Talk:H. L. Mencken/Archive 1

POV issue
It seems to me that this entry is manifestly not NPOV. I started to "neutralize" the entry, but I'm not a Mencken expert, and I don't want to gut the page. I'd rather have it corrected.

Can anyone help?

Rholton 23:07, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I guess he did a little composing too. 142.177.168.74 14:51, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

H.L. Mencken's Score on the PC Purity test
This article is just plain nuts. Out of all the things that could be said about one of the most influential men of letters in the United States, the article starts with a discussion of Mencken's racism or lack of racism? If this wikipedia were written by the Christians of the Ffith Century, all it would talk about was Mencken's relationship to the Donatist Schism. Since Donatism was all that was on their minds then, no doubt people locked into that time and place would have been fascinated. Likewise, here, those of us not obsessed to the point of madness with race issues occassionally want to find out information, neutral information, on the great writers and thinkers of history. It is like reading a report card that only reports on one topic: how does he rate on his political correctness? John C. Wright 9:48 1 February 2007

Accuracy of quote
I'm looking for a source for the "No one ever went broke..." quote. This remark is usually quoted as "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

If this article substitutes "middle classes" for "public" incorrectly, then that strikes me as a pretty serious breach of NPOV. I don't want to mess with the quote unless I can find a reliable source. Help? Cyrusc 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Then there's this quote about "the educated Negro", also uncited. Some webpages cite it from Men versus the Man: A Correspondence between Robert Rives La Monte, Socialist, and H.L. Mencken, Individualist. Does anyone know the context in which this statement was made? Cyrusc 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The last part would be a good place to start...
Any chance we could remove the "Also a latent prophet of sorts" dig in the last paragraph? It seems like a non-NPOV sentiment to me..

--Ultra Megatron 08:31, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the passage quoted reads like a prophecy. And the article makes no claim that the prophecy has yet been fulfilled. Daniel,levine 00:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any point to the anti-semitism speculation?
Even if it were true - so what ? Is it illegal to have antisemitic thoughts ? Remember Mencken was a philosopher. Plato hated the Barbarians = non-greek peoples - - so what ? Janine.

In the 1920s Americans were freer to make fun of each other. Mencken joked like everyone else in his day, but reserved his poison darts for the Ku Klux Klan and its ilk. See, for example, his translation of the Declaration of Independence into the vernacular or practically any issue of American Mercury. Because many people have been given the impression that Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche (as opposed to Goethe and Kant), persons of altruistic predilections seek to impugn Mencken by making similar associations. Ayn Rand would certainly have noticed if her favorite columnist, to whom she wrote fan mail, were a Jew-baiter. George Orwell wrote stuff much more callously disrespectful of Jews during WWII, yet is never paraded about as an anti-Semite. translator (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that since Mencken's work has nothing material to do with Jews the question of whether or not he was anti-semitic is completely out of place in the article. You might as well speculate whether or not he enjoyed pizza, or if he and Plato had been contemporaries, who would win in a sissy slap-fight.


 * The point is that it's something that a lot of his critics bring up, and if you read his work, its definitly coloured by the anti-semitism. I actually did some research from my university's library for this article, and all 5 or 6 books, in their introductions, mention Mencken being accused of anti-semitism and misogyny. Anyway, Mencken was a social critic, so much of his job was to talk about his personal views (bigoted though we may find them), so I think they certainly merit a section in the article. Jackson 07:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * IMHO, citing introductions perfectly verifies that Mencken has been referred to as Anti-Semetic, but the veracity of the charge -- which in the article currently reads "superficially" -- cries out for some citations. His comparison of Hitler to KKK'ers speaks for the common mindset and tactics he saw, not for any Anti-Semitism  Ð ’ n talk 08:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a major reason Mencken remains of interest is speculation about the relationship between his personal politics and his work. He did write explicitly about these subjects e.g. "The Jews" in Damn! A Book of Calumny or Designations for Colored Folk.  This article has a responsibility to address the apparent conflict between disparaging remarks Mencken made about Jews and African-Americans on one hand, and his service to these groups--e.g. as publisher of African-American writers or assistant to Jews leaving Nazi Germany--on the other. Cyrusc 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Where can I get some info?
I recently bought A Mencken Chrestomathy at a used-book store. It is a first edition and the first page has someone's signature (with '49 under it). How can I find out if it's Mencken's signature?--The Individual 13:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

He was not able to sign his name, or write at all, after 1948--Saxophobia 20:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Marion Elizabeth Rodgers (see references) after his stroke he signed a "wobbly H.L.M." and "one spring morning (1949)" he wrote "the first legible memorandum . . . since his stroke." see pages 534 & 535.--Gamahler 18:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction
The interpretation "Most commentators regard his views as libertarian, but some of Mencken's writing displays elitism, and at times a pronounced racist element in excess of early-twentieth century Social Darwinist thought" conflicts with the entirety of the "Race Issues" section. Someone make up Mencken's mind. --CannedLizard 05:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Where's the contradiction?There's none that I can tell of; the text seeming totally coherent.--193.137.78.252 22:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mencken could be quite tasteless
Mencken tended to speak his mind rather freely at times. In an article on Chiropractors (PREJUDICES, series 1) he refers to people with birth defects as "Botched by God", He states that it is his opinion that God, in his wisdom, "Intends the Botched to die" and Chiropractors, by doing nothing useful, help them on to their destined end. --Saxophobia 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

H.L.Mencken House ownership
National Park Service states "After he passed away on January 26, 1956, he bequeathed his home to the University of Maryland." What is source for changing article to reflect ownership passed to brother? Davidbober 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What can I say? The Feds have been wrong in the past, they are wrong now, and will be again in the future.
 * “Only one item remained unassigned: the house itself.
 * In the family no one cared more for 1524 Hollins Street or had a greater attachment to it than Mencken. Its disposition caused a major squabble within the family.  But in the end, all agreed with Mencken’s decision that August should remain sole owner and later dispose of it in some proper way.”  Marion Elizabeth Rodgers, Mencken, The American Iconoclast, p. 539
 * “August Mencken continued to live at 1524 Hollins street. . . . August died in 1967.” Ibid., p. 551.  --Gamahler 03:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Whooping for the Kaiser
The article currently omits Mencken's stance on World War One: he wanted Germany to defeat the Democracies. This article by Fred Siegel quotes Mencken as writing:
 * I, too, like the leaders of Germany, had grave doubts about democracy. ... It suddenly dawned on me, somewhat to my surprise, that the whole body of doctrine that I had been preaching was fundamentally anti-Anglo Saxon, and that if I had any spiritual home at all it must be in the land of my ancestors. When World War I actually started I began forthwith to whoop for the Kaiser, and I kept up that whooping so long as there was any free speech left.

(This is apparently from My Life as Author and Editor.) Siegel then writes
 * This wasn't a brief episode, but the very core of Mencken's political being. He proudly proclaimed in his columns for the Baltimore Sun papers that, in the battle between autocracy and democracy, he wanted to see democracy go down. Mencken was enamored not only of the Kaiser's autocratic rule, but with "the whole war machine." He mocked Allied outrage over German killings of Belgian civilians, as well as the sinking of the S.S. Lusitania, which brought the death of 124 Americans. Hobson tells us that he advised Theodore Dreiser, a fellow German-American, that "there can never be any compromise in future men of German blood and the common run of 'good,' 'right thinking' Americans. We must stand against them forever, and do what damage we can do to them, and to their tin-pot democracy."

I suggest that the article should mention this pro-German stance, which probably also played a part in the decline of Mencken's popularity in the years preceding WW2. Cheers, CWC (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

over the top.
...Is the only phrase to describe the hagiographic prose extolling Mencken's exploits.

I'm starting to think it's the same guy going through some of these bios, dropping the word salvo here and there and thinking that, clearly, the subject of the bio is beyond all reproach, even in areas where he might be. Some of the language calls for a look, in other words. --r. 07:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sundry remarks
This entry disappoints, because it leaves so much out that I think is important. I own copies of 6-8 of Mencken's books, but no biography and no volume of his letters. Mencken:
 * Was the product of an astounding self-education. His factory owning father ordered Henry to attend what was then called a "manual" or "trade" high school, whose graduates were assumed never to attend college. I suspect that the quality of the English classes was quite high, especially by present-day standards. Very early in his journalistic career, he took a night class in expository prose that he later praised. But otherwise, he was entirely the product of an enormous reading. He had little time for nearly all professors of humanities and social science.
 * Was an elitist. But in so being, he often merely wrote down what many of his fellow Americans thought and spoke. Also keep in mind the evident elitism of George Santayana and Henry Adams.
 * Was a fatalist. But this is a time-honored stance about the human condition, although one heavily out of favor in the USA. It should be remembered that in his day, most Americans struggled to live on unproductive farms, or held humble jobs and lived in urban tenements. The mass of Americans began to enjoy a decent middle class life only after WWII. In his day, most Americans had only a primary education, took their thinking from some pulpit, and read only religious tracts.
 * As a young man, had been deeply impressed by Nietzsche, and that is supposed to embarrass us. But he also admired Joseph Conrad, whom we all admire. Keep in mind that Nietzsche is no longer seen as the forefather of the Third Reich.
 * Enjoyed many advantages. He never suffered from writer's block or had trouble earning a living. He lived all his life in the provincial city he loved. His books generally sold well. He enjoyed food, drink, and classical music. But one thing proved elusive: the consolations of the opposite sex. He did not marry until he was 50, whereupon his bride grew sick and he was a widower at 55. I think he wrote very shrewd and funny things about the sexes and the inevitable conflict between them. On balance, I think he preferred the common sense of adult women to the pomposity of so many middle class men. But I suspect that nearly all women felt very edgy about a man with such a clear and unembarrassed view of feminine nature. 18th and 19th century French women would have loved Mencken, but I suspect that early 20th century American ones could not; he was too wise to their game.
 * Re Jews and blacks, was partly a product of his place and time, and partly loved to yank the chains of the usual tongue-cluckers. He was quick to see that the pious liberals often love groups in the abstract, and do not care much for members of those groups. He relished standing that situation on its head: he skewered groups, but went out of his way to befriend and help members of those groups who happened to be struggling writers.
 * Was undismayed by both the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. He supported Germany in WWI because he saw Germany as a superior culture on the march, and saw dismay at the Third Reich as just more anti-German sentiment. I do not know if he ever commented in writing on the Holocaust (which did not become general knowledge until Allied troups invaded concentration camps in 1945.) The Holocaust was fully consistent with his low opinion of the general run of humanity. But it did contradict his belief in the relative superiority of Germany.
 * Went into decline because be hated FDR and the New Deal, and because he could not stomach the fascination socialism held for 1930s intellectuals. He saw the Great Depression as just desserts, given what he saw as the American propensity for self-delusion.
 * Will be remembered as an American humorist and prose stylist, and as a shrewd student of human nature. Recall that humor tends to the conservative and to the politically incorrect. Mencken is not all that striking if one recalls Swift, Sydney Smith, Mark Twain, Flann O'Brien, and P J O'Rourke.202.36.179.65 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you take his views into the contemporary, much of the 'esteemed' value is severely diminished. While remaining unbiased, it is however important that the Wikipedia also includes this.

November 19th, 2006

As a Mencken collector and someone who keeps the volumes of The American Language as a reference, I think I can agree on almost all of your points. I think that if Walter Lippmann's comment about his influence on a whole generation of Americans is not included in this article, it should be. As my grandparents lived down the street from Mencken and were the Jews on Mencken's block, I have heard stories about him from the time I was young. College journalism students would, I think, not appreciate his humor and it is my feeling that young people would simply view him as a racist. It takes a lot of reading of Mencken to understand enough to appreciate his wit. His book In Defense of Women is one of his best short works. I don't think that his volumes on theology or morals are regarded or remembered by those who write about such complex issues today. It's a shame that The American Mercury descended to the depths of Jew-baiting and Ku Kluxery many years after he left it.

--Dec. 28 2006-- Mike  meabrams@earthlink.net

Quotes?
What's with the giant section of quotes at the bottom of the page, which are added stripped of context; isn't that what Wikiquote is for? Besides, they looked bloated, ugly, unprofessional, and takes up a ridiculous amount of space, and are of little use. I'm voting for deletion of that section. I'd like to hear what other people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson (talk • contribs)


 * They are bloated because they use, which draws the box around them, thus using a lot of space.  I think Mencken's quotes are very good, but I favor putting them in a bulleted list or something.  It seems to me that the purpose of the quotation thing is when you are putting in one quote, and it doesn't work well for multiple quotes.  I added one earlier today, and I followed the format of the existing ones.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These should definitely be moved to Wikiquote; they are not really encyclopedic. -- Beland 06:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's OK by me, except I think the one about horse laughs should stay here also, since it is quoted so often. Is that OK?  Bubba73 (talk), 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag
While the content in this article is not perfect, we should not think that most other top-class Wikipedia articles are. As I explained in the comments I appended to my edits, simply re-arranging the page actually renders many of the neutrality concerns harmless for a reader's perception - and this in turn renders the neutrality tag superfluous.

Unless anyone can provide a very valid reason, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. It cheapens the page more than the prejudicial content does (that is, by extension, more than the prejudicial content warrants).

Kind regards to all, Scotsman

"American Nietzsche"?
I had to remove this from the article, as I'm not able to find any really substantiated source referring to Mencken as "the American Nietzsche" (with good reason).

He translated Antichrist, and was amused by Friedrich, or possibly by the reactions of the churchly. That he was not blinded by the man's ideas is plain enough in Treatise on Right and Wrong, which I cannot quote here without giving pretext for deletion but on pp. 76, 284 and especially 318 you will see he sizes up Friedrich the same as any other man. I suspect the idea is to try to rally a lynch mob of fanatics against Mencken, and it matters little whether they be religious, ethnic or racial in orientation. The same is applied to his individualist student, Ayn Rand. She admits in writing he was her idol, favorite columnist and exemplary individualist philosopher but mention the fact in the Ayn Rand entry and the text is deleted immediately. I guess the idea is to depict her as foreign and influenced by foreign thinkers even if it means deleting the facts. translator 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have again listed Ayn Rand as influenced by Mencken--as claimed by her in a letter published in Letters of Ayn Rand. She also listed him as her favorite columnist in a recent book on Rand by Jeff Britting (fac-simile image included). Recent smears seek to depict Mencken as an anti-Jewish racist. A book by Teachout does this on practiclaly every page, but lists on a single page all the things Mencken did FOR Jewish individuals when National Socialism ruled Germany. Anyone missing that page is left with the smear impression. Ayn Rand was herself Jewish, and the effort may be an attempt to isolate her ideologically from Mencken. Both are painted as worshippers of Friedrich Nietzsche. Mencken did translate Antichrist, but makes it clear in "A Treatise on Right and Wrong" (pp 5-6, 76, 227, 284, 318) that he found fault with much of what the writer had to say. translator (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
As a Non-Jewish, Non-Trotskyite, I would like to add to the clamour regarding the bias of this article. It is simply written in an opinionated way; it's more of a personal essay than an encyclopedic entry. Everything Mencken did is purported to be "legendary" or "nearly unheard of at the time." This article needs to be flagged, because it's not up to wik standards.72.78.165.37 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Style" section reads pretty strongly hagiographically, to me. It passes (positive) value judgements in a way that really doesn't seem neutral or encyclopedic. I eventually got really sick of reading it. It read like a self-serving blurb on a dust jacket of some pretentious author from today, something which Mencken almost certainly would have ridiculed. Ghamming 19:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Organization
It seems like the Life section is very poorly organized. It mentions his influences, etc. which should probably be under the "style" section. Also, it doesn't mention his educational background or lack thereof. Any thoughts? Wikipediarul e s 2221 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is too easily invaded by vandals for me to invest much in articles. Anything nice said about an individualist is deleted with shrieks of "hagiography" by someone enamored of the word. Simultaneously, the articles are loaded down with verbiage so slanted as to depict claimants of individual rights as a) racist and b) either atheists or mystical extremists. Since I admire Mencken, I cannot contribute without the certain knowledge that saboteurs will obfuscate, deface, distort or elide whatever nonnegative things I have to say. I therefore choose to contribute at my own websites, off-limits to grafitti censorship. If this sounds like exaggeration, please visit the discussion behind the Ayn Rand entry and see for yourself. translator 06:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)