Talk:Milan Kundera/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Comment

I deleted this line in reference to Lightness: although the writer himself thinks of it as his worst. There's no source, and it's not true. Zafiroblue05 06:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

czech

why does he refuse to have his book published in czech? --84.30.90.199 20:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: I have read a few articles on this topic. He supposes that any other translation than from himself would not have the "proper" quality. But he himself does not have enough time for translating them to czech...

Speaking of the Czech language, I think this article needs a discussion of Kundera's essaying upon the concept of "litost"; if I thought I were up to the job, I would do it. GrammarGeek 08:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(Revert - no source. I've never heard that - I'm pretty sure he only joined twice... can you get a source?)

Regarding your last revert. I agree with you, Milan Kundera joined the communist party only twice: once in 1948. Then he got rejected in 1950 and joined again from 1955 to 1970. I have never heard of him joining for a 3rd time. when would he have done such a thing anyways? in 1968, after the soviet got in, his works were taken off the shelves and his "teacher permit" revoked... I, too, would love to check out the source of that edit.--Angelikmeg 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The edit was made by User:Ross.Hedvicek, who appears to be Czech - this is interesting... But, at anyrate, I think he's at best misinformed. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's very interesting... I didn't know one could also organized a Wiki-coup! It's so wikid :-). As for the edit, you might be right, it could be that he was misinformed, it's just that I kinda doubt it: he sounded so sure of himself. We'll see what his next move/edit/answer will be. Cheers. Angelikmeg 05:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am absoltutely sure of it, the fact is frequently mentioned in Czech-language sources, seems that he re-joined for the third time around 1972-73, after Husak's so called political "normalization" took over in Czechoslovakia. I remember reading about it in Czech communist newspaper at that time after his escape to France in 1975 that "he was given a deal o trust by the Party and he betrayed!" (Which is of course commie PoV). So put it back please - it is just historical fact. Ross.Hedvicek 17:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well in order to join for a 3rd time, he would have had to leave the party for a 2nd time in the 1st place, and that my friend is a fact that has yet to be proved.

Read the current file: "In 1970, he was expelled from the Party for the second time." That is leaving! For the second time he was kicked out during the process called "proverky" after April 16, 1969, when new GenSec Gustav Husak ordered all party members who were not enough "pro-Soviet" during the Prague Spring expelled from the Party. Are you familiar with that part of history at all? Ross.Hedvicek 03:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You have to cite the exact source, even if it's in Czech-language, we could have it translated to verify its accuracy and legitimacy on such claim, but just because you remembered something you read somewhere doesn't make it historical fact. Well I should say: it's only historical fact for you on a personal level. Also you have to admit that a partisan newspaper is not always a "good" source especially at times when propaganda was overused and one of its members fled the country and the party's ruling. You just can't take their word for it. Even if we assume that the communist newspapers were right - in a country where at that time anything said by the most powerful party was to be the truth, whether it was the truth or not-, it has to be backed by another external (non-Czech) source. The fact that Czech newspapers claimed to the Czech people that Kundera betrayed the party doesn't make it true, they claimed so many things to be true.... Anyways, bottom line is name your source, let us verify it, discuss it, and if it's true and well documented, the comment will be back on and you'll be the most happy wikipedian ever. Cheers --Angelikmeg 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not pushing it - leave it as you wish. I noticed here on Wikipedia too many times that youths with leftist agenda are twisting the history so it would match their view of the world. I am old guy, I remember those things first hand, I did not learn about that from some marxist profs. Kundera joined Communists AT LEAST TWICE (verified by you), therefore I can not have any respect for the guy and he is not worth my time. I am not willing to argue about it. It is your future - I will not be in it. Thanks for your time. Ross.Hedvicek 03:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there is no need to get all fired up. First of all, you should have left my reply as it was. You have no right to edit what I said or didn't say, you can edit any article on wikipedia, but not users' opinions on a talk page. So if there is anyone here twisting anything, it ain't me: that's you. Second, this is not about you or me or anyone else: it's about an article on a famous author in an encyclopedia, just like any other celebrity we're trying to write an article on. If you didn't get that yet, wake up 'cause it's time to smell the coffee!

and if that man happened to be communist, so what? he could have been worse, just imagine for one moment: he could have been a very angry, bitter old man who cannot take a critic or a comment without jumping on his horses and play the offended wise man giving a lecture to someone he does NOT know at all and making judgements about that person! So please, if you cannot take a critic, don't contribute, don't write, keep your thoughts to yourself, leave wikipedia, create your own if you want, do as you please. But if you are really open for discussion, then by all means Mr. "old guy", write your stuff but document it on your own', and not by editing comments of somebody's else on a talk page. That is so petty and so small! --Angelikmeg 04:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is no need to get all fired up - then why do you get fired up? I give up, no more interference from me. You just scared off one more potential contributor of Wikipedia - is that your goal in life? Bye. Ross.Hedvicek 18:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To make it extremely clear to you, what I was trying to make you understand is this: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community." Please remember the rule. It's time for you to get back to the article and cite sources whenever you want to add to it. No need to leave any more comments because I will not respond anymore. I'm way above this. End of discussion --Angelikmeg 20:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with Angelikmeg. There is no need for you to leave Wikipedia, but it's time to adhere to the generally accepted rules, such as not removing parts of discussions, providing source of information, esp. in case of some arguable matters, avoiding POV comments in articles and avoiding personal attacks.

If you prove that Kundera joined for the 3rd time, the information can be included. If you are not able to provide a reliable source, it should not be included. --Sebesta 20:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue shouldn't have exploded like this! It's very simple - if there's a source, we include it, if there's not a source, we don't. I've read a fair bit of Kundera's work (fiction and non-fiction) and work about Kundera, and I've always heard that he only joined (and left) the Communist Party twice - and after The Joke and the Prague Spring, I find it unlikely he would have been accepted back in. He may well have joined a third time, but I've never heard that. As it happens, I am as far from a youth with a leftist agenda as you can get, and Milan Kundera is as well - but these facts are trivial when we're making an encyclopedia. Ross - come up with a reputable, verifiable source (not the communists!) (English, French, Czech, Guarani - whatever language, it doesn't matter), and we'll put it in - it's that simple. It'd be a real shame if someone left Wikipedia over a dispute so trivial, where everyone is striving for the same thing - to report the truth. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand the general rules about supporting any claims with sources, but I do not want to be involved in any heated arguing. I definitely feel what Angelikmeg did was a personal attack on me, and I am not going to be involved in anything like that. And her comment "and if that man happened to be communist, so what? he could have been worse" is highly offensive to me. The lady clearly do not have a sufficient grasp of history and circumstances. No, thank you. Write your version of history - if you please. Ross.Hedvicek 02:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the "he could have been worse" thing was inappropriate. But I think that you as well shouldn't be accusing others of ignorance (how do you know she doesn't have a "sufficient grasp of history and circumstances"?). When you say "I remember those things first hand" - I suspect that what you and others around you accepted things as fact based on untrustworthy sources (viz., the communist party). It may have been common knowledge at the time - but that doesn't mean it's true. In fact, because you or others have been unable to come up with sources that say it's true, I think it's very harsh - by which I mean, incorrect and in bad faith - to say that we "write (our) own version of history" when we say that Kundera only joined the Party twice. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not pushing it anymore, it does not matter to me that much, by adding it I was just trying to be helpful. I was trying to find some "verifiable source" on that and nothing. I was just living in the same city (Brno) at that time, meeting the guy casually (we were no close friends) and this was a common knowledge about him at that time. I guess this is equivalent as when David Irving [[1]] is saying that Holocaust never happened. He has a lot of paper, from which he can quote (=verifiable), regardless that the whole world knows it is a crap. Then - if Irving were Wiki-sysop and have a strong hand here - according to Wiki, Holocaust would be disputed here, too. History cannot be writen by consensus of opinions - it either happened or not. :-) In any case - thank you for you kind words. Ross.Hedvicek 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See Godwin's Law or Reductio ad Hitlerum. David Irving filed a libel suit in England, where the defendant has the burden of proof, and lost. The following was found to be "substantially true" by the judge: Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism. Frankly, I find your analogy deeply offensive. Distorting factual truths to support your own viewpoint is nothing at all like rejecting an unsourced statement. Maybe you met Kundera casually - maybe you didn't. You're just a name on a computer screen to me; you could be one of your leftist youths, for all I know. Events in the past only happened or not, but history - written history, which is the only kind that exists - is based on verifiable claims. And yes, on consensus of opinions. But here's the rub - some opinions are more trustworthy than others. And I am much more likely to trust a written document - in any language - than a unknown person's word. Sorry. At any rate, Kundera may well have joined a third time. I don't really know, but I'd like to. And if you don't want to push it, that's fine. Perhaps someone else will in the future. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Um...it's a bit much to say that "written history...is the only kind that exists". Oral history is just as important as written history, and for that matter, oral history is continually being turned into written history--but no, wikipedia cannot take this "unknown person's word" without further substantiation. I'm inclined to think, by the way, that the entire matter may be no one's proper concern but Milan Kundera's. TheScotch 06:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vonnegut

I think that there is a lot to be said about Kundera and Vonnegut: philosophy / literature hybrid, the presence of the narrator in the work, and recurring themes all come to mind. I don't have any time to work on this for a number of weeks, but I do think it would be a nice addition to the two articles. Presumably there are sources on the internet who have already thought about this comparison. Tdfriese 7:51 12 July 2007 GMT.

French

i think kundera translate his own novels into french, or does he write in french? would that not be worth mentioning? i have a german edition of wotsit "slowness" ? that says the original edition was in french. trueblood 20:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Slowness, I believe, was the first book he wrote originally in French. Before that (if Slowness was actually the one), he wrote in Czech and then translated to French, even if the first publication was in Czech. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

“About the Author” page (in: Kundera, Milan. Ignorance. Perennial, USA. 2000) says that The Joke, Life is Elsewhere, Farewell Waltz, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, and Immortality, and the short-story collection Laughable Lovers where originally written in Czech. It also says, “His most recent novels, Slowness, identity and Ignorance, as well as his non-fiction works, The Art of the Novel and Testaments Betrayed, were originally written in French”--Damm10 00:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1981 he became a French citizen. I guess that, if he had become American, wikiwise he would be a Czech-American writer (cf. e.g. Vladimir Nabokov) , but apparently different standards apply. L'omo del batocio 08:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll search out the source for the following, as it is Kundera himself...The first six novels, and Laughable Loves were all composed in Czech. The three most recent, as well as the three collections of essays, were composed in French. He has translated all of his works personally into French and claimed those translations to be as true as the originals. I'm pretty sure this was detailed by him in the foreword to the most recent English translation of The Book of Laughter and Forgetting.Luminousball 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent quotation addition

This recent edit seems to me to disrupt the cohesion of meaning in the paragraph. It's an interesting quotation, and one consistent with Kundera's writing, but what does it have to do with the paragraph it was placed in? --Atavi (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the quotation.--Atavi (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Culture

The word culture as deployed in the second section is redundent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.92.5 (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

     kendine iyi baksın o kadar...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.3.162 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Kundera, along with other Czech artists and writers such as Václav Havel, was involved in the 1968 Prague Spring

Connecting Kundera with Havel is very confusing; though both were highly visible figures in 1968, their position and affiliations were quite different. Kundera was a communist (first stalinist, later reform communist), Havel was noncommunist and regarded as a class enemy by the communist party due to his origin in a very wealthy and influential bourgeoise family. More suitable names to connect with Kundera would be those of other reform communist writers such as Ludvík Vaculík or Pavel Kohout. --Georgius (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. However, I think it's possible (and maybe necessary) to mention Havel in the article as a representant of opposite attitude. The "intellectual" dispute about the "Český úděl" (roughly translated: The Czech Destiny) between Havel and Kundera was very important in Czechoslovakia in that time, and deserves maybe own section. It seems to me, that current controversy slowly begins to predominate in the article... and the most important - Kundera's literary output - is somewhat overshadowed. A bit ironic for someone, who is familiar with Kundera's novels, and particularly with his essays. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Cannot edit Notes?

The link for the Lois Oppenheimer interview with Kundera is dead. I wanted to update the link with the archive.org cache http://web.archive.org/web/20071014230001/centerforbookculture.org/interviews/interview_kundera.html but the only content that comes up when trying to edit the Notes section is {{reflist}} Halibutron (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The dead link replaced. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Vejvančický. Not sure yet how I could have done this myself; thanks for updating the link. Halibutron (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it Kundera??

Can someone confirm, that the person currently depicted in the article is really Milan Kundera? Here is a French interview with Kundera from 1968. I know also a few other photos of him. Our photo is from 1954 (fourteen years earlier than the video) - Kundera was 25 years old in that time, and that person looks older... The photography bears no resemblance to the writer Milan Kundera. I'm convinced, that depicted person isn't him. There must be a mistake in the caption. Any opinions? --Vejvančický (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does not look like him. I do not believe that is Milan Kundera. Stevewunder (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The person in the picture is definitely NOT Milan Kundera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.5.139 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we remove it? Also: how do we find an actual picture of Kundera without breaking copyrights? Stevewunder (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of references

Useful links:

Books:

Milan Kundera: A Voice from Central Europe by Robert Porter (1981)
Terminal Paradox: The Novels of Milan Kundera by Maria Nencová Banerjee (1991)
Understanding Milan Kundera: Public Events, Private Affairs by Fred Misurella (1993)
Milan Kundera and Feminism: Dangerous Intersections by John O'Brien (1995)
Critical Essays on Milan Kundera, ed. by Peter Petro (1999)
The Art of Memory in Exile: Vladimir Nabokov & Milan Kundera by Hana Pichova (2001)
Svět románů Milana Kundery by Květoslav Chvatík (1994) (in Czech) - also German and French translation available

--Vejvančický (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved Text from Career to Writing Style and Philosophy

I have moved a large amount of text that was under the Career heading to the Writing Style heading because it more appropriately belongs there. I did not change any of the wording itself in the move. Stevewunder (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Career

I have a lot of trouble with this section: "Although his early poetic works are staunchly pro-communist, the denunciation controversy seems to resonate in Kundera's works, which feature informants, angst, moral relativism". What is the "denunciation controversy"? Is it a reference to the RECENT controversy? If so, it is ridiculous here -- if not, I'm not sure anyone knows what it means. "Although his early poetic works are staunchly pro-communist..." I'll take your word for that for now, but nevertheless the "Although" implies something about his later works, though I'm not sure what. "which feature informants, angst, moral relativism". I don't think it is correct to say his work "features" those things.

The second sentence, on the other hand, is irrelevant. "It could also help explain his publicity-shy reclusiveness, though other modern authors such as J.D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon are as (or even more) reclusive." I don't think we are supposed to speculate here. And the comparison to Salinger and Pynchon doesn't seem relevant, particularly if the point is that Kundera ISN'T AS reclusive as the others.

As for: "Kundera has repeatedly insisted on being considered a novelist in general, rather than a political or dissident writer. Political commentary has all but disappeared from his novels..." I would say Kundera has insisted on being considered a novelist in specific, not "in general" and that political commentary, to the extent that it exists at all in his novels, has little significance to any major theme in any of his work.

I have the same problem with the descriptions of The Joke and Book of Laughter and Forgetting regarding the emphasis on politics.

"In his first novel, The Joke, he gave a satirical account of the nature of totalitarianism in the Communist era." I agree that the novel has a great deal of satire in it, but it is not an "account" -- it is a novel - Kundera should not be mistaken for Solzhenitsyn -- and it is not about the "nature of totalitarianism" -- Kundera should not be mistaken for Orwell.

"Kundera had been quick to criticize the Soviet invasion in 1968. This led to his blacklisting in Czechoslavakia and his works being banned there." This needs a citation.

"...The Book of Laughter and Forgetting (1979) which told of Czech citizens opposing the communist regime in various ways. " It's been a while since I read it, but I don't believe this is an apt description of that work.

It may be hard to separate politics from Kundera's novels -- but it needs to be done. He is marginalized as a novelist when viewed though a political lens. A number of his essays are on this very theme. Stevewunder (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Stevewunder (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I admit I am not sure where to start on cleaning this up, because basically it needs to start over from scratch. Before I do anything I'd like to get some agreement on my above comments. This would be my first Wiki edit, as I am new at this. Stevewunder (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - in my impatience I have deleted the first 6 sentences of this section as they were very poor. Not much remains, but I believe it is better that this article look very incomplete -- which it is -- than be filled with sentences which mislead the reader. I suppose if others disagree with me they can change it back, but I'm going to go with my gut for now. Stevewunder (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok -- I see everything has been restored, which is well and fine, although I would appreciate some comments to explain some of my concerns above, mainly: 1) What is meant by the "denunciation controversy"? 2) Again, the assertion "political commentary has all but disappeared from his novels" -- I simply don't think you can describe anything in any of his works as "political commentary".Stevewunder (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we combine the sections Career and Writing Style and Philosophy under one heading titled: Work. Otherwise, there isn't a clear distinction between the subjects of the two sections and they thus overlap, as they are both about his work as a writer.Stevewunder (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - I will go in search of citations before I add anything else. Stevewunder (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a single "Work" heading would be preferable to the ones currently used here. If the group agrees, I can try to find some time to edit/condense the sections. --Doclit (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Language of Book Titles

I submit that only those works of Kundera's that have been translated into English should appear in the bibliography section in English first. His first novel, for example, should appear as it currently does, The Joke (Žert) (1967), but his first book of poetry, which as far as I know has never been translated into English should appear as Člověk zahrada širá (Man: A Wide Garden). Currently, there is inconsistency: Two works in the "Essays" section of the bibliography are given in French with no English translation of the title at all, and one work is given in Czech which is apparently a duplication (the Czech translation of a work originally written in French already listed). I'm going to delete the latter, and try to look up the others. TheScotch (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made changes such that works translated (in publication) in English appear with English titles first, in italics; titles of original versions (some Czech, some French) of works translated into English appear following in parentheses, in italics; English translation of titles of works never published in English, not in italics, appear following titles of original versions, in italics. I've still to verify some of this. TheScotch (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Kundera a vegetarian?

“True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power.

“Humanity’s true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals.

“And in this respect humankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it.”

-- Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, 1984

I wonder if these thoughts led Kundera to vegetarianism... Does someone know if he is vegetarian?

-- Gabi S. (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

One can hardly find any sources about it, very little is known about Kundera's personal life. On the other hand, the passage from The Unbearable Lightness of Being is cited on various vegetarianism related websites. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nacionality

How can he have Czech nacionality and on the other way his citizenship is French? Did not like his own country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.65.161 (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Kundera was forced by communists to leave his native country. He is an émigré. He found a new home in France but he still loves his country, read his books. The Book of Laughter and Forgetting is full of pain from the loss of "his world". In the novel Ignorance you can find traces of bitterness, as Ignorance describes a return to a homeland, which has ceased to be a home. The topic of emigration is developed also in his best known novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being. The question Did not like his own country? is a bit oversimplifying ... The only place where you can find the key and answer is the complicated and questioning world of his novels. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

I'm going to remove the image per the previous discussion above. The person on the photo is not Milan Kundera. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

the art of the novel quotation

The quotation about Kundera's Swedish publisher thinking the Farewell Party had an anti-abortion message is not from the Art of the Novel, unless it is from an old edition. I just read The Art of the Novel, and it the incident is never mentioned therein. I also double-checked, searching for phrases in the quotation using the Google Books search feature, and it's not there. The word abortion does not even appear in the book. I couldn't find that quotation anywhere, not in google, not in any of his other books, which all seem to be searchable through Google Books. I think the quotation should be removed unless someone can show it is from an earlier edition of the book (he did edit after it was first published), or is otherwise sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.120.155 (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If we can't find a reliable source for any claims in the article, the information should be removed. However, this claim is easily verifiable/fixable. Check the article again, please. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for finding the source and making the corrections. The latest English edition of the book doesn't include a definition for "Message" or the quoted passage. Kundera notes in a brief preface to the 2000 edition that, "...the book has often been reprinted in France, giving me the opportunity to return to it several times in order to better it. The resulting changes, along with a few minor refinements of her translation by the translator, have been incorporated in this printing." It must have been a quote from an earlier edition. Should that be noted anywhere? I guess it doesn't really matter; the quote is from Kundera in any case, is pithy, and has a source available on the web... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.120.155 (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I own an earlier edition of The Art of the Novel and I think the quotation is included there. But I'm not sure ... will check and specify later today. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Milankundera big.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Milankundera big.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons 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 upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
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 Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Clovek zahrada sira.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Clovek zahrada sira.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons 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 upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
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 Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Zivot je jinde.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zivot je jinde.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons 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 upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
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 Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:MilanKundera TheUnberableLightnessOfBeing.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MilanKundera TheUnberableLightnessOfBeing.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MilanKundera TheUnberableLightnessOfBeing.jpeg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

THE PICTURE ON FACEBOOK is not Kundera's ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.212.246 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent Work?

I'm surprised there's no information about what he's been doing lately besides this controversy with police records (not to minimize it too much if true). I heard a rumor that he's trying to write a novel in Spanish. Does anyone know if this is true? Has there been any mention anywhere that he's working on another novel? Or that he's decided never to write again? Anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.107.159 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not easy to find out the informations about the future plans of Milan Kundera. He's not a public person, and he keeps his privacy from the public. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kundera certainly does not write in Spanish. This is NOT true (with 100% certainty). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tovertaal (talk • contribs) 14:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Influences

I undid an IP edit on the Influences section, which had been last edited by me. I had put them alphabetically in a newline-separated list. With some of the names - (Hermann) Broch, (Robert) Musil, (Laurence) Sterne and (Henry) Fielding - I included the given name as well on the visible link. My reason was that these people are not exclusively identified by their surnames in terms of notability (unlike, for example, Kafka or Gombrowicz). To show that the names were arranged alphabetically, I put the surnames first, and hence used the format <surname, given name>, which is one of the reasons why I could not use the comma-separated list, the other being the arrangement becomes clearer in the newline-separated format. If anyone has better suggestions, let's talk it out here. Bubka42 (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

In context I'm pretty sure they are identifiable by their surnames. What criteria are you using? Have more people heard of Gombrowicz than Fielding, or is the latter (realistically?) going to be confused with Helen Fielding?

Secondly, I dont see why you wouldn't use the comma-separated format since that is the established convention: C. P. E. Bach, J. S. Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven, Giovanni Boccaccio.... wouldn't necessarily obscure the alphabetical order, if that is especially desirable. Franz Kafka has alphabetized disciples, but his "influenced by" list has an order suggestive of relative importance. A much better place to go into all this, however, is Template talk:Infobox writer. Sparafucil (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Merging

I think it is a good idea. Ross.Hedvicek 12:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for an essay like that. See Wikipedia:No original research. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about a link to it? It is still good piece of information, methinks... Ross.Hedvicek 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Link, yes. Merge, no. Too involved for the reader like myself seeking a quick bio on Kundera.

who wrote above last line? anyway "Leprosy by Jiří Stránský, about the Kundera controversy, Salon October 2008. Retrieved 2010-09-25" by Peter Zupnik is like a personal opinion...117.216.26.244 (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)1234

Miroslav Dvořáček controversy photos

Isn't it a bit silly to have images of eight famous writers in this section, simply because they happened to come to Kundera's defense in this matter? The involvement of those writers in this article is limited to exactly one sentence. The section looks like the roster of an all-star game. 850 C (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is. The photograph of Kafka needs to go too. TheScotch (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed it for now. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Kundera and Kafka

Appropos of the possible influence of Kafka on Kundera, I found this bit in an interview with Lois Oppenheim:

MK: There are four great novelists: Kafka, Broch, Musil, Gombrowicz. I call them the "pleiad" of Central Europe's great novelists. Since Proust, I can't see anyone of greater importance in the history of the novel. Without knowing them, not much of the modern novel can be understood....at the same time that the great Central Europeans were writing their masterpieces, America herself had her own great "pleiad," one which would influence the entire world and which was that of Hemingway, Faulkner and Dos Passos. But its aesthetic was entirely opposed to that of a Musil!....

LO: Would you say that these writers [Kafka, Broch, Musil, and Gombrowicz, presumably] have influenced you in any concrete way?

MK: Influenced me? No. It's something else: I exist under the same aesthetic roof that they do. Not under the roof of a Proust or a Joyce. Not under the roof of a Hemingway (despite all my admiration for him). The writers I'm speaking about weren't influenced by each other either. They didn't even like each other. Broch was very critical of Musil, Musil nasty about Broch, Gombrowicz didn't like Kafka and he never spoke of either Broch or Musil and was himself probably unknown by the three others. Perhaps if they knew that I grouped them together they would be furious with me. And perhaps rightly so. Perhaps I've invented this pleiad to be able to see a roof over my head. TheScotch (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Images

Added images of Kundera, Kafka, and Philip Roth in the relevant sections. Also reorganised the long multiple images box to horizontal in the controversy section. Bubka42 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The images you uploaded/added don't have sufficient licensing (see Wikipedia:Copyrights) and they will likely be deleted. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find licensing information. I don't know if photos from The Guardian qualify for use here. Bubka42 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The images are someone's property, which means they are copyrighted. The content of Wikipedia is free and you must have permission to use copyrighted works here. For further information, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright aside, the large photograph of Kafka is supported only by a single short sentence, and that single short sentence has been contested with a "citation needed" template since 2007. This strikes me as extremely disproportionate. I don't see that the photograph of Kafka needs to be here. TheScotch (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the image is irrelevant in the article as it stands now. But there's no doubt that reflections on Kafka in Kundera's work are numerous and significant. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kundera discusses Kafka at length and, I think we can say, favorably in various essays. That much is certain. That could be mentioned in a new section devoted to the subjects of Kundera's essays. (Bear in mind, however, that he also discusses Janacek at length in various essays.) It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to assume that Kundera's own fictional works may have been influenced by Kafka, but I have no particular memory at the moment of Kundera saying so, and I'm not convinced at the moment that they necessarily were influenced by Kafka. If Kundera did say so, then of course that information can go into the article or if a significant literary critic thinks Kundera was influenced by Kafka the article can say that the critic thinks this. (I haven't read any literary criticism of Kundera other than book reviews.) In any case, a photo of Kafka will need to be supported by text. Since there are several photos of Kafka in the Kafka article (including the one just deleted), we can be assured of finding one when we need one. TheScotch (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kundera discusses not only Kafka and Janáček but also many others in his essays. (I've used some of his thoughts when compiling the article Leoš Janáček, btw.) Possible Kafka's influence on his own fictional literary works is a completely different matter. I own two books on Kundera written by significant literary critics: the English translation of Le Dernier Après-midi d'Agnès : essai sur l'œuvre de Milan Kundera by François Ricard and Svět románů Milana Kundery (Czech, The World of Novels of Milan Kundera) by Květoslav Chvatík. It has been a long time since I've read those books so I would need to check again ... I agree that photos of Kafka in this article must be supported by relevant context in the written article's body. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

To go rather off topic briefly, I'm guessing you might be a native speaker of Czech, which suggests to me that Kundera's early poetry may be accessible to you as it is not to me (it's never, as far as I know, been translated into English). Have you read any of it? In any case, I'm making a new section on the talk page to discuss the relation of Kafka and Kundera. TheScotch (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It has never been translated because Kundera himself excluded his early poetry collections from his oeuvre. I know some of it, the poetry is weak and naive, I would call it enthusiastic "socialist realism" in poetry. You can find some examples here (unfortunately only in Czech), there is also an English article called Man, a wide garden: Milan Kundera as a young Stalinist by Jan Čulík which contains some translations of his poetry. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Opening Sentence "Most Recognized Czech born living writer"

To introduce an an article with a claim as subjective as this is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. The reference for this sentence is just from a journalist who uses this phrase casually in an article about something entirely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.151.49 (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed the opening sentence to be more neutral. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

Have commenced tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Milan Kundera. 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: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

new book

Commiserating With Devastated Things: Milan Kundera and the Entitlements of Thinking by Jason M. Wirth, Fordham University Press, 2015 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Informer Controversy?

We need a new section reporting on the recent 'informer' controversy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7668484.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.61.230 (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote

This quote:

Betrayal is an inevitable part of life. In order to survive, you must entrust others which leaves you susceptible to betrayal. However, learning from what has happened will inevitably make you stronger.

was added before the informer controversy, so you wouldn't think someone would just make it up (as is conceivable after it came out). But I used the Amazon search-within-a-book on all of his books (except for Jacques and his Master, which isn't searchable, and, after all, is based on a Diderot novel, so in the far-fetched event it does come from there it might even be more easily attributed to Diderot than to Kundera) and found nothing. Nothing turns up on Google either, except copies of Wikipedia. Also, in my opinion, "However, learning from what has happened will inevitably make you stronger" really doesn't sound like Kundera, or at least his translator. It's just a weak, bland, kitschy sentence. At any rate, since this would be a rather important quote considering the circumstances, so I think it needs a real citation to be put in. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read all of the Kundera books translated into English, most of them several times, as well as a Granta interview (several times; the issue is on my bookshelf), and I don't recall anything like the passage in question. None of it sounds like Kundera to me. TheScotch (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I haven't read all of his interviews, but I've read all of his translated works a few times. The second sentence seems a bit off too- entrust others with what? It doesn't even make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.107.159 (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the above quotation appears to have been removed, but the "informer controversy" is old news now, and as far as I've heard there have been no new developments. I think it currently takes up a disproportionately large part of this article. Maybe someone will volunteer to pare it down. Thanks. TheScotch (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed this whole thing takes up a ridiculously large part of an article that's supposed to be about a WRITER. And let's not forget that the affair is only interesting because Kundera IS a famous writer (if not, nobody would even mention it). And why does nobody ask the fundamental question what such a "betrayal" (if the story is true, which we don't know) means in the historical context? Is it that strange to tell the police that someone is spying on your country? The easy post-1989 moral judgement is really inappropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tovertaal (talk • contribs) 15:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've finally chopped the section down a bit, but I think it needs additional pruning. It seems to much better now on the whole, though. TheScotch (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This section is still significantly disproportionate. I'd support further pruning, especially as some it looks unsourced, opinionated, and and hostile. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Milan Kundera. 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) 20:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milan Kundera. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006231656/http://www.salon.eu.sk/article.php?article=732&searchPhrase=havel to http://www.salon.eu.sk/article.php?article=732&searchPhrase=havel

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) 23:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Janáček

A footnote to Káťa Kabanová refers to a book that tantalizes a Kundera fan: Kundera, Milan (2004). Můj Janáček (in Czech). Brno: Atlantis. ISBN 80-7108-256-2. Is this just a collection of the excerpts previously published as digressions in other works? Sparafucil (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)