Talk:Iain Sinclair

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

Discussion from VfD (consensus to keep)[edit]

White middle-class men[edit]

I seem to be in the middle of an edit war with an anonymous poster who keeps changing the following sentence:

His books have worked out an occultist psychogeography of London in increasingly ambitious, elaborate detail, creating a mythos in which Nicholas Hawksmoor, Jack the Ripper, John Dee, Count Dracula, Arthur Conan Doyle and countless other historical figures are all part of a larger pattern.

to increasingly elaborate variations on the theme of white male privilege, currently this:

The works involve deconstructing place and identity, creating a mythos in which he explores archetypes through historical personalities both factual and fictional, such as Nicholas Hawksmoor, Jack the Ripper, John Dee, Count Dracula, Arthur Conan Doyle and countless other white male middle class historical male figures.

I find the repeated assertions of Sinclair's focus on dead white males really tacky & tendentious. & the swipe at the "middle class" is bizarre--uh, so Count Dracula is middle-class? Who even knows if Jack the Ripper was white or middle-class? -- Anyway, maybe other people watching this page can weigh in whether they find these persistent anonymous edits as annoying as I do. ND 15:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By some strange coincidence do u also happen to be white, middle class and male? the point is that the choice and placing of charecters is a 'literary drift' /psychogeographical device used to symeltaneously deconstruct identity of author and place. u might think that is obvious, but others won't pick it up without it being spelled out! 195.92.40.49 09:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I was hoping for other people's input as I'm not interested in engaging a two-person edit war. -- If you can't see what's so funny about Count Dracula being referred to in passing as a "white male middle class historical figure" then I give up. ND 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with you. And I don't plan on taking lessons in deconstruction from someone who can't spell 'simultaneous', uses 'u' for 'you' and won't create an account. --Richardrj 10:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the white male reference again, per ND above. It is indeed 'tacky and tendentious'. To read Sinclair's texts, or any other texts for that matter, as privileging white, male, middle class figures is in accordance with the basic tenets of Marxist literary criticism. Such readings are entirely NPOV and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's a cranky, minority view of how to read literature. And I should know, having had it stuffed down my throat for three years studying literature at Sussex. --Richardrj 09:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that you, 195.92.40.49, have the cheek to accuse me of vandalism. I am not a vandal, and for you to throw that term at me betrays a profound understanding of the basic principles of Wikipedia. Still, I have removed once again your egregious reference to white men, and will continue to do so, taking this to dispute resolution if necessary. You need to engage with us on this discussion page and explain in sensible terms why you think the 'white men' reference should stay. Your comment from 2 August above is incoherent. It assumes that your cranky, minority view is in fact some sort of given. Believe me, it is not. Bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia for the general reader, not for the specialist in literary theory. Your Marxist-deconstructive reading of Sinclair is entirely inappropriate and hopelessly misguided. --Richardrj 09:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that you are also white, middle class and male. You claim to write for coherence and yet you push concepts such as sensible and general reader by which you wish to posit yourself as the yardstick of such positions and given your claim that my analysis is 'hopelessly misguided' and a 'cranky minority view', your offer of engagement is just patronising. I presume you wish for me to take you as a guide. But you are lost. Fear not - I have a couple of references that may yet enlighten you on a few things. Firstly I will reference Mute Magazines recent article by John Barker called Reader Flattery which looks at gentrification in East London. And also, there is Helen Hitchman Scalway's article The Territorialism of Iain Sinclair which takes Sinclair to task for institutional racism, sexism and classism. Soon come. 62.25.106.209 09:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, someone hasn't read Downriver. I don't have my copy right here, but it does actually feature important characters - and symbolic figures - who are neither white nor male. As also, come to think of it, does Radon's Daughters. --KD

Sinclair's snobbery[edit]

I wish to preface these comments by stating that I love Sinclair's writing and find him one of the very few writers whose work is compulsory. However, I am more than a little exasperated by what I see the inveterate snobbery of the recent non-fiction works, London Orbital and Edge of the Orison. What is entirely absent from the M25 book is any consideration of why normal, sensible people might want to use the motorway. The whole thing becomes an extended rant against the people who designed and built the M25, with no recognition given to the simple fact that people use it to get from A to B.

In the Clare book, this tendency is even more pronounced. He refers to the "swinish roar" of the motorcar, as though the very act of driving is somehow abhorrent. He describes salesmen resting by the side of the road in their "repmobiles", making cheap jibes at their shiny suits. For god's sake, they're only trying to earn a living! And, once again, there is no room in Sinclair's thinking for people who might want to drive to visit loved ones, for example.

I seem to be focusing on Sinclair's evident anti-car bias in these comments, but I think his snobbery runs deeper than this. Any other views? --Richardrj 10:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical of cultural snobs who call themselves psychogeographers, as if walking is a somehow radical activity! 62.25.106.209 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errors, omissions, etc[edit]

Whether people like his books or not, an encyclopaedia article should be accurate.

Does Douglas Oliver turn up as a "fictionalized" character in Sinclair's work? Downriver, or one of the novels anyway, includes a letter by Oliver - but that's not the same as fictionalizing Catling as Joblard, Prynne as Undark, and so on. Maybe he's in there somewhere and I missed him.

Sinclair is not "recuperating" Stewart Home's work. He is older and has been doing this material longer than Home. The other way around, if anything. And it is inappropriate to describe Home as a pscyhogeographer - that has been a minor part of his activity (see his Wikipedia entry). Sinclair has worked much more in this field, but this makes him sound like the younger writer's disciple.

Note, I have made a change to dispel the idea that Sinclair is recuperating Home's work. KD Jan 07

I have corrected the spelling of Allen Ginsberg.

The body of the text should mention Lights Out for The Territory, which is by far his most popular book, and relate it to the Whitechapel novels. I'll insert a sentence to start that off. KD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Minor restructuring[edit]

Of all his many books, why would London Orbital require a separate section? I've moved it into the Psychogeography section, and tried to sort that section into chronological order.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iain Sinclair. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iain Sinclair. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iain_Sinclair&oldid=1202691013"