Humanities desk
< June 8	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 9

George Lee

I have a monument that speaks of George Lee cousin of Robert E. Lee, How can I find who George Lee was?

The family tree of the famous Robert E. Lee has been well researched, and I cannot find a cousin George there. The closest I can come is a nephew named George Taylor Lee.[1] The names of male cousins I could find are Alexander Lee, Alfred Lee, Cassius Francis Lee, Charles Henry Lee (2 x), Edmund Jennings Lee, John Hite Lee, Richard Bland Lee, Richard Henry Lee (2 x), Robert Eden Scott Lee, William Arthur Lee, William Fitzhugh Lee, and Zaccheus Collins Lee. On such a lot you'd expect at least one George, but no luck. What is the nature of this monument? --Lambiam ^Talk 08:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "cousin" is sometimes used generically to refer to any collateral relative, not necessarily a child of one's parent's sibling. In this sense, it could include a nephew. -- JackofOz 00:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. A.Z. 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition

When taken in to custody on a warrant from another state and hel for extradition , how long can you be held in custody ?

The relevant article on this topic is Extradition law in the United States, but alas, it does not actually cover this issue. The relevant federal statute is 18 U.S.C. § 3182, and it sets the time limit for being held in custody pre-extradition to thirty days. –Pakman044 06:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Emperors

Whu was the last of the great emperors? Please give reaosns for your answer.

It was Emperor Bloggs. It was because he did his own homework. AndyJones 07:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, only joking. You could start by reading our Roman Emperor article. Feel free to come back here if you have more specific questions. AndyJones 07:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not the answer your teacher or instructor expects (or even wants) to hear, but Suleiman the Magnificent considered himself (with some reason) to be the Roman emperor, and if you agree, then without doubt this last of the great Ottoman sultans qualifies as a great emperor; see further List of Byzantine Emperors#Ottomans, Caesar (title)#Ottoman Empire, and Mehmed II#Conquest of the Byzantine Empire. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what your teacher means by great. Marcus Aurelius in my opinion and you can do the homework to find the "reaosns"! Mhicaoidh 10:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of Stephen Colbert, let me say that the last great Roman Emperor was Constantine the Great: it says so right in his name. You should find out if your teacher wants you to limit yourself to western emperors or if you should do reading on the Eastern Roman Empire as well. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 11:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside Lambiam's interesting point about the Ottoman Empire, and ignoring the 'end' of the Western Empire in 476AD, the last truly great Roman Emperor was, in my estimation, Basil II, slayer of the Bulgars, who died in 1025. It was under his rule that the eastern Empire reached new heights of power, re-establishing a border on the Danube, lost centuries before. It was after Basil's death that a process of terminal decline began, slowed down from time to time, but never halted. And before anyone objects that Basil was a Byzantine Emperor, this is a term of late creation, not one that would have been understood by the man himself. He may have been Greek in language and culture, but he would have seen his rule as part of a political continuity going all the way back to the days of Augustus. Clio the Muse 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide references for your last assertion? A.Z. 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you could read the article on Byzantine Empire, just the first paragraph. Gantpupo 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that when Greece won independence from Turkey, the typical man in the street said "Who are these Hellenes that you foreigners keep going on about? We're Romans!" —Tamfang 07:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on one's criterion of greatness. I'd say that Theodosius I was the last great emperor in the West and Michael VIII was the last great politician on the Byzantine throne. No contemporary European leader exceeded him in shrewdness, diplomatic skills, and talent for palace intrigue. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the question's been edited, it doesn't specify "Roman". Queen Victoria was Empress of India (and of a pretty big Empire aside from that) and Mussolini was, I believe, an Emperor of sorts, though I'm happy to be corrected on that. Given the extent of the British Empire, which reached its zenith under her, I'd opt for the lugubrious Victoria. --Dweller 10:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The header is "Roman Emperors", so I guess that covers it. -- JackofOz 10:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bfntfbjtgfy grrr remind me to edit when me head's clearer! --Dweller 11:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In future, edit when your head's clearer. Anything else I can help you with while I'm here? :) -- JackofOz 02:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical novels

Could anyone please tell me of any decent historical novels, novels, that is, that try to recreate a past period with as much authenticity as possible? Most I have come across are complete rubbish! Judithspencer 05:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War and Peace. If you are interested in the ancient world, try Salammbô. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, for all that it's a fantasy, won high acclaim for being ridiculously well-researched. Susanna Clarke said in an interview that during a scene in which a certain character picks up a knife, she had to restrain herself from going out and searching for books on Regency-era knives. MelancholyDanish 07:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

Cold Mountain (novel)? Pfly 07:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most novels are historical in some sense, so you are spoiled for choice. Did you have any particular period in mind? Have you read any of the classics by such as Dickens and the Brontës?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick O'Briens novels are very authentic when it comes to details of English naval life in the early 19th Century but you should be more specific about the period and genre you are interested in Mhicaoidh 10:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would second O'Brian's Aubrey–Maturin series, and also suggest George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman novels, which are set a little later in Victorian times. The Flashman novels go so far as to claim to be real, recently discovered memoirs of a Victorian-age soldier. Apparently the first one, Flashman, was convincing enough for some academics in the US to actually review it as authentic. Both of these sets of novels also have a good sense of humor, which makes them all the more readable. --Joelmills 00:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ghirla's selection would also be at the top of my list. Tolstoy's description of the battles, the wolf hunt and Natasha's dance are among the great literary experiences. I only wish that the author had a more ruthless copy-editor! The lengthy passages detailing his thoughts on the processes of history are in need of some serious pruning! People who are familiar with the down-to-earth realism of Flaubert's Madame Bovary may be surprised by Salammbo, which is set in Carthage after the defeat in the First Punic War, and is far more exotic than anything ever written by Dumas pere.

The other historical novels worth a mention are A Tale of Two Cities and Barnaby Rudge, both by Charles Dickens. I think most people are familiar to some degree or other with the former. The latter is set in 1780, during the time of the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots, and is particularly good in the treatment of crowd-scenes. The work of Sir Walter Scott is also of some importance in this context, as a great many of his books have a historical theme. He is a little too fanciful and prolix, perhaps, for modern taste, which is pity, really, because some are actually quite relaxed in style and delivery, including Old Mortality, which deals with the religious and political tensions in Scotland in the late 1670s. Sweeping south of the border R. D. Blackmore's Lorna Doone is also set in late Stuart times. This is not literature of a high order, but it's a good old-fashioned ripping yarn! You might also consider Notre Dame de Paris by Victor Hugo, probably now better known from the various film adaptations, another pity.

My final choice would be The White Guard by Mikhail Bulgakov. The action is set in Kiev in 1918 during the Russian Civil War. Strictly speaking this is not really a historical novel at all, since the author is describing events that happened within the scope of his own life-time. However, it captures a period and a mood with effortless fluency. It has also been dramatised as The Days of the Turbins, and as such was enjoyed by non other than Josef Stalin. Clio the Muse 00:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "copyedited" versions of War and Peace have been available, in Russian at least, for more than a century. To prune Tolstoy's grand rambling style is to misunderstand the nature of his genius. In my humble opinion it's the same as pruning Moby Dick. Tolstoy's ouevre includes an outcrop of sustained historical narratives such as Hadji Murad, which follows in the tradition of Pushkin's The Captain's Daughter, a short historical novel about the Pugachev Rebellion written in a sparse, austere style derived from Voltaire. Pushkin's novel was a side-project and a more humane dimension to his History of the Pugachev Rebellion, which was considered a serious scholarly work at the time. In order to eliminate possible inaccuracies and anachronisms, Pushkin, Tolstoy, and Flaubert painstakingly researched the periods in question, something which can't be said about either Dumas or Hugo. If you are into this kind of light reading, I would trade any French novel, including Cinq-Mars, for a Stevenson book like Kidnapped or Black Arrow which I enjoyed reading in my early teens. One of the earliest, and most accurate, historical narratives in English is A Journal of the Plague Year, which I liked immensely. Moving back to America, Scarlet Letter and James Fenimore Cooper's novels technically qualify as historical, but I have been immune to their faded charms. As you may judge for yourself, tastes and definitions differ enormously. This is not suprising, since your question, Judithspencer, concerns feelings and opinions rather than stern facts normally discussed on this page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ghirla. It's not so much Tolstoy's rambling style that I find unsettling, if that is the right word, and rather more his tendency to make long discursive asides on his philosophy of history, which adds nothing, in my view, to the value of War and Peace as a novel. But I was being mildly polemical, and would not really welcome a 'bowdlerised' version. I hope I have not upset you too much! Clio the Muse 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Norfolk's Lempriere's Dictionary is very well researched. For that matter, his In the Shape of a Boar is well researched, too, although it's a bit diffident. The first volume of Neil Stephenson's "Baroque Cycle," The Confusion, is well researched and entertaining. (He gets sloppier as he goes, or he treads more and more on an era I know too well.) Robert Graves's famous I, Claudius gets prizes. Geogre 14:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec by Gary Jennings paints a vivid, unhysterical picture of that civilisation (although it doesn't pull its punches). I also recommend pretty much anything by James A Michener. --Dweller 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My all-time favorites are Count Belisarius by Robert Graves (Byzantium) and Creation by Gore Vidal (the Greco-Persian wars and beyond). 195.68.89.135 12:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Crusader

Who was the first crusader, by this I mean the first to take to arms in the defence of Christianity? Secret seven 09:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with our article crusades but I think you will find that the crusades had little to do with the defence of the christian religion Mhicaoidh 10:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan Mamikonian? --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Peter? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 10:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in the articles on the Battle of Milvian Bridge (although this was not, strictly speaking, in defense of Chritianity} and the Battle of Tours, which took place about ten years later than the Battle of Covadonga. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 10:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean in the course of the Crusades, this would have been in the context of the First Crusade and more specifically the People's Crusade, but as a whole bunch of rabble set out, it is impossible to designate any person as the first. Or you might point at the leader, Peter the Hermit, who however was not really a man of arms. If you mean this more in general, then the Reconquista may be the first instance in which the religiously inspired motive of defence of the true Christian faith was used as a justification for waging war, and then you might point at the Visigoth nobleman Pelayo and the Battle of Covadonga. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond IV of Toulouse was probably the first, since Pope Urban II had apparently already told him about the crusade before the Council of Clermont. Peter the Hermit was the first to leave because he and the "paupers" didn't bother waiting until the appointed time in August of 1096, as the "princes" did, but organization was already underway in southern France before news reached Peter or anyone in the north. Or, if you prefer, read First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars (ISBN 1403961514), by Geoffrey Regan, which argues that Heraclius was a forerunner of the 12th century crusaders (although as the much more trustworthy historian Warren Treadgold says, "This popular history is worth reviewing in a scholarly journal only because its confused ideas of "crusade" and "holy war" could do real harm in the present political climate if it were mistaken for a scholarly work". Zing!) Adam Bishop 02:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the best minds can deliver that kind of death blow: assassination with aplomb! Clio the Muse 02:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William the Conqueror, before the conquest of England, received endorsement from the Pope to raise an army for the defence of Christianity. I can't remember what the exact connection was between crushing the Anglo-Saxons and saving Christianity, but it was deemed sufficient at the time. It helped William greatly, who needed men for the journey, and the offer (I believe) of a papal indulgence was just the thing to get them all started. The Mad Echidna 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cost of Ebooks

Given the savings inccured on avoided printing and distributions (and even unsold-copy destruction) costs, how much cheaper might one expect the average ebook to be compared with it's novel and academic text book counterpart? --83.84.74.28 10:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of variables, but the short answer is not a lot. Far more expenditure goes into writing (or royalties), editing, design, typesetting, and promotion than goes into printing and distribution. For a medium-sized publisher like the one I work for, I estimate there would be a 5% saving, but that assumes all the purchasers will prefer the e-book to the hard copy, which is far from being the case.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it require all purchasers to prefer the e-book format? The book has already been produced - it surely doesn't cost that much to port it to a suitable format and make available for download? Not to mention the mark-up by bookstores which I've been told is in the order of 50%. --83.84.74.28 20:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing my calculations of the assumption that printing and distribution of that title would be unnecessary and that we would still sell the same quantity (of e-books) as we would of the hard copy. As I said, there are lots of variables. Yes, as long as customers would buy them, mass market fiction books would be very cheap as e-books, but there is no sign that people want that. The sort of e-book people would buy is an academic or other specialist work, for which the writing and production costs are much, much higher than printing and distribution (and mark-up). Even so, as a specialist publisher we make a selection of our books available for free download from our website. Almost everyone chooses to pay for the hard copy instead. E-books are rather an uncomfortable compromise between books and the Web; they are ideal in a certain niche market, but at the moment there is no sign that they will become more popular.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You people know everything

There are people here who seem to know just about everything. I am thinking of Clio the Muse and Lambiam in particular. Do you need to be qualified to answer questions here, or is it just amazing generosity? Princess of the night 12:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to be willing to help. Dismas|^(talk) 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are all volunteers. Through a bizarre accident, I swallowed an encyclopedia while still an infant, but anyone can help who is willing to do the necessary research for giving a proper response. See also the guidelines for Reference desk respondents. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swallowed an encylopedia? Does this mean that every time you answer a question, you're really talking out your... Matt Deres 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime something looks like magic it usually just means you aren't able to see the hard work that either goes into it or went into it at some point. --24.147.86.187 14:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have all wikipedias articles, rules and policies downloaded and pumped into our brains! =] Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And even with all that, we are still amazed at the likes of Lambiam, and Angr and Ghirla and Utgard Loki and Clio and . . . Bielle 20:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know everything, although some would say we really know nothing. (Of course, some of us *cough, cough* just fake it.) Clarityfiend 06:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To know that you know nothing is the beginning of wisdom. Or so someone said, but what did he know? —Tamfang 07:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Princess of the night. You will do well to consider the answers given here a good foundation and starting point for your own research. Show me a participant in this forum who routinely and consistently provides well-founded and very helpful answers, and I will show you at least one or two answers of dubious value (or even flat-out incorrect) by that very same participant.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your general premise that some of the more prolific contributors to this forum are (without a doubt) simply outstanding. Just don't allow all that amazing generosity to excuse your own (or anyone else's) individual responsibility to verify and think critically. dr.ef.tymac 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

Hello. Why is The Secret Life of Walter Mitty so famous? Thanks.--Mayfare 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's awesome. MelancholyDanish 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

Just kidding. Also because it's about a man living a quotidian life who manages to escape from his reality by means of fantasies, which is what most writers and artists (and most people) do. MelancholyDanish 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

Because it is one of the most fun and easy-to-understand short stories in English, it is a favorite of literature teachers throughout the English-speaking world, or at least in the United States. This means that many (or most) schoolchildren are exposed to it. Marco polo 21:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was also written by a notable author, published in a notable magazine, and made into a notable movie. Although the movie really didn't do the story credit - it was more The Public Life of Danny Kaye than The Secret Life of Walter Mitty - it did bring the story to the attention of later generations. --Charlene 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They will also be making a new movie version with Mike Myers. bibliomaniac 1 5 An age old question... 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways Thurber's simple little story was a perfect reflection of the mood of the times, which alone has done much to account for its lasting fame (apart, that is, from the dreadful movie!) Imagination might be said to be just another 'product' of a modern industrial society, in the sense that people living in traditional rural communities would have few ideas to take them beyond their immediate location. But an advanced urban society creates all sorts of distractions, through a whole variety of media; it creates expectations and desires, in other words, without necessarily being able to fulfill them. People in the 1930s could immerse themselves in a world of cinematic dreams, only to be forced back into the mundane reality of mass unemployment or forms of work that were personally unfullfilling. It is in the gap between reality and imagination that Walter Mitty was born, and where he will always live. Clio the Muse 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The internationaly famous encyclopedist's fingers made a rapid pocketa-pocketa-pocketa sound on the keyboard as he dazzled all with his erudition. Edison 14:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then awoke as someone cried, "Puppybiscuit!"203.21.40.253 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That man just said puppybiscuit!" Geogre 02:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Electoral statistics

I know this is complicated by boundary changes, but which UK constituencies are the most volatile in terms of party allegiance? i.e. which constituency has switched from one party to another the most frequently, say since WWII? (Not counting MPs changing allegiance between elections - it's voting behaviour I'm interested in.) -88.109.42.17 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may find what you are looking for in British Electoral Facts, 1832-1999 by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. It's fairly pricey, though, so best ask for it in your local library. Clio the Muse 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word for this would be marginal constituency.martianlostinspace 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what the questioner is asking about. A "marginal constituency" is a snapshot description. It describes only a constituency that at that moment in time has declared only marginal support for one particular party. However, it may have never in its history have declared for any other and would therefore be quite different from what the questioner aptly terms "volatile". --Dweller 09:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do companies go public

I understand to make money, but a lot of the IPOs I see are from profitable companies, and sometimes an IPO seems arbitrary. What's behind it usually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.49.209 (talk • contribs)

Making money is not the immediate objective of an IPO so much as raising cash is. The company would normally need to be profitable in order for the market to be interested in purchasing its now-publically offered shares. (Amazon was a company that broke this general rule, as well as the one about pricing the IPO. See below.) After an IPO, a company is usually cash rich, which allows it to make large capital purchases (new premises, bigger, better, faster machinery, or another company, one down chain, a supplier, for Vertical integration or one along the chain (a competitor) for Horizontal integration. The cash may also be used to buy back debt, thus improving the company's credit position for future borrowing. The IPO can also be a way of rewarding senior people who are given stock or who "buy in" at the initial price and hope for increases in value in the stock over time, but this is a minor benefit and not a reason for an IPO. Watch and see what happens in the company the first year following the IPO to see why it happened when it happened.

It's a poorly priced IPO if it trades in the first few weeks at a much higher value than the initial offering price. The secondary market, the NYSE, the FTSE, the TSX, which is where the price is rising, pays the purchasers of the stock, not the company. Thus, the IPO should, in theory, be priced so that it sells, but not so that it starts trading immediately at a vastly higher price than the initial one. If the price does go up immediately and by huge amounts, the company should have priced the IPO higher; it has just lost all that money it could have had for itself. Bielle 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist literati

I touchy subject, I know, but were there any decent writers-novelists, poets and the like-who supported or were attracted by Fascism? I can think of Ezra Pound, but I feel sure there must have been others. Please, no hacks! Captainhardy 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Lord Haw-Haw counts as a hack, but maybe not the British novelist Henry Williamson. Maybe not the most clear-cut cases, but among famous authors Céline and Yukio Mishima come to mind; both were, however, very much individualists. Pound's friend T. S. Eliot is also controversial, as well as W. B. Yeats, although the latter distanced himself from fascism just in time before he died. Robert Brasillach can be considered a full-blown fascist. Among Italian fascist authors there are Gabriele d'Annunzio and F. T. Marinetti. In Belgium you have Wies Moens, although he distanced himself early from the fascist Flemish–Dutch nationalist party he was a member of. Ernst Jünger is sometimes mentioned, but I don't know of specific indications of fascist leanings on his part – unless you want to call all reactionary ideas fascist, which then robs us of a useful distinction. I can't guarantee that the following German writers are not hacks, but they were not considered so in their heydays: Hanns Johst, Hans Grimm, and Artur Dinter. There must be many more, but they may have been gracefully forgotten. An interesting ambiguous figure is Stefan George. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the assumption that when you refer to Lord Haw-Haw you mean William Joyce, I am surprised that you mention him at all, Lambiam, even as a hack! Did he write anything? Not that I am aware of. Celine is an excellent choice, though his 'Fascism' was anything but systematic; more a collection of petty personal grievances of one kind or another. Castle to Castle is not his best novel, but it gives much insight into the character of his politics. Ernst Jünger is one of those deliciously ambigious figures, though if you really want to discover his views on Fascism his Notebooks are worth examination.

There are some other good examples that should be added to the list, including Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, Celine's countryman and fellow novelist, although he is now almost completely unknown in the English-speaking world. From the Anglo-Saxon world we have Percy Wyndham Lewis, painter and author who co-founded the Vorticist movement in poetry. More of a 'fellow traveller' than an outright Fascist, he was, a little like Celine, one of those individuals who has to swim against the tide. His 1937 novel, Revenge for Love, is highly critical of Communist activity on the Spanish Civil War, and dismissive of the political enthusiasims of left-wing English intellectuals. But the greatest of all the 'Fascist' writers is surely Knut Hamsun, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1920. He later became a supporter of Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegian Nazi leader. After a war-time meeting with Josef Goebbels Hamsun sent him his Nobel Prize medal as a gift; and after Hitler's death in 1945 he wrote an obituary describing him as a "warrior for mankind." Even so, the work and the politics are two quite different things. Hunger, Pan, Victoria and Mysteries have a value well beyond the mundane. Clio the Muse 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Joyce was called a "brilliant writer" by A. K. Chesterton, even before he became the Director of Propaganda of the British Union of Fascists. But one should indeed hope no-one would attempt to qualify his writings as works of literature. Personally, I find his style of writing almost as execrable as the content. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Lambiam, but I'm still a little puzzled. I assume the 'brilliant writing' that Chesterton refers to was in the form of political journalism, rather than literature as such? I simply cannot imagine Joyce as a poet or a writer of stories! What is it of his that you have read? Sorry to push you in this; it's just the appetite of curiosity! Clio the Muse 22:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he qualifies as a literatus, but a notable Dutch fascist/Nazi literatus was journalist Max Blokzijl, who had been a correspondent in Berlin since the end of WW1. He was also a very popular singer, who toured Europe, the Dutch East Indies, China, Japan, Siberia and Russia from 1908 to 1913. He became head of the press in the occupied Netherlands. He received the death penalty in September 1945, and was executed in March 1946.

Henri van Hoof is another Dutch fascist literatus. He won the World Public Speaking Championships in Washington DC in 1931, at age 17. He stayed in the US, and worked as a correspondent for the Washington Post. During the invasion of the Netherlands in 1940, he fought in the Dutch army against the army of the Third Reich. Half a year later, he joined the Dutch national-socialist movement. In the occupation government, he was appointed dramaturg. At the end of the war, he became a Kriegsberichter, a nazi war correspondent.

Another interesting case is Robert van Genechten, a Belgian/Dutch economist, author and lawyer. He wrote a lot of national-socialist pamphlets. His most remarkable work is the (recently uncovered) national-socialist cartoon version of Reynard, in which a group of animals with very large noses come from the east and destroy peace and quiet in the animal forest... A ecis^Brievenbus 01:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also found Gerard Wijdeveld as a Dutch fascist (minor) literary figure. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is a long list including this name at nl:Portaal:Fascisme en nationaalsocialisme in Nederland#Fascistische en nationaalsocialistische auteurs. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that noone came up with the name of Dmitry Merezhkovsky. His literary efforts deserve oblivion, as do works by every other ridiculously overhyped author mentioned in this thread, with the only exception of Yeats. We again discuss opinions not facts. How can you know who is decent and who is not, it's all a matter of opinion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Leni Riefenstahl? --Robert Merkel 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was she a poet? --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of. She was a film-maker. Clio the Muse 22:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]