Talk:Leon Uris

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Maryland Start‑class

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Uris' last two books

Note: Many of Uris's fans are of the opinion that his last two books, A God in Ruins and O'Hara's Choice, were so poorly written and so different in style from any previous work that they must have been written or heavily edited by someone else.

Actually, my opinion is just the opposite. I think Uris was a great story teller, and excellent researcher, but it might be possible that he was an atrocious writer who was improved by good editing. And that in the last two novels, there was no editing, which was why they stunk so badly. I can't prove this; it's just a theory. I've noticed the same pattern with another of my one-time favorite authors -- Frederick Forsyth. The Dogfather 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at his obituary, and it says that O'Hara's Choice was coming out in October, and he died in June. So when he died, it was already in the can and at the printer's, right? So there would be no time for a ghostwriter to come in. I agree with the above opinion: it was Uris' only book for HarperCollins, which is notorious for having weak editing. So your assumption is probably correct, they just ran it with almost no editing. Sad, really. --K72ndst 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I put in a word about the extreme Zionist slant in his writings on the Isreal-palestine conflict, I like his writing but I felt it needed said. I haven't read his last two but your assesment has the ring of truth to it.

Actually, Exodus is not so tendentiously Zionist that the Palestinian Arab characters are not rendered human and believable. But The Haj is utterly revolting; I think that I was unable to finish even a first reading, Uris's racism made it utterly devoid of realistic foils for his Israeli characters. 66.108.4.183 05:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth[reply]

Comment: The fact that Uris writes from a perspective that is not recognized as being politically correct, i.e. a Zionist perspective, is not justification for labeling his works as "racist" or "revolting". A reader may not agree with his viewpoint, but these are works of fiction, and make no claim to being scholarly works of historical research. The fact is though, that Uris was a meticulous researcher, and based events in his work on actual documented history.

Of course these books have an "extreme Zionist" slant. They're novels of the Zionist movement! --Bsinger427 05:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]