Talk:Latin American literature/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs work

Pathetic article...

Agreed. Why not help expand it? zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this article is shamefully bad. In the meantime, however, I've created Category:Latin American literature to try and gather some resources together. (I've also been working on various subjects within Category:Latin American studies if anyone wants to help out with that.) --Jbmurray 10:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

El aleph (and other stories) is not a novel.

You're right (and you beat me to pointing it out:)). It's a collection of short stories. How about changing novels to books? Maw 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

NB one step forward would be to find ways to work in and link to the articles on Latin American literary movements such as indigenismo and McOndo found elsewhere in Category:Latin American literature. --Jbmurray 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

List of writers

I've slightly changed the definition for the list of writers: that they should be figures not mentioned in the article itself. Ideally, if an author is indeed prominent he or she should be mentioned in the article, so eventually we can dispense with the list altogether, which I think would be a great improvement given the proliferation of such lists elsewhere. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbersoul20 (talk · contribs) keeps adding a long list of writers, which i have reverted. The main list of writers, List of Latin American writers, is better suited for his entry but user refuses to listen. Any thoughts from other contributers?  LaNicoya  •TALK• 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion I don't think it's necessary to have another list on this article if List of Latin American writers already exists. It would be subject to constant reverting based on who is a *better representative* of Latin American literature. That's just my opinion though. Bulldog123 10:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think there should be a list on the article, as user:Jbmurray mentioned, only writers that will be incorporated into the article should be present. Or better yet, put the names on this talk page and when someone incorporates them, strike them out. I propose we do that, anyone in favor of removing the list from this article and posting the writers who Jbmurray had previously on the talk page to be incorporated later?  LaNicoya  •TALK• 11:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Right. It's better to have a sentence regarding the author then just put them in bullet form on this article. Bulldog123 10:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous list

Writers to be incorporated into the article.

Latin American winners of the Nobel Prize in Literature:

• Gabriela Mistral (1945)
• Miguel Ángel Asturias (1967)
• Pablo Neruda (1971)
• Gabriel García Márquez (1982)
• Octavio Paz (1990).

In addition to those named in this article, other prominent writers include:

• Jorge Amado (Brazil)
• Juan Bosch (Dominican Republic)
• Rosa María Britton (Panama)
• Patrick Chamoiseau (Martinique)
• Rómulo Gallegos (Venezuela)
• Griselda Gambaro (Argentina)
• João Guimarães Rosa (Brazil)
• José Lezama Lima (Cuba)
• Alejo Carpentier (Cuba)
• Clarice Lispector (Brazil)
• Amado Nervo (Mexico)
• Horacio Quiroga – Uruguayan writer often compared to Edgar Allan Poe
• Alfonso Reyes (Mexico)
• César Vallejo - Peruvian revolutionary poet, one of the great poetic innovators of the 20th century

Prominent writers list

I have included a list of 13 prominent latin american writers in the belief that such information will be invaluable to those who do not have a point of entry into the rich literature of latin america. Since few among us have the time or intellectual curiosity to read a list of 100+ writers, I believe it is useful to delimit the list of essential authors in this manner.

--Rubbersoul20 12:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is better to leave a list here on the talk page and have those writers be incorporated into the article. There is no need for a list here. If you want to add the hundreds of writers you had do it on the main page, List of Latin American writers.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 17:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Further reading" list

The "Further reading" list is way tooooo long, isn't it? I suggest keeping the 10-20 most important titles and dropping the rest. --Anna Lincoln 08:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

The Chronology needs urgent revision. First, it is not of the 20th century. Second, it is quite irregular, leaving out many important books. Third, it includes anthologies, which seems to me absurd. I'll give it a quick revision, and later work on it further. Rocabatus (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes; mainly, I took out the anthologies and added some books as follows:
-Books whose authors were not in the chronology, like Huidobro, Fallas and Arlt. In some of this cases the absence was ridiculous.
-Books which better represent authors which were mentioned, or are simply better than the one which was already there. For example: in Cortázar's case, adding one of his short-story books was a must, since they probably are his finest, and at any rate were what he cultivated the most.
-Books which could not be left out without leaving a glaring hole in any serious chronology, like El reino de este mundo, from were the "real maravilloso" quote comes, or El Aleph, which alongside with Ficciones is Borges (and therefore the 20th century) at his finest.
I'm not done, however; with any of these three criteria there are books which could be added (or removed). However, now the most glaring omission (in my opinion) is the lack of the foundational works of the 19th century, given that the Chronology starts there. I'll look into it at another time. Rocabatus (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree with your specific criticisms of the chronology, in fact, in my opinion, it would be much better to improve the prose, than to expand the list. I'd junk the chronology altogether. (Arguably it could become a separate article.) In any case, it is far from the most important thing that needs to be done with this article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I'd be wasting my time on the chronology, I'll try to work on the other sections. And if there is to be a Chronology, it should not merely be a list.Rocabatus (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction and main structure

Well, laying aside the Chronology, I'm proposing a series of changes to the article. They are what I intend to do unless somebody finds it very wrong (that's why I'm announcing them). It is only a sketch, mind you.
-Introduction: not really academic, instead of introducing the subject it merely comments on one aspect of it.
-Definition: this is a missing section. Given the contradictions among countries and tendencies (the most flagrant one between indigenist writers and those of a more "universal" aproach), something has to be said. The controversy that surrounds the very name of "Latin America" is enough to warrant it.
-History: I propose the following divisions
Pre-columbian-Colonial-Independence and Founding Works (fictions is not really appropiate)-Modernismo-Avant Garde-Pre Boom-Boom-Contemporary.
I'll get sources to support this by the time I put it in place (anyway, it's not a radical departure from the current division).
-Prominent writers: this section, at the moment, is a list of prizewinners. Change it or dump it. I actually like the first paragraph, which discusses Borges, García Márquez and Neruda. This could be extended into a short commentary, or perhaps a closure on the history section; the name, though, might be better done away with.
As soon as I have the time and (at least some of) the sources, I'll execute the changes. I might add others; any opinions welcome. Rocabatus (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The introduction to article is not appropriate as it only talks about popularity of magical realism and does not offer a basic definition of Latin American literature as the literature of Spanish and Portuguese-speaking peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean. I will change to reflect this.--Lawrlafo (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

---

actually this wiki is better thant the spanish article, so i gonna take a little of here and there to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusoak (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move at the present time. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Latin-American literature → Latin American literature — Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Without the "-" to harmonize with Category:Latin America topics. Also, this is the most commonly linked spelling according to Special:WhatLinksHere/Latin-American literature. jonkerz♠ 06:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose That may be the case, but the use of the hyphen when forming a compund word is a well established linguistic device. This distinuishes "Latin Americans" (the people) from something which is Latin-American (i.e. of Latin America). The same would be true of African Americans and African-American literature, Jewish Americans versus Jewish-American literature, Eastern Europeans versus Eastern-European literature, and so forth. Sorry that I'm not able to explain it better. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks for the input, and I guess you're right; but at the same time it seems like the difference is disregarded in a lot of sources. Current naming convention on Wikipedia seems to be without the hyphen: Latin American folklore, Latin American childlore, Latin American culture, Latin American cuisine, Latin American cinema and many more. I was only looking for consistency, I'm leaving this to editors more familiar with how the English language works. jonkerz♠ 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm definately not an expert, hopefully someone with more knowledge will contribute. But I would suggest that it is the other articles that are titled incorrectly, and this one that is titled correctly. See African-American literature and African-American music, which are titled (in my view) correctly. On the other half, you have Native American music and Native American mythology. Jewish-American organized crime uses the hyphen, while Jewish American literature does not. Clearly there is a general lack of consistancy regarding these articles on Wikipedia. It's worth noting that which form is used is arguably a stylistic choice (see style guide) which would account for the variation within the sources. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

As a scholar who teaches and writes about Latin American literature at the university level, I strongly recommend the elimination of the hyphen. No scholarly sources on Latin American literature use a hyphen between the terms Latin and American, as the list in the very same article demonstrates (see article). I strongly recommend that Wikipedia follow general editorial guidelines and practices. I recommend the elimination of the hyphen, and correction of Wikipedia articles that have the hyphen.--Lawrlafo (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed material

if material is disputed it needs reffing, where is the policy that says this doesnt apply to the opening? "This largely obscures a rich and complex tradition of literary production that dates back many centuries" remains unsourced, if you can find a source for the largely obscured comment please do add it. I am also baffled as to why we shouldnt link to the Latin American Boom in the opening, perhaps you could also explain that if you dont want it in the opening. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

19th Century Literature section edits

The recent additions to this section are very well done and I only have a few minor issues and one major issue. My major issue is that it seems like "Resistance Literature", as the additions are primarily focused around, should be in its own section/subheading. It's way too detailed to be part of such a general section. My minor issues include the modernismo hyperlink which is repeated in the next section, citing the same thing with a different footnote three times, and some wording. Otherwise you used good new sources and the section itself is very well done. Sokeefe19 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! I added a Resistance Literature heading like you suggested and fixed the hyperlink for modernismo as well, and am working on going back through to fix small wording errors.Snoakes (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gabriel Garcia Marquez.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)