) is arguably greater even than On Photography. Also, the controversy surrounding "Syberberg's Hitler" and her championing of the nouveau roman should be included. (I'm probably forgetting or slighting other things....)Scrawlspacer (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The "New visual code" section of the "works" section of this article seems overly long and unencyclopedic to me. It seem pasted from a school assignment. (Is it Wikipedia style to report on the works of an author in the present tense, as in "Sontag says..."? I know it is common style in academic work, and the current citation style of much of this passage, e.g. giving sources and years in parentheses following the citation is definitely not Wikipedia-ish.) It is not clear what distinction (if any) the current entry makes between the discussion of this one essay and the discussion of her work as a whole. I do not know much about Susan Sontag, but I know she wrote a lot, and I came to this article to get a kind of overview of her writing. In the "Work" section, however, I find only a little bit of general stuff and then a long summary of one particular essay. Perhaps the essay should have its own page? I leave that for someone who knows more about Wikipedia and Susan Sontag than I do. --75.167.204.192 (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Tom 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I also agreed, and I removed about 8 paragraphs, redressing the headings of "Work" section a bit. to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Gender balance

Should the introduction be reworded to be more gender balanced? Since Sontag was considered a leading feminist(though I don't know whether or not she defined herself as a feminist), it is strange that her importance is listed not for the content of her writing, but only in reference to men, especially the movie Bull Durham. It didn't seem necessary to remove anything, so I didn't delete the following quote, but it would be helpful to add in a summary of the importance of her theoretical work more generally. No offense, guys:

"The publication of Against Interpretation (1966), accompanied by a striking dust-jacket photo by Harry Hess, helped establish Sontag's reputation as "the Dark Lady of American Letters." Movie stars like Woody Allen, philosophers like Arthur Danto, and politicians like Mayor John Lindsay vied to know her. In the movie Bull Durham, her work was used as a touchstone of sexual savoir-faire. (See below.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.2.156 (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed this a bit, seems to have been some creep. Also, is the category tax dissenter correct or did I miss that? TIA,--Tom (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Photographer for Dust Jacket Photo on Against Interpretation

The photographer for the dust jacket photo of Susan Sontag on the first edition of her book Against Interpretation is Peter Hujar. I only know this because I own the book and am looking at the photo on the back of the dust jacket as I type this.98.182.25.129 (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Terry Dressler


Style

At present, this article is appalling. I'll rewrite it later if nobody else has the time. --Chips Critic (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

citations in Personal Life section

Fixed citations in the section about Annie Leibovitz; apparently someone had lifted the text, but not the html, from Leibovitz article. 11 Arlington (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up

I have cleaned up a lot of the OR in this article, but it needs more references and more research about Sontag's writings. It should describe her major works briefly, using reviews as sources and tell us more that the reception and critical analysis of her major works. Also, it notes that she was a leading intellectual, but it doesn't say why. What did she say or write that was influential in intellectual circles? Finally, of course, it is missing lots of refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Susan Sontag/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.

Lacks citations. Yksin 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Recantation

I was trying to clean up the criticism section. This is regarding her quote about the white race being a cancer and subsequent *recantation*. I was trying to change the following sentence: According to journalist Mark M. Goldblatt, Sontag later recanted this statement, saying that "it slandered cancer patients". I was trying to change it to something more reasonable like the following: Sontag later amplified this statement by way of sarcastic recantation, saying that the original statement “slandered cancer patients". Sontag may have recanted at somepoint, but she certainly wasn't recanting when she said that. So we can get rid of the recantation statement, or change the words to reflect what sontag actually meant. Human beings, especially intellectuals, don't actually ever recant statements this way. Just like no one in the entire history of the English language when trying to actually withdraw calling someone else "shit-for-brains" has uttered "I'm sorry, I actually just slandered shit and I certainly did not mean to do that."

It is fairly obvious that what she was doing was doubling down on the original statement by issuing a sarcastic recantation. So why does this edit keep getting reverted? Because some journalist said that this was actually a recantation? Would we also believe this journalist when he said the moon was made of cheese? Sontag may have recanted somewhere at some time, but this was not a recantation. This should be changed or deleted completely.

We all speak English and have brains here, so is it a disability to use them in this context? My apologies if these changes to my edits were automated. - mike jones

The matter is rather simple: If there is a reliable source that states that Sontag later amplified this statement by way of sarcastic recantation... then fine, please add it to the article along with the reliable source. If not, then that is your own personal analysis otherwise known as original research and it is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I see, so this is you just outright ignoring the plain meaning of the english language and hiding behind bureaucratic nonsense you've wrapped yourself with because you have a personal axe to grind in all this. How can you, in any universe, positively assert that someone recanted a statement that the white race is a cancer by saying a follow up statement saying that they did not mean to slander cancer patients? Thanks for your help, Dr. K, enemy of truth, you just made wikipedia a little hit dumber, which was obviously your goal. -mike jones

Yup. Personal attacks are typically used by people who have nothing of substance to add to a discussion. Thanks for saving me the time trying to educate you further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you, in any universe, positively assert that someone recanted a statement that the white race is a cancer by issuing a follow up statement saying that they did not mean to slander cancer patients? Sontag may or may not have recanted the original statement, but when she said that she did not mean to slander cancer patients THAT was not and could not be a recantation. Denying this truth because someone somewhere wrote that it was in fact a recantation just serves to cloud history, and the only reason you are persisting in this is you have a POV to grind. So, Yup. People that refuse to engage in a discussion of the point at issue and instead rely on the fig leaf of wiki bureaucratic minutia to avoid doing what is required in order to make the entry more truthful and more useful are always engaged in distorting the truth. That's you. 24.55.17.185 (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Mike Jones

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there any source saying Susan Sontag's religion is "None"? Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Balanced??

This article strikes me as pretty slanted against Sontag.. a lot of the critical quotes really aren't very substantive.. Seems these people just didn't care for her style, I don't see really any criticism of her views that featured higher in the article70.134.66.225 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

RACE HATE

Why is Sontag's hatred of the white race not mentioned here? She famously said 'The white race is the cancer of humanity.' If someone said 'The black race is the cancer of humanity' would wikipedia ignore it? If someone said 'The jewish race is the cancer of humanity' would wikipedia ignore it?109.151.141.200 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture

It is inappropriate for this article to be illustrated with a pastel portrait of Sontag. A biographical article needs to provide an accurate image of its subject, not a portrait that is essentially an artist's interpretation of the subject. The current picture needs to be replaced with a photograph of Sontag. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I've moved the pastel portrait down the page, and put an image in the infobox. — Hugh (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Other criticisms?

I don't see much of a point to this section. Is it really that notable that a literary critic once wrote something bad about Sontag? Negative quotes like those could probably be listed endlessly for any prominent person who expressed strong political opinions. The quote from Terry Castle isn't even a criticism of Sontag's work; Castle is just saying that Sontag was too whiny. I really don't think that's notable. Plus, the source linked doesn't even work. Aquila89 (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If something is cited to a dead link, then it doesn't require extensive discussion - or any discussion - for it to be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't one try to restore the link instead? I could, but I don't want to, for the reasons given above. Aquila89 (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not responsible for your actions, whether you restore the link or not, etc. Incidentally, so long as we're discussing anything, I'd like your opinion of the picture in the article's infobox. I find it distasteful because it surrounds an image of Sontag with something that looks like a halo, thus presenting her as a kind of saint. Whoever put that image there may have thought it was very clever, but it looks like rubbish to me. What do you think? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. I haven't noticed that before I read your post about it. A photo would be better, obviously. Aquila89 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Works Navbox

I'd like to propose a navbox collecting Sontag's works. Does anyone else think this would be useful? — Hugh (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Susan Sontag. 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:

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) 18:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

16-year-old's sexual intercourse

Sontag became aware of her bisexuality during her early teens and at 15 wrote in her diary, "I feel I have lesbian tendencies (how reluctantly I write this)". At 16, she had a sexual encounter with a woman: "Perhaps I was drunk, after all, because it was so beautiful when H began making love to me...It had been 4:00 before we had gotten to bed...I became fully conscious that I desired her, she knew it, too".

Quoting the diary record of a 16-year-old's sexual intercourse strikes me as a bit... inappropriate. I may just be a prude though. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sontag did not say that!

...excluding the passage comparing the magazine with Reader's Digest. FFS GIR! I! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.60.57 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Why exactly can't this page be edited?

Inappropriate missing content, specifically her life before her mother's death. Yes, what isn't included is material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4400:5D80:74E9:F7F8:93B8:891F (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Poor referencing of unhelpful source in introductory section

The introductory section includes the following phrase: "Although her essays and speeches sometimes drew controversy [3]...". The reference is to the book Hooking Up by Tom Wolfe, in which he describes Sontag as "just another scribbler who spent her life signing up for protest meetings and lumbering to the podium encumbered by her prose style, which had a handicapped parking sticker valid at Partisan Review." This quotation is given in full in the section "Other criticisms" (Note 39).

While it's fair to see this typically glib, gossipy remark by Wolfe as a type of "criticism", citing it as the sole example of supposed "controversy" in the global introduction seems somewhat pat. I'd also argue that the link itself - to Hooking Up on Google Books, with no specific page or section referencing - is of little use for the interested but uninformed reader.

Since a new biography of Sontag has just been published, there are many other sources we might look to for examples of controversy. Here is my suggestion: "No one held Susan Sontag in higher esteem than she did: Her Life reviewed" by Philip Hensher in The Spectator.

I'd also like to see references to more substantive criticisms of Sontag, who was after all a serious thinker with a long and varied career. The Wolfe comment is snide, superficial, delicious and utterly unconcerned with the content of her thinking. The Taleb criticism (Notes 40, 41) is more serious but is basically a simplistic accusation of hypocrisy, without substantively engaging with any of Sontag's ideas. It's basically analogous to "But Marx was middle class, so Marxism must be wrong".

EJLindon (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Grammar

"... Sontag attended a summer school taught by the Sociologist Hans Heinrich Gerth who became a friend and subsequently influenced her study of German thinkers"

No need to capitalize "sociologist". Comma before "who".

"Northwestern Afghanistan"

Really a need to capitalize? Is it a recognized region, such as the East Coast?

"U. C. Berkeley"

No space or periods in "UC".

"New York Times Public Editor, Daniel Okrent, defended"

No commas needed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Sontag/Archive_1&oldid=1215211830"