Talk:The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter

Novels Start‑class High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has an infobox template in need of a Cover! (prefer 1st edition)

Well, is it about the novel or about making irrelevant charges? Does it diminish diminish its literary value? dalegrett 16:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. This paragraph about how the novel offends members of the deaf community is completely overdone.I don't think thats a valid claim to begin with but if the description of the novel only gets a few sentences this criticism should hardly even be a footnote in the article.

I've taken out the paragraph about criticism of the novel. I see no point in making this article solely about criticism. Similarly, I edited the page on To Have and Have Not by Hemingway. That article was soley about how the novel contained the "N" word and was offensive, which is patently ridiculous. The same could be said about any novel which contains that word. Is that all we are supposed to learn about the book? That it contains a word considered offensive to modern readers but which was not considered offensive at the time? Why not contribute to a discussion of the novel's literary merits. Many who haven't even read the novel deign to post here debating the usage of the term "mute." That is the word that McCullers uses. It is dishonest to not use the word in reference to the book. It is a masterpiece. If modern persons with hearing and speaking disabilites object to that term, then they can either consider the term in context or refuse to read the novel. If they choose the latter route, then they have little credibility to post to this discussion or to edit this entry. Go edit a page on a topic about which you know something, not on a novel that you have never read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Williams (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with removing the criticism. If you want to improve the article, then add more to the plot summary (much of that was removed earlier because of copyright issues), or add information about strengths of the book. But removing criticism tears down the article rather than building it up. It also reflects a lack of sensitivity to the criticism itself, particularly in the Deaf community. You can read more about those issue on this very talk page and at Deaf culture, Deaf-mute, and Audism, as well as some of the links in those articles. Ward3001 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think that criticism reflects a lack of sensitivity to the novel. I find it inchoate and superficial, more of a hatchetjob than a contribution to understanding McCullers' work. It appears to rest on assumptions it offers no warrant to. 69.227.214.230 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please put the spoiler warning about characters/plot? I don't know how to do it.

I haven't read this book but this paragraph seems to be contradictory: "John Singer - A deaf-mute...he is also a good and attentive listener, which makes him very appealing to others."

So... I think the "attentive listener" part should be reworded.

Note that the text was most likely taken from the SparkNotes page. It is explained below. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf-mute

The term "deaf-mute" is almost universally offensive to deaf people.[1] It is equivalent to using the "N" word directed at African-Americans. The reason the offensiveness of this term is not as widely known as is the case with the "N" word is only because the Deaf community is a much smaller minority than African-Americans. To argue that use of "deaf-mute", AFTER the offensiveness has been explained, is acceptable because only a minority object to its use reflects gross insensitivity. At one time in history use of the "N" word was considered offensive only to a minority of people, but that did not justify its use. For additional details see Deaf-mute. If the same items are reverted again, especially repeated reversions by the same editor (with or with violation of 3RR), I will seek mediation and, if necessary, formal arbitration by Wikipedia. I am an expert on this issue, and I can produce additional expertise if necessary. Ward3001 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Ward3001's talk page has people commenting "oh, it's not such a big deal, only a few people object to it." This is patently false - most Deaf people do object to it. Just because the greater population either doesn't know or doesn't care doesn't mean it's less offensive. As an alternative to the N example, how about using the term "gyp" to describe being cheated out of something? There are not many Gypsies in the world, surely it's okay to say that, right? No, it's still offensive. I'm not saying we should cater to all sensitivities, because there will always be someone who is offended by something, but this is clearly offensive to most Deaf people the world over. The term is outmoded - it was used in the past, as in the case of the N word or Jap/Nip, but it's not used anymore. The excellent book "For Hearing People Only" has this to say, if you'd like an outside perspective. The (US) National Association of the Deaf has their perspective too. It's pretty universally rejected. -Etoile 18:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You two have taken the words right out of my mouth. I can't really add anything else to the argument. I am quite against the use of the term deaf-mute in Wikipedia, unless it's done within the context of a quote and then explained to be offensive to deaf and hearing-impaired people. Arria Belli | parlami 19:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been brought to my attention, so I thought I'd take some time to give my own comments. Ward3001 is absolutley correct the term "deaf-mute" is now considered offensive and not just in the minority of the deaf community. The term "deaf-mute" indicates that Deaf people have no speech or cannot create sounds with their voice, which is untrue as many deaf people do have some form of speech and can communicate via their voice. As said above ther term is now on par with the "N" word. I actually can't believe in this modern age there are still people using this term to describe Deaf people. Also the related term "deaf and dumb", is now considered offensive as the word "dumb" has connotations of stupidity and inferior intelligence, Deaf people most certainly are not stupid or lack intelligence! I would say that the only time the term could potentially be used is if it were used to refer to somebody from history, when the term was applied to Deaf people.--NeilEvans 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the opinions expressed so far. The term "deaf-mute" should be avoided.Twenex 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always find it interesting when hearing people insist that the term should be able to be used since they (those hearing people) do not find it offensive. If you want to be informed, it is not hard to find a multitude of references saying this term is not acceptable. Qaz 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having many deaf friends I always hear about it when someone calls them deaf-mute and how offnsive the find it. Also, based on the facts and opinions presented hear I strongly support the removal of the term "deaf-mute" in Wikepedia when appropriate per User:Arria Belli.Felixboy 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Deaf–Mute is not acceptable. According to the Department of Human Services Division of Rehabilitation, "Deaf–Mute" is offensive. The correct term is "a person who is Deaf and does not speak". "Mute" is also unacceptable. The correct term is "a person with a speech disability". Deaf is acceptable. Also there is a difference between Deaf and deaf. The spelling of deaf with a lowercase "D" indicates the person does not hear. The spelling of a Deaf with an uppercase "D" indicates the person is is deaf, uses Sign Language, and perticipates in the Deaf community. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf does not support "Deaf–Mute". Taric25 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been brought to my attention and I would like to show my support for it, I stand with everyone else here in saying that the term Deaf-mute is not acceptable on wikipedia and should be struck out. I can't add anything to what has already been said, there are already enough facts here to prove a point. I just hope something can be done now, things need to change. samh004 03:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the almost complete agreement on the issue, Incontrovertibly a candidate for Lamest Edit War Evah. Twenex 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding mediation

24.0.97.119 ignored the mediation request (neither agreeing nor diagreeing), yet continues to revert "deaf" to "deaf-mute". Ward3001 00:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's time to elect formal arbitration from Wikipedia. The Deaf community does not accept "deaf–mute". Taric25 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur Twenex 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, please seek arbitration.--NeilEvans 14:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of phrase "deaf people"

The repitition of the phrase "deaf people" in one sentence annoys me. Nina 202.43.236.242 15:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the standpoint of writing style, I agree with you. The problem is that there aren't many other ways to say it. It's not appropriate to use some of the horrible euphemisms for deaf people that some (hearing) writers might be fond of, such as non-hearing, hearing disabled, hearing handicapped, the deaf (that implies that all deaf people are the same), and probably many others. I'll think about the sentence structure and see if maybe I can come up with some rewording to reduce the number of times "deaf people" is used, but it's not easy. Give me some time. Thanks. Ward3001 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "the deaf" implies that all deaf people are the same while "deaf people" does not. They're different ways of stating the same thing. 71.128.153.97 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a difficult nuance to understand (as well as explain, so my words may not be adequate). I think a possible analogy would be if we referred to the category of African-Americans as "the blacks", as in "the blacks think this" or "the blacks do that". There's something about that word the that hints at overgeneralization. I'll acknowledge that "the deaf" is not nearly as bothersome as "hearing handicapped" and others (the worst being "deaf-mute"), but it's something I've noticed that many deaf people avoid (that is, the term "the deaf"). But to avoid overuse of "deaf people" I may use "the deaf" at least once. I still haven't gotten around to making the edits, but I eventually will. Thanks for your reply. Ward3001 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLAGIARISM?

I noticed that the summary and main character sections of the article may have been taken from the SparkNotes website describing the book. http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/lonelyhunter/summary.html Please consider revising the summary of this article or note that the SparkNotes website has copied off of Wikipedia, which is highly unlikely.

User:68.209.6.218 has two contributions to this page, most likely adding material from SparkNotes to here. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]