Jump to content

Talk:Bruno Schulz

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

[unnamed thread]

[edit]

Is it really that important that someone spoke many languages? Napoleon Bonaparte spoke Italian, yet I see no need to include this piece of information into the article about him...Halibutt 21:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

BTW, who rediscovered his works recently? Such frase does not look very encyclopedish...Halibutt

Schulz referenced in Literature

[edit]

Non-spoiled version: Suffice it to say that there is a character named Bruno in Nicole Krauss' The History of Love. This character is named after Bruno Schulz. --Superluser 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{spoiler}} In Nicole Krauss' The History of Love there are several references to Bruno Schulz and the Street of Crocodiles. Krauss' protagonist, Leopold Gursky is also a Polish writer who is made to be about twentythree in 1942 when Schulz was killed. He is in Poland at the time but escapes, ending up in New York. Much of the humanity so evident in the works of Schulz are just as present in that of Ms. Krauss. {{endspoiler}}

Drohobytsch, Drohobycz, Drogobych, . . ., Drohobych

[edit]

My family's from Schulz's Home Town--and knew him personally! Yours truly, Ludvikus 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to own an original photograph showing my father, and aunt, standing and posing, together! My mother knew personally the Gestapo officers who kept him as a Jewish prisoner, and she learned, first hand, when he was shot dead by one of them.

Ludvikus 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is considered by some to be another "Kafka".

And his Jewish identity--for which he was murdered by the Nazis--cannot be denied him! --Ludvikus 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is trying to do so? I've heard of nobody, but I've seen many people who are trying to deny his Polish identity. 69.235.83.0 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanatoruim Pod Klepsydra"

[edit]

Klepsydra was a word used for a sandclock as wel as for obituary - small prints that used to be sticked to a wall in public places like market or church walls in small towns those days. I guess the better translation is " Sanatorium under the sight of obituary"87.160.208.11 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both things have a connotation of expiration, so the title Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass is fine. But, the translation The Hour-Glass Sanatorium seems better to me. 69.235.83.0 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

His name is occasionally spelled "Szulc" (the Polish phonetic equivalent of Schulz). It might be a good idea to note that in the intro. Any comments? --24.58.3.248 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Szulc is a very popular name in Poland, but it is a different name than Schulz. Bruno's name wasn't polonized and should be spelled Schulz.69.235.83.0 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content query

[edit]

Para 3 reads:

One might say that Schulz became a writer by chance, since he was discouraged by some influential colleagues to publish

- should this be " he was encouraged to publish " or " he was discouraged from publishing"

In either case, he was already writing, so this has no bearing on the chances which made him a writer, but only on his being published, so perhaps the start should read "... became a published writer by chance"--Cookingwithstring 08:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content query

[edit]

I'm just wondering why Schulz is defined first - and therefore perhaps, implicitly most importantly as "a schoolteacher"?

Johncurrandavis (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration

[edit]

Since no response to the above, I've changed: "was a Polish schoolteacher, writer, literary critic and graphic artist" to: "was a Polish writer, graphic artist and literary critic" (in what I'd say are the correct order of importance) After all, I doubt that many people would define Kafka, for example, as a famous insurance clerk and writer...

Alteration, continued

[edit]

OK. I note that Bruno Schulz's day job as a teacher has crept back into the first, the defining sentence. This is ridiculous. I'm sorry for this to all who pursue the responsible, creditable, stressful and noble profession of schoolteaching, but... being a schoolteacher does not warrant an encyclopedic or wikipedic entry. And so, once more. I shall await any comment here. And if there is none, I will once more make the necessary change.

Umm, well since you appear to feel strongly about it. I don't see really why it couldn't be mentioned or what the big deal is. But ok. BTW, Kafka's profession does tend to figure prominently in a lot that is written about him. So maybe not the best comparison.radek (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it does. But it doesn't appear in the first, the defining sentence in Wikipedia, where Kafka is described as "a German-language novelist" - not as "a German-language novelist and insurance worker". So, er, perfectly good comparison. I'm not arguing that his profession shouldn't be mentioned. Just that it doesn't belong in the opening sentence. The "fuss" is about the fact that this inclusion has the effect of belittling Schulz's achievements in literature and art (just as my grotesque, invented definition would in K's case). Sorry, but am I the only one who thinks this? Johncurrandavis (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure how his profession of teacher belittles his achievements. But like I said, it's no big deal either way. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while we're here and since you seem to have a deep interest in Schulz - I think this article is pretty close to achieving Good Article status though it would need a bit extra work. I'm pretty busy myself but if someone else is also interested I'd be willing to work on it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Volunteer Marek, read what I have ACTUALLY written. I have NOT said that BEING a schoolteacher belittles his achievements. The opening sentence of an encyclopedia article should define its subject in terms of his/her/its justification for having that entry. It is not enough that a statement is true. If we don't define James Joyce, T S Eliot and so many many others as "writer and schoolteacher" - then why Schulz? (I fear it is going to be a long time before this looks anything like a "good" article. The Polish version puts it very much to shame.) Johncurrandavis (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). I don't think the comparisons to Joyce or Elliot are valid. Schulz being an art teacher for 15 years was much more important, specifically because he disliked it so much. It's a manifestation of his personal tragedy and an important aspect of his life. The article is about his life, not just his art. It's also notable, as well as interesting, that it was during the same period that his own art flourished. One can easily argue that his involvement in teaching propelled his own work, whether or not he was able to recognize that. Finally, there is no clear consensus on this page for your change. The other editors involved in this discussion have expressed reservations, but seem to have given up on changing it, due to your persistence. However, that's not how Wikipedia works. You're not supposed to remove sourced material without fully discussing on this page and getting a clear consensus. You don't own the article, as described in Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You might like to review the page if you haven't already. I'm going to restore my edit. Please seek consensus before changing it. Thank you. Greatsouthbay (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mural controversy

[edit]

In regard to the whole mural controversy, it'd be nice to find out what, if any, the conclusion of it was. As I recall there were some talks, agreements, etc. but I don't know what finally happened. As is, the section on it is currently pretty out dated. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on and on it goes

[edit]

I do intend to "un-restore" Greatsouthbay's edit, on grounds of notability. Bruno Schulz is/was a notable writer and artist. He was also a schoolteacher, but not a particularly notable one. He is certainly more famous, and should be remembered, for his writings and drawings, not for the fact that he didn't like his day job very much. Gsb writes: "It's a manifestation of his personal tragedy and an important aspect of his life" - no it isn't, he just taught in the local school, and he was, incidentally, commended for his dedication to the job. The fact that he was a holocaust victim is "a manifestation of his personal tragedy". Gsb writes: "The article is about his life, not just his art." - yes, but the lead sentence should not be. And yes, I have read the guidelines. Gsb writes: "It's also notable, as well as interesting, that it was during the same period that his own art flourished." - you mean, during his adult/working life? no, it is neither notable nor interesting. Gsb writes: "One can easily argue that his involvement in teaching propelled his own work, whether or not he was able to recognize that" - Nonsense. I would like to see where this "argument" appears in the rather large amount of commentary that exists on Schulz, his life and art. I have read, I daresay, as much of it as most people can claim, and I am unaware of this argument, that his art sprang from his job at the school, as opposed to, for example, his cultural heritage, the political volatility of his homeland, his religious views and identity, his childhood home life, his father's illness and death, and lets not forget his sexuality. I shall leave a respectable interval of time to elapse, as I always do, to allow others to comment here before I make any change. I shall, as soon as I have the time, put my efforts into happier improvements. The Polish page on Schulz is in much greater detail, and I shall be looking there. I do note with appreciation that Greatsouthbay has made quite a number of other, positive improvements to the page recently. But then, it seems, he/she is now blocked for misconduct..? Johncurrandavis (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review: failed

[edit]

This article popped up on WP:POLAND article alerts as a GA nominee. I've reviewed this article for our project and sadly it does not pass our B-class requirements. Primary problems: 1) not enough references (many unreferenced sentences, entire paras, sections) and 2) structure (there should be a unifying section about his works, not a bunch of smaller, not connected sections). The "mural controversy" section looks out of place. Coverage is probably fine for B-class, but certainly not for GA-class. Polish Wikipedia article is much more extensive and has a better coverage, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


GAN withdrawn. Sindinero (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galician?

[edit]

While the edit summary here is correct [1], the change is not. The way to describe Bruno Schulz (and Kafka) in a Wikipedia article is based on how reliable sources describe him. I am not aware of any sources which describe Schulz as "Galician". Sources describe him either as "Polish", "Jewish" or "Polish-Jewish".VolunteerMarek 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I think that adding some text to the body of the article concerning Schulz's connection to Galicia would be worthwhile, provided sources to that effect can be found.VolunteerMarek 17:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Schulz was a Galician Jew, Galitzianer. This is how he's described in my copy of Bruno Schulz. Oeuvres Complètes. 2004 (in French). Describing him as "Polish born to Jewish parents" does not reflect his culture, life and death. Rpalyvoda (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such nation as Galician and separate unified culture. Galicia was just historical region populated by people of so many different cultures and religions. --Matrek (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bruno Schulz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Femdom / BDSM art

[edit]

Not mentioned in the article is that Schulz produced a body of sadomsochistic femdom art, largely ignored previously, that has now been rediscovered in recent years, largely on the Internet. There do seem to be some WP:RS describing it (try a Google Books search for '"Bruno Schulz" sadomasochistic' to find them), but I've so far not found sufficient sourced information to write a section on it. -- Markshale (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a small body of work by any means. The book by Schulz called in Polish Xięga Bałwochwalcza, circa 1920 ("Xięga" is an intentional misspelling of "Kięga", the Book of...), reprinted in French as Le Livre idolâtre, in German as Das Götzenbuch, and in English as The Booke of idolatry; consists of 31 plates, available from the National Museum in Warsaw (Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie) see links to all. Also, check out the long essay Artistic Crossover in Polish Modernism. The Case of Bruno Schulz's Xięga Bałwochwalcza (The Idolatrous Booke) by Kris Van Heuckelom published in 2006. Enough material there for a stand alone section on Schulz as immensely original and accomplished visual artist. Good luck with it. Poeticbent talk
— But, look closer. Schulz's graphics are sexual submission fantasies revolving around psychological (rather than sexual) relief. This is not sadomasochism per se. In many instances, the actual scenes are set directly on the street, in plain view of the church or a synagogue. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 03:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sadomasochism necessarily has to be directly connected to sexual relief, but yes, perhaps "female domination/worship" might be a better characterization in the short run. -- Markshale (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruno Schulz. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruno Schulz. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruno Schulz. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruno_Schulz&oldid=1212772735"