Talk:U.S.A. (trilogy)

Novels High‑importance

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

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

42nd Parallel redirect?

Why does "42nd Parallel" redirect to "USA trilogy"? Yes, I know, it's the first novel of the trilogy, but it seems like it should merit its own article eventually, even if at the moment it would be even stubbier than the USA article. The two are not the same thing.

69.7.203.153 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or why don't all the books redirect, if that one does? Bjart 07:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More detail!

This is a huge, dense book; why haven't more people worked on this?? Brutannica 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a book trilogy. Why haven't more people worked on an article on three books?? Why don't they have separate articles?? Brutannica 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. What are the books about? 71.176.119.204 03:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. The U.S.A. TremorMilo (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutannica has an excellent point. this article is about as specific as "the USA". What are the books about? What are some of the main characters and what happens to them. Tghis article is completely worthless. all I found out was that its three books, its possibly important, and it contains newsreels. This article might as well say 'If you want to know anything about the books - Read them!". Its a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another area that needs more detail is the publication history. It completely ignores the paperback publications. It also doesn’t give a date for the Modern Library edition or the Harcort one.Wis2fan (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and controversy

I removed the following from the article and bring them here for discussion:

The book is written from a clearly left-wing perspective, and especially displays a deep sympathy for and identification with the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World/"Wobblies"), in which several of the characters are involved. His attitude to the Communist Party is far more cool, though some individual Communists are depicted sympathetically. The description of such incidents as the Centralia Massacre and the executions of Joe Hill and later of Sacco and Vanzetti leaves little doubt about where the writer stood.

Also highly partisan is the negative depiction of President Woodrow Wilson. While Wilson is in general remembered mainly for his post-World War I role in unsuccessfully trying to get the US involved in the League of Nations, Dos Passos concentrates on various oppressive measures taken by his administration against the IWW and other radical, labour movement and antiwar groups, before and especially during the war as well as in the later Red Scare.

However, while reflecting the fact that Dos Passos was still on the political Left when the trilogy was written, it also reflects his growing pessimism; social change is essentially presented as desirable but unattainable. The IWW is in various passages mourned as a broken lost hope (in fact, it still existed at the time of writing - and at present - but had lost the momentum and mass support it had in the early 1910s).

This is clearly reflected in the careers of the trilogy's characters. Except for those who get killed off (often in stupid and senseless accidents), characters as they grow older almost invariably abandon or betray their principles, lose their vitality and become coopted into the lifeless capitalist system (or the scarcely better Communist bureaucracy). Seen in light of Dos Passos' later literary and political development, the trilogy seems to mark his last station on the Left before definitely crossing over to the other side of the spectrum.

For their time, the novels were quite forthright in their depiction of such matters as abortion, adultery, homosexuality, sexually-transmitted disease, rape, substance abuse, and many other controversial issues that were ignored, or at least rarely mentioned, by most of the fiction of the era. Examples of these themes among the characters include Mary French's two abortions, Charlie Anderson's alcoholism, and Richard Ellsworth Savage's bisexuality. Furthermore the novels' dialogue is frank and often profane, although some expletives are censored.

None of this is referenced, and amounts to nothing more than the interpretation and opinion of the user(s) who added it. Thus, it is POV, OR, and/or synthesis, and not appropriate for the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was well known that the writer was left wing. Something needs to be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it's referenced. And simply sticking "left-wing" in front of his name is not appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor very illustrative. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The long section removed from from the article is just what it needs, too bad it wasn’t or couldn’t be attributed to sources.Wis2fan (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having reread the entry, this section fit right it. Most of this entry is unsupported by any sources. Wis2fan (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]