Talk:Lawrence Durrell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Early comments)[edit]

Does anyone have any more info on the Durrell school in Corfu? I visited the homepage but saw that it hasn't been updated in too long.

What is "apocolyptic" (paragraph 3 line 3)? A typo?

Seems to be nothing here on the last 41 years of Durrell's life. Can anyone help with this?

Exile 20:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Durrell's wife[edit]

The article says Lawrence moved to Corfu with Syblings, Mother and wife. Does any-one know why his wife is not mentioned in his younger brother's book "My family and other animals". Or is it?

No, as far as I remember Larry's wife is not mentioned. In the page http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/durrell.htm, his first ,marraige is said to occur in 1935 - 2 years after they landed at Corfu. -kg

Nancy was Lawrence's first wife, and the two lived apart from the rest of the Durrell family in Corfu. The idea of the whole family group was under one roof fit the narrative purposes of Gerry's memoirs better, and I think he thought that introducing this dynamic would have confused and made the familial soap opera completely overwhelm the other parts of the story he wanted to tell. He took some licence with chronology and so on, but overall he was fairly scrupulous and writing out Nancy is the biggest liberty that Gerry took in the book. Lawrence and Nancy were married in Bournemouth in January 1935 and left England for Corfu in March. Ben-w 04:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landing in Corfu[edit]

So what year did the Durrell family land in Corfu? You are suggesting 1933, but most publications I've found say 1935. Also, with regard to Nancy Meyers (Lawrence Durrell's first wife), most sources say that they were married in 1935. I agree that it's strange she went unmentioned in Gerry's books (all of which are very good!). Does anyone have any idea why this may be? ~~SM

Four-letter words reference?[edit]

Thanks for the nice edits, RKlassen! Only one point: the "four -letter words ..." quote now has no reference. Was that from Dearborn? -- JimR 08:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Regarding the quote, it wasn't clear to me where that came from. My guess is that it likely came from Dearborn. The later part of Durrell's life still needs some work... anyone? -- --RKlassen 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriate to list My Family And Other Animals in the Further Reading section?[edit]

I imagine that Gerald's autobiographical books, especially those about his childhood which feature Lawrence as one of the main characters, would be of interest to Lawrence lovers. perhaps a note to warn that Gerald Durrell's descriptions of his family are not intended to be scholarly, but rather humourous. Leeborkman 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any problem with listing it -- Lawrence is probably better known for his appearance in Gerald's books than for writing his own -- but, yes, I think you're right to note that Gerald took some artistic licence. Nancy is almost entirely written out of Gerald's accounts, and it is strongly implied that Lawrence lived with the rest of the family on Corfu, although he did not. Ben-w 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about the paintings?[edit]

not exactly pressing, but in addition to all of the different writings he was a painter and exhibited in Paris under the name (James?) Ephs. this is a nice artistic outlier to illustrate his range in content, form, etc. also, the list of works is missing "Pope Joan" ("Papissa Joanna"), a sort of creative interpretation of a Greek text from around 1900 which was itself a creative interpretation of the myth/legend/history of the only female pope. this arguably not Durrell's work at all, but his ideas are indelibly impressed on the narrative. again, fairly unimportant, but in the letters/essays section you should also list "Art and Outrage" (letters with Alfred Perles), the conversations book by Ingersoll which you have the image of at the top of the page, and "The Big Supposer" (interviews with Mark Alyn). more detail than you ever wanted, i know.

66.251.26.250 12:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship of ??[edit]

If he did not hold a British passport (and in 1966 apparently could not get one even if he wanted one), what passport did he hold? Were his parents not British citizens? Hugo999 (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durrell remained a British citizen but was a non-patrial. Ezard's article, the first time anyone noticed this, states that he lost his citizenship, which isn't entirely true. Like many British West Indians or the Pakistani British, he was denied the right to enter or settle in Britain, and he needed a visa for each visit. It was a part of the amended 1968 Immigration Act, which was designed to limit immigration from all the British subjects who might have skin darker than the Cliffs of Dover... 65.39.233.124 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He lived in southern France from the late 1950s onwards and very much appreciated the country, so it's likely that he may have acquired French citizenship. 83.254.159.179 (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't he a spy for MI6? LoopZilla (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article about Leslie[edit]

Readers of this article might be interested in commenting on the article about Leslie Durrell. Check the talk page - you'll see that I think Leslie barely deserves an article at all, since he chose to be non-notable (so to speak), and that he certainly doesn't deserve the long, gossip-filled commentary on his personality which has been placed there as an article.

But at least two folks disagree. That article has very few editors, however, so more opinions would be helpful. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the article for deletion here. Let the debate begin. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

How is it this writer deserves 34kb worth of article? I'd never heard of him before this afternoon, and i'm no wiser now, because the article is pretty much unreadable. It's horrendously structured, has way too much information about his life intermingled with his writing, without it being clear why one is relevant to the way the other worked out, and so on. Fix it!boombaard (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author is certainly notable, to suggest otherwise based on your knowledge is possibly more a comment on you rather than Durrell. As for the article's problems, it is already tagged, and if you see it as a priority, why not do some work on it yourself? --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd never heard of him before this afternoon...." "It is horrendously structured...." These are the individual, subjective opinions of one person out of the billions who populate this planet. As such, they are quaintly lyrical but of minimal value.173.72.115.153 (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)DeMikeal Tibbits[reply]

Outbreak of Second World War[edit]

It states here that "At the outbreak of the Second World War, Durrell's mother and siblings returned to England, while he and Nancy remained on Corfu." Whereas on the Margaret Durrell page it states "She remained on Corfu following the departure of her mother and two brothers to England during World War II, sharing a peasant cottage with some local friends." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.18.17 (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem[edit]

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Durrell Ruprecht 1986.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Durrell Ruprecht 1986.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Figure is shadowed and indistinct. Might be anyone sittting on a barrel.Lestrade (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Floating quote?[edit]

The following quote is not sourced or properly formatted, and the sentence doesn't make sense: 'His next, The Black Book, abounded with "four-letter words... grotesques,... [and] its mood equally as apocalyptic" as Tropic.' I can't find any record of the quote outside this article, so I don't know who it's attributable to.Sadiemonster (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cukor film[edit]

An editor has removed this passage:

Given the complexity of the work, it was probably inevitable that George Cukor's 1969 attempt to film the Quartet (Justine) simplified the story to the point of melodrama, and was poorly received.

Someone may wish to source it and restore a version of it. Spicemix (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Durrell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Durrell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters death and subsequent allegations[edit]

I think that it's vey unclear that the are postumous accusations of sexual abuse, certainly to the point that it should be presented this way in the article. It's not clear that these are even allegations per se, if they count as abuse if they are,

Geni.com certainly is not RS for this, it's open for editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.67.73 (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to make sense of that last comment. I have deleted Geni.com but the others look like RS. It may be difficult to discover the truth of these allegations of abuse, given that these people are both dead, but they have certainly been mentioned in a few places. PatGallacher (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then at the very least the nature of what's alleged should be more specific. As written there are clear "by whom" problems. " Sexual abuse" isn't really even a clear match for what's discussed. Was it abuse. Was it consensual? When did it happen? All this is unknowable. This stuff wouldn't get near a BLP. I can't see why it's so different because he's dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.247.58 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually opposed to this content being in here. But adding it as legacy, and writing it up in such a loose way seems unfair94.204.247.58 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think concepts like "sexual abuse" and "incestual abuse" are clear enough without going into all the details. In the aftermath of Savile etc. I don't think Wikipedia should appear to be engaging in a cover-up. I will see if I can improve this, but I don't think it's so bad at the moment. If we don't put it under "legacy" where do we put it? PatGallacher (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been mentioned in a few places, e.g. it was covered in The Guardian a few years ago, might be difficult to dig it up now. As I understand it, the allegation is that they had what some people euphemistically describe as "an incestuous affair" when she was 14 and he was living in France. I will see if I can clarify this with appropriate sourcing, but I don't think the article is that bad at present. PatGallacher (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Materialscientist has reverted to the version which includes this issue this suggests that this is the consensus version. PatGallacher (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Materialscientist some sort of arbiter. That's recent changes patrol editting. As it's the other revert by zing. The only editor who has actually looked at it is Charles, and he's not readded this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.247.58 (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not necessarily disputing that the material in Sappho Durrell's diaries could be open to interpretation. Up until now I was not aware that the issue was the quality of the sources, I already removed geni.com, if people want Bruce Redwine removed as well that's ok. However Guardian, New York Times, and (Glasgow) Herald all look like reliable sources, and in one case they quote Bowker's biography, mentioned under "further reading". PatGallacher (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue as I see it is that those sources are already spinning things. His daughters diaries talk about incest. It seems unclear when. It's unclear, and now always will be, if it's true. She had mental health issues that suggest not everything she wrote can be believed. XL"Allegations" suggest multiple reports and even a pattern of behaviour.
My issue isn't the content per se, just how it's covered which in Pat's proposed version didn't seem fair94.204.247.58 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily disputing that the issue might be worded differently, I question whether this justifies taking a hatchet to it. I have consulted WP:RSP on reliable sources, the Guardian and New York Times are both generally reliable, they do not mention the Herald or "academia". I have had a look at book reviews of the biographies by Bowker and Ian MacNiven on amazon (not itself a reliable source I recognise) and they do both appear to mention the allegations, although they regard them as unproven. There are copies of both biographies in the Mitchell Library in Glasgow, currently closed because of the Coronavirus crisis, but I may consult them when I get the chance. PatGallacher (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the phraseology that's the major issue. It's clear her diaries mention an incestuous relationship, real or imagined. Does that constitute allegations? It seems there's no clear time frame on it either, in terms of her age which also raises consent questions, and that before we get to her mental health issues. 94.204.247.58 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to come up with an alternative wording, I think you might find people sympathetic - depending how you do it. What tends to make people less sympathetic is simply reverting stuff you don't likle without either substituing an improved version or taking too much trouble to share and explain your concerns - at least not till after the thing has degenerated into a slanging match which does no favours, either to building and improving wikipedia, or to the memory of LD and his unhappy (though one hopes not all the time) younger child.
Someone (it was I) added a couple of online sources - sitting at ref 11 and ref 13 when last I looked - which give a much broader conrtext about what made Sappho unhappy. The perceived inevitabiity of becoming a writer and the other baggage that came with the name "Sappho". Her father's terrifying rages under the destroying influence of demon drink. What it all did to the mother. There's a whole palette of psychological issues lurking in there. It was all part of LD,of why, how and what he wrote, of why we read the stuff, and of his legacy,: the entry is incomplete if you pretend it's not. Sex is desperately important for most of us, of course, and clearly was/is for the protagonists here, but it's not the only thing there is, even if it's the abusive kind. If someone will attempt to reword the thing a little, I guess trying succinctly to acknowledge that point might not be such a bad thing. You, perhaps?
Success Charles01 (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Durrell's death, excerpts from the journals of his late daughter Sappho were published, following her own suicide at the age of 33 after many years of psychiatric problems. Her journals suggested that she had an incestuous relationship with her father. Reviewer Roger Cohen said that the nature of her "largely incoherent" writing made it impossible to determine whether the events she describes were real or imagined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.219.58.3 (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that might be a reasonable wording, except that I can't find the review by Roger Cohen referred to. PatGallacher (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, found it, but I am not sure if this is 100% accurate summary of what Cohen said. PatGallacher (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 16 October 2020[edit]

Addition to publications: after "From the Elephant's Back" ADD: "Endpapers and Inklings 1933-1988 (2020, uncollected prose, in 2 volumes, edited by Richard Pine) EditorC20 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus version?[edit]

The version put forward by Charles01 could be the consensus version at present, pending further investigation of biographies of Durrell, which I am hoping to do soon. If anyone disagrees please explain your reasons here. PatGallacher (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from India to England[edit]

This seems contradictory: The article says: Durrell's father died of a brain haemorrhage in 1928, at the age of 43. His mother brought the family to England, and in 1932, she, Durrell, and his younger siblings settled in Bournemouth. The Gerald Durrell article says: The family moved to Britain shortly before the death of his father in 1928 and settled in the Upper Norwood, Crystal Palace area of South London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnyvLiga (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gawsworth[edit]

Durrell was a contemporary of John Gawsworth, and is interviewed in this BBC(?) piece about John from 1970 or earlier.

https://videopress.com/v/9AKbElGE

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lawrence_Durrell&oldid=1207064828"