Talk:J. G. Ballard/Archive 1

Kindness not exactly a sequel
The Kindness of Women is not a sequel of Empire. It tells the story of Empire in the first 3 chapters, but tells it differently. Having compared it to Miracles, I can tell you that Kindness is closer to the autobiography than to the novel (i.e. Empire). That parenthetical comment should be edited out.--James.kerans (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Life
I wrote a new biography of JGB, basing it mostly on the biographical interview in Re/Search: JGB and J. Baxter's bio in The Literary Encyclopedia. (Though Baxter appears to have based most of her article on the Re/Search interview also.) Because I think one of the most interesting and relevant questions about his life is the extent to which the Jamie/Jim/James Ballard characters in his stories correspond to JG Ballard the author, I added some brief discussion about autobiographical elements in Empire, Kindness and Crash. Any more on this topic (and there's plenty of source material to draw on) should probably go either in a section about his writing or in the articles for the individual books.

A few points I would like to see cleared up:


 * My sources appear to indicate that Ballard was rejected ("cashiered") by the RAF, but I couldn't find a definite statement of why he left (after serving two years). I don't have Kindness at hand; does it offer an explanation?
 * What happened at the 1957 London Science Fiction Convention? Was Ballard disgusted by the fans, by the other authors, or what? Apparently it had some kind of aftermath, with JGB speaking out and (possibly?) alienating the sci-fi community.
 * In numerous interviews and letters (over many years), Ballard refers to his girlfriend. If he's been seeing (or living with) the same woman for a considerable amount of time, that might be worth mentioning.

I might tackle the sections about his writing next. I think they need some work.

Snarkibartfast 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To my questions, Kindness describes that he was fired from the RAF for disobeying orders when he took a plane out for a spin. Not sure how much of that story to believe, but it does support the notion that he was dishonourably discharged. About SF Cons, Ballard says "[The Science Fiction Field] loathed me. I was a virus that had entered their immaculate cell, infiltrating their cellular machinery to create this cancerous monster. I was Public Enemy Number One. I went to one or two science fiction conventions and was almost physically assaulted." That doesn't make it a whole lot clearer, though. On the other hand, his girlfriend is identified in the annotated Atrocity Exhibition as Claire Churchill, and references from 1967 to 2007 show that it's clearly a long-term relationship. --Snarkibartfast 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the first paragraph that mentions that Empire of the Sun is autobiographical should be changed to say that it is fiction based on his experiences. Indeed, in the front of the book Ballard says: "Empire of the Sun draws on my experiences in Shanghai, China during the Second World War, and in Lunghua C.A.C where I was interned from 1942-45. For the most part this novel is based on events I observed during the Japanese occupation of Shanghai and within the camp at Lunghua." He does not say that the book is his biography.

Some of the events in Empire of the Sun did not happen and in an article Ballard wrote for the Sunday Times Review (20 August 1995) he gives a more accurate chronology. (This is confirmed by the archives of my father who was also interned in Lunghua). Empire of the Sun indicates that the Japanese interned Europeans and Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor (which was on 8 December 1941 in Shanghai). In fact Ballard's Sunday Times Review article states that it was only those in senior administrative positions that were arrested, for everyone else life went on as before (albeit, restricted by the Japanese occupation). The internment actually started on the 17 March 1943, fifteen months later. All of the internees had been given a letter indicating that they would be interned, giving a detailed list of the items that they should take with them. The order also gave each person a number and stated the place where they would be picked up and transported to the camp. It was very organised. My father's archives confirm this: my grandfather had time to create a list of everything in his house, and he was able to pack the most valuable items in packing cases and have these stored.

The forced march at the end of the book did not happen. Again, Ballard states this in his Sunday Times Review article. On 8 August 1945 they woke up to discover that there were no guards in the camp. That was it. No march. Most of the internees remained in the camp for many weeks. For example, my father and grandmother left on the 31 August (and returned on a Red Cross ship to England), but my grandfather remained in the camp until 20 October, and did not return to England until six months later.

As you can see there are many historical inaccuracies in the book. This does not diminish the value of the book as fiction, but it does show that the book is not biographical.

User:RichardGrimes 17 August 2006


 * The introduction describes Empire of the Sun as an autobiographical novel. From the article:

While the events of the author's life are recounted, there is no pretense of neutrality or even exact truth."
 * "An autobiographical novel is a novel based on the life of the author. The literary technique is distinguished from an autobiography or memoir by the stipulation of being fiction. Names and locations are often changed and events are recreated to make them more dramatic but the story still bears a close resemblance to that of the author.


 * This seems to fit the description of "fiction based on his experiences". Snarkibartfast 08:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: Thanks for the corrections regarding dates. I will fix the other statements to retain consistency with the corrected dates. I just came across this quote by Ballard, which seemed appropriate: "It's curious to realize that a lot of the basic facts one has about oneself are wrong."

I have made the change accordingly. John Lunney 15:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back, since Empire is clearly an autobiographical novel by the definition used (it's a novel in which the main character, Jim, is based on JGB, and the main story, Jim's internment in a Japanese prison camp, is based on his experiences). The fact that it's a novel implies that it is fiction. The term "semi-autobiographical novel" does not seem to apply, given how that term is defined in the article. Also, Empire is listed as an example of an autobiographical novel in the article, and&mdash;most importantly&mdash;JGB has (implicitly) referred to it as such. ("I think Crash is, in a way, my most autobiographical novel, notwithstanding Empire of the Sun which was actually about my childhood in Shanghai. Crash is an autobiographical novel in the sense that it is about my inner life, my imaginative life. It is true to that interior life, not the life I have actually led.") Though this is a silly thing to start a revert war over. --Snarkibartfast 05:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. --John Lunney 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the section on The Atrocity Exhibition is incorrect where it talks about the ICA presentation of The Assassination Weapon. I own this show's original manuscript and I've been in touch with the writer/producer, Stewart McKenzie. Ballard did not produce this show, but he did attend a presentation. As Stewart said in an email to the JGB yahoo chat group on Sun Jul 30, 2006, responding to a query if he was part of the organization: "Not one of the people, the person. I put it together with people from the Human Family, an English version of the Living Theater, working out of the Arts Laboratory under the exuberant patronage of Nigel Samuel, and students from one of the London theater colleges who provided actors and early multi-media technicians. We put on a demo at the ICA and Ballard came to see it, he loved it and invited me to join him in a video about the sexuality of car crashes which, I confess, sounded unappealing.  It was performed at the ICA for about a week with the title "The Assassination Weapon, A Transmedia Search for Reality" some time in 1968 or 1969.  It was performed a couple of times after that at the Regent Street Polytechnic School of Architecture and The Architectural Association. The show took Ballard's text from The Assassination Weapon with early analog electronic distortion and music, and played this back in surround streo around a vertical circular screen, about ten feet in diameter, which revolved slowly at the center of circles of concentric seats separated by four access corridors at the four cardinal points. The fire marshal required that the seats be fixed and I spent four days stapling chairs to a perfect hardwood floor, to the horror of my ICA minder. Once the audience was seated, the recording of The Assassination Weapon was played back and four projection tables shooting down the access corridors combined images on the revolving screen which could take front and back projection. I asked Jack Henry Moore, then the director of the Human Family, for a recommendation for the material for this screen, he recommended bed linen soaked in Parrafin (a flamable liquid), he said it took back projection beautifully. I decided that, after the trouble with the chairs, I would not go to the mat with the fire marshal on this one, it was a white plastic. The projection tables had a variety of image and light emitting parephanalia, still and movie projectors, boiling liquids (this was the sixties), rotating color filters. strobes, smoke machines, etc. There was an image script but some room for improvisation to exploit happy coincidences on the screen which could become quite complex since, in addition to the front and back projection, the sides of screen segments (it was made up of six pizza slices bolted together) caught projections as the screen rotated, introducing lines of color and fragments of images into the main projection. The English humor magazine "Punch" found it "Puzzling", the English manners magazine "The Lady" found it "Trying". We played to full houses at every performance. London was fun back then." I have scans of all the pages of McKenzie's original script and all his emails on my site: http://www.jgballard.ca/deep_ends/assassination_weapon_script.html --Rick McGrath (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Moorcock's Apocrypha
I've had this sitting around for a while not knowing what to do with it. Michael Moorcock posted a version of the JGB obituary he wrote for The Times to the forum of his personal website. This version has a few additional details that didn't make it into print, including a claim that Ballard had an affair with a named editor in the 70s (which presumably led to the break in his relationship with Claire Walsh). I'm not sure whether that post should qualify as a reliable source. On the one hand, we cite Moorcock elsewhere, and things he wrote himself on his own website is arguably and authority on him and his friends. On the other hand, there's probably a reason why The Times edited out these details (possibly to protect the person being referred to). If anyone can find a second independent source, I say we put it in. Otherwise, let's leave it here on the talk page. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai: American or British?
Users Scope creep and Bickers have been changing the statement that the Shanghai International Settlement was dominated by American influences to say "British interests". The original phrasing was based on JGB's interview in Re/Search:JGB, quoted as follows:

"Shanghai was an American zone of influence. All the foreign nationals there lived an American style of life. They had American-style houses, air-conditioning and refrigerators, and American cars. I never saw an English car until I came to Britain in 1946. We had Coca-Cola&mdash;and American-style commercial radio stations [...] and they were blaring out American programs and radio serials. [...] And of course there were American films on show in the cinemas which I went to from an early age. [...] [A]s well as American comics and the American mass magazines of the day, Collier's, Life and so on."

Since the purpose of the biography is to explain the milieu in which JGB grew up, not to debate the political situation in 1930's China, I will restore the original wording. - Snarkibartfast 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wind title
The article and at least one other (Dystopia) refer to The Wind That Came From Nowhere. I know this book as The Wind From Nowhere. I can't find official references to the former title; internet searches reveal many hits but all seem to be encyclopedia articles, perhaps all from the same tainted source. I will alter this. Also other details from Nicholls Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1979). Notinasnaid 12:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categories
I removed one redundant cat, but the remaining ones could still use a little squeezing. I also question Ballard's identification as a novelist, since he's probably primarily a writer of short fiction rather than novels, and it would be insane to specify for every writer whether they are writers of novels, short fiction, or both. But maybe that's an objection to the whole category of novelists. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 23:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ballard is no more a short story writer as he stopped writing short fiction in the middle of the 1990s. Currently he's a novelist, period.--213.140.21.227 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Dystopia?
The article reads "his most common genre is dystopia". I don't think this is correct. I haven't read all of his works, but what I have read wasn't a dystopia. Can anyone correct me, before I remove this statement? Notinasnaid 09:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't read his works after "Empire of the Sun", but those before appear to centre upon characters who embrace and are embraced by what to others is seen as a dystopia. So although the statement is correct so far as the setting is concerned, it is incorrect so far as the central characters are concerned.  The disturbance felt by some (most? all?) readers may be driven by the unwelcome recognition that they themselves can identify with these characters, while knowing at the same time that their response should be repugnance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.72.52 (talk • contribs)


 * Yeah, I would say that "dystopia" is too vague and imprecise a term to describe the bulk of Ballard's work. "Hello America" is post-apocalyptic but not especially dystopian.  One could argue that one of his most recent novels, "Super Cannes," is dystopian, but not in the traditional sense that one thinks of with novels such as "1984," the classic example.  I think we need further discussion before you remove it, but I agree that it is not accurate. ---Charles 21:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Ballard is a pretty strikingly individual writer - don't be too surprised that he bends the boundaries of genre! I must've read about 75% or more of his work, and I would say "dystopia" is a not inappropriate word to use for some of his key writings. Certainly I think it's fair enough to have in the article as orientation for the casual wiki reader who's never heard of JG Ballard before.--feline1 22:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "dystopia" is an good overall description of Ballard's work, although it comes a little closer to being appropriate for the more recent works then it does for his earlier ones. A "dystopia" is the inverse of a utopia, i.e. a society in which values are inverted, nothing works, the human spirit is repressed, etc. -- "1984" is the classic example.  Ballard's stuff is really not much like that.  Things in early Ballard novels have gone horribly wrong, but not from the malfunctioning of society: the cause is mysterious and seems at times to be the revenge of nature against humanity.  His early stuff is in fact more closely related to the disaster novel than it is to dystopian literature.


 * I suppose that "dystopian" might be marginally true as a description of the later novels, but he seems much more concerned with aberrant psychology than with aberrant society (although it too plays a part). I just I think that saying "dystopian" is more likely to mislead a new reader than to provide an accurate thumbnail. unfutz 07:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think dystopian is wrong, as well. Ballard writes psychological novels of "inner space". He's not interested in society, especially bourgeoise, and focusses almost entirely on the individual. As he said in his 1983 NME interview: "John Wyndham's 'Day Of The Triffids' is ... a fine novel, a classic example of the English kind of Home Counties catastrophe fiction, a very polite society where all kinds of private obsessions are kept firmly buttoned down and people struggle together in the face of an external threat as they did during the Battle of Britain, or as we're led to believe they did during the Battle of Britain. My novel [The Drowned World] turns all that upside down. The hero embraces the catastrophe as a means by which he can express and fulfil his own nature, pursue his own mythology to the end, whatever that may be. He can accept the logic of his own personality and run that logic right down to the end of the road. That's a different approach. That's what 'The Drowned World' is about. That's what nearly all my fiction is about." Hardly dystopian... in fact, just the opposite: Ballard's characters blossom and fulfill themselves. --Rick McGrath (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That depends on what you view as "dystopian", obviously. As a Quaker and as an Old Labour type concerned with the fate of society as a whole, I consider these works grimly dystopian due to the fate of the vast majority of the human race, regardless of the solipsistic self-indulgence enjoyed by the protagonist. This insight of yours does, however, help me understand part of why I dislike Ballard so intensely. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ballard is a psychological writer, concerned with the psychopathology of man's inner world. He loves Freud and the Surrealists. He lives in the world of the deep imagination. In all his novels but one, Empire of the Sun, the landscape -- society -- is basically an extension of the character and is something which they struggle to understand and finally control. This is Ballard's "inversive" technique, a flip of the usual 19th-century narrative structure. Ballard's novels -- save his early "natural disaster" stories -- have nothing to do with the "fate of the vast majority" of anything. However, as you dislike JG intensely, does it matter? --Rick McGrath (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you could describe Ballard's work with one word such as "dystopia", I believe his work fits into many styles, and there are many adjectives that could be used - too many to include in one sentence.--Electronic Music (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Links
I attempted a clean up of links. I removed some that would be superceeded if the article became a featured one and some non-authorative info. i puzzled about the rickmcgrath.com lnks. They are not officially sourced but provide a lot of valuable info, poss infringement of copyright also. I tried to find a way of linking to one page on spikemagazine.com that would list all JG Ballard info but was unsuccessful Fordescort79 23:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think thet list looks well cleaned-up. Am taking of fthe tag for it now.  nice job! -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The link to my JGB site is out-of-date -- it's #4 under "References". I changed a few sections and it was a casualty. Perhaps just a link to my JGB portal page? http://www.rickmcgrath.com/jgb.html Rick McGrath (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the link - but if the info referenced s not longer on your site, I should remove the ref entirely. Is it still there, but at another place? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 4 of "Notes" under "References" still lists a link to my old site.. I've now created a JGB-only site: www.jgballard.ca... I note this section can't be edited by guys like me... can one of you change it please? Rick McGrath (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made that change. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, these sections can be edited by anyone, but you have to look for it where the (first) footnote appears in the text. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Rick was referring to a COI issue - he was taken to task in the past for posting links to his website on multiple pages. I thought they were legitimate adds (which they were -- informative and non-commmercial) but they were removed as spam and it took a bit of discussion before things were straightened out.  I think he's just being cautious as a result. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Gotcha. Snarkibartfast (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New worlds assassination.jpg
Image:New worlds assassination.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent news
A note on the news of Ballard's health has been added to the lead. It's been formatted, but I'm not sure whether the opening paragraph is the best place for it. --Mr R 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Autobiography deletion
I notice that Ballard's Miracles of Life is being considered for deletion. --S. C. 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC) After a discussion it was decided to keep it--luckily.--James.kerans (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Crash! (1971)
If this is the same thing I'm thinking (part of which can be found on YouTube), this a BBC production and appeared on television, so it should be listed there, not under Filmography. Am I right? ArdClose (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, would it be appropriate to list some YouTube links to these? "Home" and "Thirteen to Centaurus" are on there in their entirety I believe. ArdClose (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Announced death
Ballard's death was announced in a short paragraph on Jeff Vandermeer's blog an hour ago - his death been added to this article as fact, as a result, but this is premature if the blog of an unrelated (?) writer is the only source we've got. Already blogs and Twitters have been announcing that Wikipedia has "confirmed" the death, but we're in no place to do this - Wikipedia should source the news, it shouldn't try to break the news itself from lesser sources. This may well mean sitting it out and waiting for the Monday morning papers to confirm it. A sad afternoon. --McGeddon (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We've now got a possible confirmation from Michael Moorcock, in a forum. This isn't a great source, but I think we can cite it for what it is. --McGeddon (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC News have it as breaking news now. 19.17 BST 19th April 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.134.59 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Now confirmed in a short article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8007331.stm --McGeddon (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)



Popular music section
This is getting a little crufty; loads of unreferenced speculation and stuff which is not really relevant to the subject of this article. I will trim out anything that is still unreferenced in one week. --John (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

British/English edits
Ballard was born in Shanghai. When he travelled to the United Kingdom, he had never lived there before, so he wasn't "returning" there. He certainly lived in England, but his citizenship was of the United Kingdom, the usual adjectival form for is "British" not "English". In what respect can Ballard be said to be "English"? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Similarly, Ballard died in London, which is certainly in England, a constituent part of the United Kingdom -- so an ibox place of death entry which says "London, UK" would be correct, as would "London, England, UK", but "London, England" is incomplete. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now changed the text to correctly state his family returned to England - they were English. He largely regarded as being an English writer - the notion that he wasn't in rather odd. He wasn't Chinese and his parents were not Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. Also, if you look at other articles, you will see they usually state "London, England" or "Glasgow, Scotland" in stead of "Glasgow, UK" etc as it conveys more detail.

92.14.248.126 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No matter where he was born, he was English, his parents were English, and he went to live in England. Also, to talk of London, England, being incomplete because it lacks "UK" would be very unusual, as is replacing Surrey with UK. I edited the "return" sentence to say his mother returned with him and his sister, which fudges the issue, though I do agree that he "returned" too. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, 92, we had some kind of edit conflict there. When I first looked at the text, I thought it said British again. :-) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs


 * I want to point to this essay, and also point out that this article was stable in this respect for a very long time until an IP came along and was willing to edit war over their own PoV. Also, 92.14.248.126, you should log in and use your Wikipedia ID when making contentious edits such as this. Slim Virgin, you used to be an admin, you should know better than to enable this "IP editor" in this way.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As per almost every other instance on Wikipedia, adding U.K to constituent countries is considered to look too clumsy and unncessary - hence it not being present on nearly every other article. Also, I don't believe the edits were contentious - they were merely adding detail to the article. Surely your instant revert was contentious and equally pushing your own POV?

92.14.248.126 (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits were to restore the long time stable status of that aspect of the article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, for someone who says that have no WP username, editing from an IP which has been used for these edits only, you claim to know an awful lot about standards and practices on Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Ed, the article had "England/English" throughout (and was indeed long-time stable in that form) up until 19 April, when an IP editor changed it to "UK/British." I think the original wording is better (well, I wrote it), and don't particularly appreciate the anonymous editing to impose a personal wording preference on perfectly well-phrased statements, so I would have changed it back if the other anonymous IP and SlimVirgin hadn't got to it before me. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, at this point I'm totally confused, not only about who did what (and when), but about what is the best option, so I'm backing off. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

JGB and science fiction
Orange Mike and I had a discussion over on my talk page about whether it's relevant to this page that JGB's agent possibly denied that Ballard's books were science fiction. (The statement is confusing enough to admit multiple interpretations.) My view is that this might be worth mentioning in an article about how people define SF, or here if we actually had a section about Ballard's relationship with the genre, but that it's not notable in the context of "critique and influence" of his work. Consequently, I'm going to delete the paragraph soonish. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

References and Bibliography
I've noticed that there's a lot of duplications and inconsistent formatting among the references. When I originally wrote the biography I used APA-style citations (like so: (Snarkibartfast 2006)) listed in the Bibliography, and some later editor, violating Wikipedia policy, tried to convert these to footnotes listed in the References section, but didn't move the citation info properly. Given that we're probably stuck with this format (I don't personally like the footnotes format because it makes it very hard to scan the reference list, but I won't try to revert the change after this much time has passed) I'd like to fix things up so that the bibliography only includes those universally helpful sources that form the basis for the whole article, not just specific statements, and so that all the references are formatted consistently using the templates. For a date format, I suggest "25 April 2009". Any objections to this? - Snarkibartfast (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to "James Graham Ballard"
User:Mibelz moved this article from "J. G. Ballard" to "James Graham Ballard" without - so far as I can see - any discussion. Using Ballard's full name rather than the much more prevalent "J. G." goes against WP:COMMONNAMES, unless I've missed some posthumous rebranding. Does anyone have any objections to the article being moved back? --McGeddon (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i support move back--Buridan (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, move it back. J.G. is the name he used professionally. (A few weeks ago when someone was trying to move Ringo Starr to Richard Starkey. Madness).  freshacconci  talk talk  12:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and moved it. We don't need further consensus per WP:COMMONAME and WP:BOLD.  freshacconci  talk talk  12:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I most definitely support the move back. J. G. is so much more common, I often have trouble remembering what the initials stand for.  ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  12:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support move back. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already been moved back; I was just checking on the talk page in case I'd missed some reason for Mibelz's original move. --McGeddon (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this
Those who know Ballard from his autobiographical novels will not be prepared for the subject matter that Ballard most commonly pursues, as his most common genre is dystopia. I think they might say - being torn away from your parents and home and thrown in a concentration camp might predispose you to write about the end of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 September 2009
 * ? That's not in the article now. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just explaining why I made the edit changing that sentence.Nitpyck (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Recognized authorities and "fan sites"
On 20. Nov 2009, Piano non troppo removed the set of links below with reference to WP:LINKSTOAVOID.
 * jgballard.com – Unofficial site with extensive links
 * Ballardian: The World of JG Ballard
 * J.G. Ballard Collection & Archive
 * J.G. Ballard Excerpts - Excerpts of interviews with Ballard, including his writings and essays on Ballard, from RE/Search

I'd like to restore most of these (because they contain a wealth of useful, high-quality material) on the grounds that they fit the "those written by a recognized authority" exception clause to the restriction on links to fansites. Ballardian.com is curated by Simon Sellars, who did his PhD thesis on Ballard and has had several peer-reviewed papers on him published. The RE/Search site is a selection of excerpts from the numerous books on Ballard they have published, with writers such as V. Vale and David Pringle, well-known and oft-cited experts on Ballard. jballard.com is a Spike Magazine site apparently run by Chris Hall, who at least interviewed Ballard on several occasions. jgballard.ca is run by Rick McGrath, but although he seems to be part of the same crowd as the RE/Search writers, I haven't been able to find anything that separately establishes him as an authority (apart from the site itself).

The latter two sites could perhaps go, but I think the Ballardian and RE/Search links should be restored. Maybe instead of "fan sites" they should be listed as "general sites"? - Snarkibartfast (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that this entry quotes several posts from ballardian.com? That in itself should ensure it is viewed as a "recognized authority", in addition to Snarkibartfast's comments above. On top of that, it is not a blog, nor a fansite but a magazine/journal that features contributions from academics and writers well known and recognised for their work on Ballard, as well as interviews with people such as Iain Sinclair, Bruce Sterling and Michael Moorcock. On the basis of all of this, I'm restoring ballardian.com to the external links category. Saichan (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of these sites, particularly ballardian.com and jgballard.ca. Both these sites are run by leading experts on Ballard as evidenced by both Simon Sellars and Rick McGrath being cited in the catalogues for the two major Ballard exhibitions in Barcelona (CCCB) (linking to this site has been blocked by Wikipedia) and London (Gagosian) http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/2010-02-11_crash/ Uncle Bill (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with my removal, as well... I've had 11 articles on Ballard published on Ballardian, host the JG Ballard Secondary Bibliography on my site (only one of its kind), have the most comprehensive collection of info about Ballard in Shanghai (including a map he drew for me of the layout of his house), and my site is regularly visited by scholars & journalists, writers and designers who wish to know more, have facts checked, or borrow scans of my Ballard artifacts -- the largest in the world. Material of suspect copyright -- JG's "unpublished work" -- I've removed. My site also contains the largest collection of Ballard interviews. I don't run a fan site or a blog... my site is a collection of artifacts, information, links, criticism, and priceless historical documents, like the complete run of Dave Pringle's "News From The sun" and "JGB News" fanzines, which he's allowed me to post. Plus the world's largest collection of his books, 80 of which, plus various magazines and ephemera, were given their own display room at the CCCB's 2008 "JGB: autopsy" exhibition -- and got me a free ride to the show's opening. I was also a member of a panel discussion on "SF and Technology" at the Shanghai to Shepperton Conference held at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, in 2007. And I'm not one of Vale's writers, altho I know V, having met him at the private Ballard Memorial at the Tate last November. I'm a Canadian living in Toronto. And, oddly enough,. you cite my site as a "reference" for Note 7... (Rick McGrath (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Ballard archives
Ballard's archives have been acquired by the British Library. Anyone know where's best to mention this? --Ibn (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been reverted by a bot to as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Image needed for Commons
When preparing Editathon, British Library, I discovered that Commons has no photo of Ballard and the one used in this article is fair use only. Anyone care to investigate where one might be able to find a PD or CC-BY image? --Fæ (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Internment
I undid the change by SpellChecker to the date of Ballard's interment, per the 17 Aug 2006 comment by User:RichardGrimes in the archived discussion. If a source is needed for the 1943 date (avoiding ones that appear to be based on this article) how about this ? -Snarkibartfast (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"75-hour installation"
Removed this sentence:


 * Along with the book, he also produced a 75-hour installation for the ICA called The Assassination Weapon, the title of one of the book's chapters, featuring a film about a deranged H-bomber pilot projected simultaneously on three screens to the sound of cars crashing.



The source appears to be a half-remembered aside in an obituary. However, it's trivially false: the installation was produced by Stewart McKenzie, and here's the original script for it and considerable discussion by knowledgeable participants (including McKenzie and David Pringle). And the "75 hours" claim appears to originate in thin air.

It may rate mention somewhere, but Ballard himself certainly didn't produce it and it certainly wasn't 75 hours long - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Errors in this entry flagged by Pringle
David Pringle is of course a noted Ballard scholar. He's a regular on the JGB Yahoo Groups mailing list, and posted this list of errata:


 * As for other factual errors still in the Wiki entry, they're mostly just minor dating errors (you can see where Will Self got some of his mistakes from in his recent Oxford University Press piece -- an over-reliance on Wikipedia):


 * "In 1946, after the end of the war, his mother returned to Britain with Ballard and his sister on the SS Arrawa."


 * It was in late 1945, not 1946; also "Arrawa" should be Arawa, with one "r."


 * "Ballard abandoned his medical studies, and in 1952 he enrolled at Queen Mary, University of London..."


 * It was in 1951 that he went to London, and he enrolled at QM in October '51; also, "Queen Mary" should be referred to historically as Queen Mary College: their dropping of the word college from their name is very recent.


 * "In 1953 Ballard joined the Royal Air Force..."


 * No, it was in the Spring of 1954. _Miracles of Life_ makes that very clear, if read carefully.


 * "Ballard left the RAF in 1954 after two years..."


 * No, it was in 1955, and he was in for just one year, not two. (Actually, it may have been 13 months -- April 1954 to May 1955 inclusive. His official date of termination as an acting pilot officer was 31st May 1955, as per the London Gazette, issue dated 1st July 1955).

Some of these have the cite right there, some don't - but if a press article says A and Pringle says B, Pringle is almost certainly right, and we need to check for good cites - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, Dave checked on Miracles of Life, Ballard's autobiography, and found that the dates in the Wiki article are wrong, and the correct dates are there--exactly those Dave Pringle found in his sources. I have already tried to correct the mistakes but someone cancelled all my correction. Could we know why? 93.40.32.87 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a recent message by Pringle on the JGB mailing list... with all the references... "K, I've just double-checked _Miracles of Life_ (4th Estate, 2008), and find that it does in fact verify a couple of the correct dates I gave. Ballard himself got it right:

"I managed to get a place at London University, at Queen Mary College, and started the degree course in October 1951." (p150)

"I signed on at the RAF recruitment offices in Kingsway, passed the assessment tests at RAF Hornchurch, near Dagenham, and started my three-month basic training at Kirton in Lindsey, in Lincolnshire. [...] In the autumn of 1954 we sailed for Canada on one of the Empress liners, and then spent a month at an RCAF base near London, Ontario..." (p162)

Even allowing for the three months' basic training, that makes it pretty clear that he signed on in 1954.

"... when I left the following spring..." (p163)

That follows on from the previous passage. So "the following spring" clearly implies 1955.

The next chapter, dealing with events immediately after JGB had left the RAF, is headed: "Miracles of Life (1955)." (p171)

Ballard got all these dates correct. Whoever wrote the Wiki entry just hasn't paid close enough attention to that primary "published source," his autobiography." I hope nobody is going to mess with the corrections. 93.40.32.87 (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone will probably claim that self-sources are obviously much less reliable than journalists playing a game of telephone with unchecked bits of information ... but we can mark the references appropriately - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I wrote most of that biography and provided many if not all of these dates, back in 2006. The reason I didn't "pay close enough attention" to Miracles of Life is that it had not yet been published at the time. As I said back then, my text was mostly based on the biographical interview in Re/Search: JGB, and on J. Baxter's bio in The Literary Encyclopedia. (Though Baxter appears to have based most of her article on the Re/Search interview also.) I would expect that most mistakes derive from these sources (as I recall, they conflicted in some details), though I cannot rule out that I may have introduced some of them by misinterpretation, attempting to reconcile variant information, or mistyping. (I am not, however, responsible for the other misspellings or errors of nomenclature, which were introduced in other edits.) I naturally welcome any corrections -- particularly since a more authoritative has since become available -- and I don't doubt that David Pringle is right on these points. - Snarkibartfast (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * J. Baxter - John Baxter (author)? His The Inner Man is full of holes and not a good source ... I'd double-check anything else from Baxter on the subject of Ballard - David Gerard (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, Jeannette Baxter. Never mind me! - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Pringle notes: "Yes, it was Jeannette Baxter who first perpetrated some of those dating errors in her short bio article on JGB. She's a very nice lady, though..." - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Will Self Oxford bio may be a circular reference
Self's piece for Oxford may not be a great reference to use - per the above section, it contains errors that appear to have been sourced from this very article, creating a circular reference. As such, any citations in the article to it could probably do with second and third sources - David Gerard (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Identification of the ODNB as source of the "eros, thanatos, mass media and emergent technologies" citation in the opening paragraph is amply sufficient.  Explicit mention of the author of the allegedly circular ODNB article in the opening paragraph is distracting and superfluous.  The ODNB article's author is already clearly referenced (and linked to) in the reference section.Pepperpicker (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mm, I disagree. That Will Self in particular said it will be useful to the reader in assessing what they think of it - David Gerard (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Claire Walsh just died
And rated a Guardian obituary. Should this article have a bit more about her? - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)