Talk:George du Maurier

bemused/Arctic Monkeys
"Although initially bemused by Trilby's success..."

Bemused means confused (basically). Is that what was intended? I know nothing of the man beside what I've read here, but unless he was for some reason really confused by the success of what he'd created, it feels more logical to expect the line to read that although initially amused by Trilby's success, he eventually came to despise...etc. It jumped out at me.

Also, would it be too vulgar to here mention, on some pretext or other, that the phenomenally popular British rock group Arctic Monkeys refers to trilby hats in their song "Fake Tales Of San Francisco"? One of the song's lines is, "There's a super-cool band, yeah, with their trilbies and their glasses of white wine".


 * The article is trying to say that he didn't expect it to become such a phenomenon, and was dumbfounded that it was so popular. But "Dumbfounded" would be too strong a word; "confused" has unfortunate connotations of mental illness; "bemused" conveys the right sense of amused but detatched puzzlement. As for the Arctic Monkeys, it's clearly not a reference to the novel, and even if it was, so what? Also, cut the affectations, write like you think naturally, and never use the word "basically". Use "essentially" instead.194.176.105.53 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * look up 'bemused' again; you've misremembered its definition or created your own. it means 'confused' (basically). 'basically' means essentially; your objection to the word is eccentric. again, it makes no sense for an artist to be confused by the success of his art, so 'bemused' is wrong. accepting your explanation of his feelings, 'surprised' is a better word. the arctic monkeys line is an indirect reference to the novel and would enjoyably support the 'to this day' aspect of its lasting effects. 67.171.181.26 (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "bemused" in this context is the right word - here, it implies bewilderment at the unexpected success of his novel. He definitely wasn't "confused' by it, as this would imply he was muddled (but I don't agree with the earlier reply that "confused" has "connotations of mental illness" - not necessarily!). He might have been "amused' by it, but we don't know that. However, the Arctic Monkeys reference isn't right for this page, as it's not directly to do with du Maurier or the novel. A better place would be the trilby page itself.--Stelmaris (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * the meaning that you and the other poster are reading into the current wording is unarticulated in that wording. 'bemused' means confused. 'bewilderment' means confusion. it pains me to suggest that you should look up the meanings of 'confused' and 'confusion', but you should. unless he was somehow really confused by the book's success, it's simply wrong - it's in fact bizarre - to say that he was confused by it. if he was surprised, just say that he was surprised. j.k. rowling may have been surprised or elated by her first harry potter book's success, but she was never confused by it, any more than this man would have been by his book's success, or any more than any published author has ever been, at the success of a published work. you publish in Order to succeed. the current wording is nonsensical, the meaning you see in it illogical. 67.171.181.26 (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion to look up words but there's no need - I had already done so and can only reiterate that "bemused" really is not another word for "confused". You can be bemused without any confusion arising and similarly you can be confused without being bemused. I appreciate the two words are listed as synonyms in dictionaries but there is a difference in meaning, albeit a subtle one. It is quite possible that JK Rowling was surprised by her success but as you say, she certainly wasn't confused, just like du Maurier who had known great success with his illustrations so was amazed and, yes, bemused, by the fact he also enjoyed unexpected success with his writing. It is not nonsensical, nor is it illogical, it's the mot juste here. --Stelmaris (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The only thing wrong with using "bemused" here is the apparent befuddlement it appears to have caused. It is closer to "puzzled" than to "confused" (which it only coincidentally rhymes with).  It's certainly possible for an author to be puzzled or perplexed or bewildered by the success of their work, such as "Why is this one selling so well, when the other ones were so much better?"  If you suppose that authors are all egoists who consider any success their work has to be perfectly reasonable... you may not know authors well enough. :) (Oh, and the Arctic Monkeys reference is nothing more than fannish trivia. It wouldn't be "vulgar" to mention it, merely pointless.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

you guys holding fast to your created definition of the word in question is perverse. enjoy, i guess. re arctic monkeys, i despise pop music. i agree that the reference, if it belongs anywhere, belongs on the trilby page, but i repeat that it would enjoyably support the idea of the book's lasting effects. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that a band recorded a song mentioning a hat named after one worn in a stage adaptation of a novel written by GdM... is a tenuous chain of causality that tells us nothing about the author (or the book). Neither I nor Stelmaris chose the word "bemused", so if you think we're trying to create a new definition to support our own (supposed) error, that isn't the case. It's been there for six years, and you're apparently the only person to find it confusing. Please consider the possibility that the error - and unhealthy obstinacy - might be yours. Nonetheless, since it will help you to move on from this, I'll edit the article, on the grounds that GdM's exact state of mind is speculative. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

the arctic monkeys' unwitting but indirect reference to trilbies tells us about the book what someone unwittingly using a shakespearean phrase tells us about shakespeare; that the reference's original source has power and lasting influence. that point is unimportant to me; i thought it would be simply a pleasantly complimentary illustration of the man's work showing signs of life even today. re 'bemused', that 6 years have passed before someone knowing its definition happened to read this article is simply sad. rather than acknowledge the error, everybody began clinging to shadows and spirits in order to avoid making the obviously appropriate change. 'puzzled' means confused. 'perplexed' means confused. 'bewildered' means confused. english abounds with unnecessary words. my experience with wikipedians who monitor articles has taught me that they would rather die of ravaging anal cancer than make edits that go against their prideful grains. it is therefore obvious that you, jason, now know that 'bemused' means confused, and that you know what 'confused' means. you made the change, not to help me move on from this, but because you had no moral choice to do otherwise. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Please stop the petty personal attacks and move on. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

i've made no personal attacks. your meaning re my being mistaken is unclear; mistaken with regard to what? 63.142.146.194 (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All of it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

shutting down in that way is inconsistent with your stated position against 'engaging in behavior that is so antisocial that it is inherently uncivil'. observe; i'm still speaking to you as one gentleman speaks to another. i asked a question; please answer it. we'll take the issues one at a time: first, regarding 'bemused' meaning 'confused', i have at hand the american heritage college dictionary, third edition. it defines 'bemuse' thus: "to cause to be bewildered; confuse." it defines 'bewilderment' thus: "the condition of being confused." in what precise regard do you think that i'm mistaken on this point? second, precisely why do you think that George du Maurier would have been confused by his book's success? third, as i said, i'm unconcerned with the arctic monkeys issue and will let that pass. but these others are important points that need fleshing out. you've said that i'm mistaken; unless you retract that statement, the burden is upon you to demonstrate my errors in understanding or logic. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a Talk page is to discuss problems with the article, and the points you wish to debate are no longer relevant to that. I'm genuinely sorry if you find that frustrating, but I encourage you to try not to be this guy. :) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

if that's your roundabout way of saying that you were wrong, fair enough. if not, the burden upon you is unchanged by what you now say is the purpose of the talk page. before, you used this page to make a slash and run statement directed at me that's inconsistent with the notion of constructive impersonal work on the article. i'm only responding to your words. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

personal life
The guy had kids but the wife's (or mistress's) name is not revealed. It just says he was a "close friend" of another guy. Why should that be important enough to stick it into the personal section of the article? What does that mean? Was he gay? In addition, it'd be nice to know why du Maurier hated Jewish people to the extent that he'd fabricate a loathsome individual and make him Jewish. Was it personal or just run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism displayed by the likes of Charles Dickens? Without any explanation he comes off as kind of a loathsome person himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)