This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Quote: "Like many of Robbins' other novels, The Carpetbaggers combined good writing, a strong story, and numerous more-or-less-gratuitous scenes of explicit sex. The sex scenes were at the extreme outer boundaries of acceptability for a mainstream novel at its time of publication; The Carpetbaggers was probably the first New York Times bestseller to include scenes in which characters engage in fellatio." That is POV. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 20:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not clear on whether you feel that
Meanwhile, just to show that my opinions are not solely my own, I note these remarks from the eleven Amazon reader reviews of the book. I may try to work some of this into the article in lieu of stating my own opinions, if I can't find anything better. For now, I'll leave this material here on the Talk page:
Five suggest that it is not of serious value:
However, four suggest that it has more than entertainment value:
Four refer to its use of what was for its time shockingly explicit sex and profanity:
Three suggest that the sex is gratuitous:
Seven suggest that Robbins is a compelling storyteller:
TV Guide's review of the movie says "The Carpetbaggers is first-rate trash--and trash of so high a caliber is not easy to find.... By today's standards, this movie is about as mild as typical Friday-night television fare, but it was hot stuff in its day."
The tagline for the movie was "This is adult entertainment," showing that the movie was promoted as "hot stuff." [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]]
But you still haven't answered my question. Which are your objections:
[[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is hard to write anything meaningful about literary topics without presenting material that cannot be fully objective; the best that can be done is to synthesize consensus views, substantiate them, and fairly present opposing views.
The original article contained this sentence, to which User:Mike Storm objected.
Since Mike didn't articulate his objections very well, I have to guess. There are two likely possibilities. The sentence makes a number of assertions. I don't honestly believe that the truth of these assertions is seriously disputed by anyone familiar with the book or its history. Therefore the basis of the objection could be:
I've now written a great deal more. For the time being I've left out the claims that it has "good writing" and "a strong story" until I can substantiate these by references to contemporary reviews, etc. I have made the point about the book's sex scenes by quoting a 1961 New York Times review of the book, and have tried to put it into context in a section about the sexual revolution. The book was regarded as borderline-pornographic at the time and this is a relevant feature of the book. On the one hand, you had the books that landed into court—Lady Chatterley, Memoirs of Hecate County, Tropic of Cancer, Fanny Hill. On the other hand, you had the books that almost landed in court: Butterfield 8, Peyton Place, The Carpetbaggers, The Story of O. The Carpetbaggers was a famous example of the latter category.
I'd appreciate comments here and I'd appreciate it if someone could see their way to removing the ((NPOV)) notice, or make constructive suggestions on things that could be done to make the article neutral without totally removing important things that ought to be said about the book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On August 2nd, Mike Storm placed an ((npov)) notice on the page, with this comment:
Over the next couple of weeks, the article was enlarged and expanded, mostly by me, and, at the same time, I tried to address Mike's objections. In particular, I thought I had removed the references to "good writing and a strong story," and that I had provided NPOV material on how its sex scenes related to contemporary mores at its time of publication.
In response to a request for discussion, Hayford Peirce expressed a generally favorable opinion and did not note any NPOV issues (see above).
On August 16th, I asked Mike if he could see his way to removing the ((npov)) tag. He removed, then reinserted it. In response to my queries, his last reply was:
I am puzzled by this comment which I don't understand and am not sure how to address, as I don't see where in the current article I am "asserting my own opinion about the author's writing style." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV notice. Should Mike Storm wish to re-apply it, he must note here why. The latest version doesn't seem to have POV problems. Pcb21| Pete 23:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
this is a pretty fameous movie--Ezzex (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Lots of sexual scenes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.26.4 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've edited this section to remove the text in bold. Previously we had:
On the second page of the novel, as aviator Jonas Cord approaches the landing strip of his father's explosives factory, we read: "The black roof of the plant lay on the white sand like a girl on the white sheets of a bed, the dark pubic patch of her whispering its invitation into the dimness of the night." In 1961, this was explosive indeed. The book contains language in comparison to which Lawrence's talk of "bottoms" and "threading [forget-me-nots] in the hair at the root of his belly" seems practically prudish. The Carpetbaggers was probably the first New York Times bestseller to include scenes of fellatio.
Rather misleading and disingenuous in selectiveness of quotes, given some alternative choice cuts from Lady Chatterley's Lover...
She wanted me, and made no bones about it. And I was as pleased as punch. That was what I wanted: a woman who wanted me to fuck her. So I fucked her like a good un.
Ay, an' tha comes up smilin'.---Ax 'er then! Ax lady Jane! Say: Lift up your heads, O ye gates, that the king of glory may come in. Ay, th' cheek on thee! Cunt, that's what tha're after. Tell lady Jane tha wants cunt. John Thomas, an' th' cunt O' lady Jane!---'
Ahem. Paddyboot (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Any light on the title - why is it called The Carpetbaggers? 86.183.206.77 (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on The Carpetbaggers. 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 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Carpetbaggers. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This article explains who the characters are, but it doesn't summarise the story. Valetude (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The entire article consists of nothing but original research and personal opinion. There is only one citation and that is merely to confirm the definition of the word carpetbagger. This is a particularly acute and egregious example of an article that has gone unreferenced for 16 years. — O'Dea (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)