User talk:Egress13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Recaptured literature
This could be an interesting article, but unless you can supply a verifiable source for this term, I am going to propose both Recaptured literature and Recaptured literary movement for deletion as fabricated neologisms. I turned up zero relevant Google hits (including site searches for recapture or recaptured at the sites of both magazines you mention) on either term, and this article (the two pages are identical) requires more substantiation than that the term "may have first appeared" in this or that magazine, without any specific citation.
By the way, the Atlantic Monthly essay to which you are probably referring is "A Reader's Manifesto" by Brian Reynolds Myers. It appeared in 2001, not 2000, and nowhere does it include a phrase anything like recaptured literature. And Rick Moody, contrary to your assertion that he is considered part of this movement, was one of Myers's examples of writers who "don't make sense, or bore us to tears" but are praised by the literati for their prose style. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 19:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess this is the way I speak to you. I don't know. Rick Moody's first two novels yes. His following novels, now famous for drivel, no. ... The term "recaptured literature" is not mine. I believe it was an article from William Styron called "What is Not Minimalism" I'll dig up the source.
-
- You can talk to me here, or, the way it's usually done, reply on my Talk page. As to recaptured literature, the problem goes a bit further than simply finding an original source for the term. There needs to be some evidence that the term is actually in use among literary scholars, book reviewers, readers, or anyone at all. I know there are tons of print sources that aren't online and wouldn't show up on Google, but the zero-results search still bothers me. Who is using this term, and in what contexts? --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- We've been bouncing it around academically since 2000, from UCLA to Princeton. In fact, it was used often at this years AWP Conference in Atlanta. You might refer to it as an underground concept that's getting ready to emerge, although I do believe that Styron named it. I guess the trouble is that it's relatively new (i.e. within the last decade). Sometimes it's called post-minimalist or post-minimalism, but I must stress that it is not farcical or BS, as I think you are inferring. I am trying to find the actual root, although the Peck article is not it. It is likely, knowing Myers, that he'd heard about it prior and made it his own. All the best.
-
-
-
-
- I am approaching it with an open mind, which is why I asked about it rather than nominating the article for deletion. The lack of documented usage is a problem, but you've convinced me to hold my water for awhile. Maybe another editor who has also heard of this term will come along to back you up. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 02:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Thanks. I am trying to locate the definitive source for this. It might be a chicken-egg problem. -All the best.
