Talk:Dorothy Parker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Adding to Parker's Bio 2 Dottie in Hollywood 3 Friend of Dorothy 4 fod not oz or parker 5 Dot Parker? 6 "Big Blonde" analyses 7 'Wisecrack', 'one-night stand' 8 Quotes 9 In Popular Culture 10 The Dorothy Parker Society

[edit] Adding to Parker's Bio

I really don't think anyone should add bio info to this article unless you've read Marion Meade's bio. Because bad info keeps cropping up. -- k72ndst 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Good heavens, can't you recognize an improved article when you see it? I fixed quite a few errors as well as sorting out the chronology. What "bad info" are you referring to?Zompist 16:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Her mother died when she was four, not five (July 20, 1898). Parker's mother and stepmother weren't Catholics. She didn't "move" to New York, she always lived in Manhattan; Dottie was born at her parents' summer house on the Jersey Shore, she wasn't a native to N.J. Parker also didn't sell her first poem to Vogue, it was to Vanity Fair. See my site for this: dorothyparker.com. And do not trust the Keats bio, it is riddled with errors. Meade's bio is the definitive one. Sorry to go on and on about Parker, see my user page to see why I do... -- k72ndst 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

These things were already in the article before I looked at it (indeed, most of them had been there for months), except for the Vogue bit which had already been corrected, and the moving bit, which was my mistake. Wikipedia can be frustrating sometimes, but at least progress tends to be made. IMDB has Dorothy Parker acting in a 1962 German spy movie, which seems unlikely, but their correction process is horrendous. Zompist 18:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dottie in Hollywood

If anyone is interested, I can kick in more about Mrs. Parker in Hollywood. She did spend about 30 years on and off there. And was nominated for two Oscars. It seems that the entry here pretty much glosses over her time in LA. That's a shame, since she did help found the Writers Guild. -- k72ndst 11:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friend of Dorothy

Are you sure about "Friend of Dorothy". I thought that was a Wizard of Oz / Judy Garland reference -- User:GWO

So it seems to be : http://www.glinn.com/news/gaygloss.htm -- User:GWO

It is even so. Actually, Mrs. Parker was rather homophobic, owing to her unhappy second marriage to a bisexual. Eh, I like her anyway. - user:Montrealais

---

I've read an anthology of Mrs. Parker's book reviews under the name "Constant Reader"; the "thrown with great force" line is from a review of a memoir by Margot Asquith and should read "This is not a book to be. . . ."

Hm. This being a wiki and all, I'll just mosey on back over there and do that for youse, but I'm leaving this comment here so people will know why. --Calieber 18:02, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] fod not oz or parker

friend of dorothy dates to the 1880s and is not about judy garland. but i can't find an online reference.

[edit] Dot Parker?

Does anyone know a source for this? I've read a lot about Mrs. Parker without running across this form of the name. (She was called Dottie sometimes, however.) RivGuySC 05:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have signed letters she wrote to her sister. She signed them all DOT. k72ndst 11:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Big Blonde" analyses

I just removed two out-of-place analyses of "Big Blonde", one of them as follows:

Dorothy Parker's short story, "Big Blonde" was a classic of that time and showed many aspects of the society. The story especially shows how women of the time were trying to find their place and desperately searching for the "perfect" life.

A less broad analysis might be in order: that the story examined only one niche in which aging women of the time found themselves, and if anything the Big Blonde and her female cohorts have given up on a search for the perfect life, the Big Blonde herself happily embracing suicide as an alternative to her grating lifestyle. —68.62.17.196 04:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be noted that the story "Big Blonde" is in fact autobiographical. Just adding my 2 cents. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Wisecrack', 'one-night stand'

For reference— I checked my copy of the OED (2nd ed.); neither of these words is attributed to Parker or mentions her, unfortunately. 'One-night stand' dates back to 1896 with a theatrical reference; the first cite for 'wisecrack' is from a 1915 San Francisco periodical. Zompist 08:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong work. Love Wikipedians who actually do their research! Onlyemarie 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

"If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised."

I'm not a native english speaker, could anyone explain what makes this funny?

Laid is another term for... uh... copulation. So she's saying the girls are promiscuous. -Joseph Blue

I added the Memorable Quotes section. I may add some more if they come to mind.SmokeyTheCat 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We already have a set of sourced quotes in Wikiquote. While Parker is best known today for her witticisms we shouldn't fill this article with them. -Will Beback · † · 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would object to some quotes here. They give a flavour to the subject. Other entries in Wiki have selected quotes. But I won't revert. SmokeyTheCat 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that I agree with Will Beback -- the article about Oscar Levant, for instance, is filled with his witticisms. Ditto Alex. Woollcott. What I was objecting to was a whole list of them without a single reference for any of them. Also, the non-encyclopediac "when her dog dumped".... If you have some references for these quotes, put them back in, using somewhat more formal language, and I will sustain their use in this article. Hayford Peirce 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want sources, the versions in Wikiquote have sources. I don't object to having as many as five quotes. Beyond that is redundant with Wikiquote. -Will Beback · † · 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why two or three of her *better* quotes would be out of place -- she really *was* a very witty person.... Hayford Peirce 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is becoming overwhelmed with trivia. Adding a few of her famous quips and quotes won't make it better. What will make this article better, is going deeper into her life outside the Algonquin Hotel: more about her 20+ screenplays, the 33 short stories she penned, her political activism, the causes she believed in. Right now the article is just a gloss on Dorothy Parker's life, and more energy is spent on adding pop culture references and fighting over pointless stuff, when what the article really could stand is more facts and history. That's my 2 cents. --K72ndst 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I have added just three quotes. All quite witty I think. Delete them if you must.SmokeyTheCat 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone has claimed that one of these is mis-attributed. That's not my recollection. I will revise the subject and come back on this one ...SmokeyTheCat 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Popular Culture

Mentions of Dorothy Parker in popular songs should be included under influences in popular culture (like the Prince song). She has been included in pop songs going all the way back to Cole Porter. So to the person who keeps deleting these reference to her, please stop doing this. If you would take the few minutes to listen to these songs -- before editing the article -- you would see these are valid for inclusion. --K72ndst 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's me, and believe me, I have absolutely no intention of listening to a Prince song, now or ever. Speaking of which, the article said (before I deleted it):

On Prince's rock, pop and funk opus "Sign O' The Times", released in 1987, the song "The Ballad Of Dorothy Parker" characterizes Dorothy as a flirtatious, seductive waitress, described as being "dishwater blonde, tall and fine" and receiving "a lot of tips."

I challenge you to demonstrate that this has anything to do with this Dorothy Parker, that it isn't just a coincidence that Prince chose that name. What could a "flirtations, seductive waitress", described as ... yadda yadda yadda ... possibly have to do with Parker? +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree; though this seems to happen a lot on Wikipedia (Howard Hughes, which could also stand to be trimmed), it's being weeded out except where the reference is actually appropriate or adds something to the article. I didn't listen to the song, but I did look up the lyrics and the name seems to be unrelated (unless it's some very elegant analogy that I just don't see).Justfred 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a metaphor -- don't you see this?

This device is known for usage in literature, especially in poetry, where with few words, emotions and associations from one context are associated with objects and entities in a different context.

The sub-heading is Parker's influence "in popular culture" and that is what this refers to. Just because you don't like (a) the music; (b) the analogy; does not mean that (c) you chop it out. What the songwriter is doing is taking her essence and transferring it -- a metaphor. This is a clever usage of a common figure of speech. --K72ndst 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when is Dorothy Parker a "figure of speech"?

And a metaphor for what?

Sounds like grasping at straws to me. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dorothy Parker a waitress? A metaphor for a waitress? A figure of speech? The lady has been dead for 30 years now. No one under 60 has ever heard of her. A Prince song about a "Dorothy Parker" cannot possibly be construed to be about her. Hayford Peirce 04:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are both showing your age. First, Parker has been dead almost 40 years. Second, she is still in print, and has never gone out of print, and a new edition of her work just came out in April. In addition, the Dorothy Parker Society (dorothyparker.com) is made up of 20 to 30-year olds (see the photos on the site), so your opinion that nobody knows who Parker is, or reads her, is invalid. Using Parker as a metaphor for a witty, attractive, image of feminity is the point here. To be more precise, a metaphor is a figure of speech. The subject is Parker. I think you are being very narrow in your view of how a person's influence on pop culture is felt. --K72ndst 14:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm 26 and I've heard about her and been reading about her since I was in my early teens =) --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 14:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read her work, and read several books about her. Nothing in the song (except perhaps for "wit") appears to have any relation to her. The references to the song I found on the internet(s) agree that there appears to be no relation. If anything, I would think it's Prince (or whatever he's calling himself these days) trying to appear intellectual and clever, and failing. Short of asking Prince himself, since you (K72ndst) appear to know a lot about Ms. Parker, perhaps you could explain the metaphor?Justfred 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes; and since the subject was broached above, regarding how broad or narrow our focus on popular culture should be here, the problem endemic to this so-called "encyclopedia" is one of the accumulation of too much crap which is unrelated, or tenuously related at best to the subject at hand, not a dearth of material. It's what's referred to 'round heah' as "cruft" (a term I refuse to use as it's entered the lexicon of Wiki-speak, an indicator that one has drunk the Kool-Aid). Too many articles here have too much flotsam and jetsam that's there just because someone fancied a connection. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dorothy Parker Society

I added the external link to the Dorothy Parker Society (dorothyparker.com) and it keeps being deleted. An anonymous user keeps telling me that there cannot be a link since it isn't official. However, I would like your opinion. I run the site and wrote the book A Journey into Dorothy Parker's New York. This is a literary society. We pay royalties to the estate (the NAACP). The site has numerous Parker photos, stories, audio files, and news. What is your two cents? I would like to have this link returned. There are numerous great Wikipedians that watch the Dorothy Parker article, I would invite you to look at dorothyparker.com and decide. Thanks. --K72ndst 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why links have to be "official" or what that means. The link seems useful to me. Zompist 09:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote for KEEP the link, unless it is libelous. Chivista 14:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over the link more carefully and I think it's 100% legit. If you can't have a link to a Dorothy Parker Society in an article about Dorothy Parker, what can you have? I don't care whether it's "official" or not, and I would like to have that fully explained it if seems to make a difference to someone else. Also, I gotta say that I don't much care for anonymous editors whose editing primarily seems to be removing stuff that they disagree with. There's another guy (anonymous, too) who apparent runs a pay-for-site involving old radio shows who's been going on a rampage trying to delete all the links to free, public-domain radio shows. He's stopped doing it in some of the articles, because he's been threatened with being blocked, but he definitely has an agenda of his own for his activities. In the Dorothy Parker case, I dunno, but I think this link should definitely be left alone. If necessary, I'll ask the Admin. involved in the other case to come and take a look here. Hayford Peirce 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's not official it's apparently authorized. I think it should stay. -Will Beback · † · 22:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okie, let's give it another 24 hours for any more discussion, and then, unless there are compelling reasons not to, one of us can reinstate it. Hayford Peirce 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)