Talk:Brian Reynolds Myers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents


[edit] Appraisal

"Myers is an old-fashioned grammarian and narratologist, both inexperienced and virtually unknown in Anglo-American literary studies. Several critics in the press, as well as scholars in American academe, consider him to be an amateur, outsider, and sensationalist. Some of these points are legitimate, but the weaker arguments resort to ad hominem and the reductio ad absurdum."

I don't have the expertise necessary to edit the particulars of this article, but it is, in my view, biased, poorly written, and posesses the analytical style of a high schooler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.143.211 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

You're right. I doubt that an MA thesis should be included in the text of the article, too... --zenohockey 01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the paragraph above. --zenohockey 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading the B. R. Myers entry and all the articles in the “External Links” section, it is fair to say that there is nothing really wrong with the above-mentioned (deleted) paragraph. The author of the entry has condensed a number of established views and even acknowledges that the “weaker” of these are biased and logically false.

Those who take issue with the text have not closely read A Reader's Manifesto. Myers acknowledges his lack of experience and outsider status in academic literary studies. He is not embarrassed to confess that he is an amateur literary critic. In point of fact, his book is marketed as precisely such a publication, that is, literary criticism by a “reader.”

One can present the work to English professors. Many have not heard of Myers. They will also agree that he approaches literature like a “grammarian” and a "narratologist." These are technical terms and fields. Also, the reference to Myers’ approach as being "old-fashioned" simply means that his method is no longer dominant in literary studies.

Regarding the MA thesis, "Party-Oriented, People-Oriented Literature," this is not the first time that such a work has deserved comment. One famous example is Nikolai Chernyshevsky's very short "The Aesthetic Relation of Art to Reality." The former thesis is available at the Special Collections Department at East Carolina University. This is a relevant and creditable work and it should be mentioned.

The above-mentioned paragraph has been reinserted with the following modifications:

Myers has acknowledged his lack of experience in Anglo-American literary studies, and he approaches literature like an old-fashioned narratologist and grammarian. Several critics in the press, as well as scholars in American academe, have observed that he is an amateur, outsider, and sensationalist. A Reader's Manifesto did, however, enjoy short-lived attention in some literature courses in the United States soon after its publication. --Billypilgrim45 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master's Thesis

(Personal attack removed) Of course you're right about Myers, but that doesn't merit mention of the master's thesis. (Personal attack removed) Clearly this entire entry is amateurish and needs to be rewritten.

..........

Please sign and date your note. The said allegations against Billypilgrim45 are very offensive. Wikipedia entries are works in progress and many are written by non-experts or non-specialists. That classifies the website as a whole as an amateur project. But that does not mean it is an unreliable or useless source of information.

The Brian Reynolds Myers entry, which is linked at the North Korean Juche entry, appears factual. But it is in need of emendation and expansion and should be designated as a Wikipedia:Stub in its present form. The entry on Bruce Cumings is actually more “amateurish” than the present entry on Brian Reynolds Myers.

As for this Master’s thesis about Myers and North Korean literature, the Wikipedia:No original research policy requires publication and/or verifiability for the inclusion or reference of source materials. Billypilgrim45, consider citing something Alzo David-West has already published. -- Samuel kozulin 15:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Myers and His Critics

Would Billypilgrim45 respond to the recent omissions in the Brian Myers entry? Wikipedia user Impaciente has claimed that the following section is unsourced:

“Myers has acknowledged his lack of experience in Anglo-American literary studies, and he approaches literature like an old-fashioned narratologist and grammarian. Several critics in the press, as well as scholars in American academe, have observed that he is an amateur, outsider, and sensationalist. A Reader's Manifesto did, however, enjoy short-lived attention in some literature courses in the United States soon after its publication.”

Since Myers is a literary critic, readers should know how other critics and specialists appraise his work and to what degree his scholarship has been received in literary studies. -- Samuel kozulin 15:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for brining my attention to the Wikipedia policy on published sources. The website is in the public domain and anyone and everyone can add or delete whatever they want. That is not my problem anymore. The user named "Impaciente" (a self-described delitionist, elitist, and political science student at UCLA) probably did not read any of the primary sources or works consulted in the bibliography and external links or even bother to ask English specialists about the reception of Myers in the literary studies field. I do not have time to keep up with the changes and revisions. As you said, all Wikipedia articles are collaboratively written "works in progress" and the Myers entry is no exception. Other users can expand or emend it. Thanks again. --Billypilgrim45 17 October 2006 (UTC)

..........

I've responded to you and Samuel Kozulin's comments on his talk page. As I stated there, listing works consulted/cited is not clear enough; any of the statements made about Mr. Myers could have been inserted by someone out to settle a score with him. I'm not familiar with his standing in the world of literary critics, and it's probably safe to say most people are not. To be fair to Mr. Myers, I feel negative receptions of his work should be clearly and explicitly sourced to reliable publications.
As for me not putting this up for discussion at first, I don't feel an apology is necessary, since anyone who disagrees with my edits can easily revert them. Plus, I gave my reasons in the edit summary. I would appreciate it if the editors to this page would not feel so offended by someone who is simply trying to improve an article in good faith. Posting a long message on my talk page was unnecessary, especially since Mr. Kozulin says he is knowledgeable about the subject. --Impaciente 00:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

..........

Thank you for contributing to the discussion, Impaciente. From the content of his/her preceding note, Wikipedia user Billypilgrim45 seems to encourage informed changes and revisions to the Brian Reynolds Myers entry, and does not appear to request an apology over your decision to delete some 50 percent of the Brian Reynolds Myers entry. I also make no request for an apology, but feel that mass deletions are not helpful.

I am a North Korean Studies area specialist (not a Postmodern literature expert) and contributor to the Juche entry. I abide by the official Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith policy and believe that no one should delete 50 percent of any Wikipedia entry unless there is clear and present falsification and vandalism. Your omissions may not be vandalism. But these appear to be generally based on conjecture or supposition.

Regarding your concern and differences with the works consulted citation method, which you also discuss at my User Talk:Samuel Kozulin page, this method is in wide use on Wikipedia, even though three Wikipedia-recommended citation styles are embedded citations, footnotes, and Harvard referencing. I would argue further that use of the works consulted style does not support deletion of 50 percent of an entry.

Considering that Billypilgrim45 encourages informed revisions to the entry in question, that there is no apparent sign of vandalism, and that a widely used (if not official) citation style is used, I suggest that the deleted sections of the entry be reverted. The Brian Reynolds Myers article as a whole appears factual, but it requires emendation and expansion. I can make some additions regarding Dr. Myers work in North Korean Studies later. -- Samuel kozulin 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)