Talk:What Is the What

Placing the book within the larger international frame of peace/conflict/activism etc
I think that perhaps a bit more along the lines of how this book is related to current Sudan activism (Darfur, CPA, South Sudan etc.) could be useful. The book obviously comes at a very particular time in Sudanese history, and is notably promogulated in current activist circles (ie its sale alongside Prendergast's new book at a UC Berkeley STAND event featuring Predergast and Eggers as speakers). Particularly seeing as how the proceeds of the book are for Deng's charity foundation, which works in the transition of Sudanese "lost boys" and the post-war rebuilding of South Sudan; would a new section in the article, something along the lines of "the book's location within international politics and activism" be suitable? Escherelate (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Loosely based...
I have edited your additions, particularly the word "loosely." By calling it a "novel" the reader knows it is fiction. Yet as revealed by the book's short preface, Eggers spent several years interviewing Deng. "I told my story orally to the author," Deng writes. "He then concocted this novel, approximating my own voice and using the basic events of my life as the foundation." I think using the term "loosely" is misleading.

In this manner, "What Is the What" is a kind of nonfiction novel, like Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood," or (an albeit, ghost-written) memoir, like Eggers' AHWOSG.

As Gore Vidal stated in his own memoir: "a memoir is how one remembers one's own life, while an autobiography is history, requiring research, dates, facts double-checked." --D-Looth 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This entry is severely slanted towards one perspective on the novel. I wish I knew more about coding in Wikipedia, but this needs to be labeled as a biased stub. The block of text from ONE critic takes up have the description of the book. Having read the book, this bit of criticism is irksome and should not be considered as a primary viewpoint on a very long and complex work. Block quotes of critics do not belong in a main description anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.161.180 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the acknowledgements section of the book includes a host of top-level experts such as John Prendergast, Martha Saaverda. Such consultation implies a signifcantly sophisticated level of research, and this seems to strengthen the argument for more "non-fiction" tendencies and less "loosely based" tendencies.Escherelate (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the novel by Lee Siegel
Regarding the latest addition after the lee seigel quote:

I added a bit of Egger's and Deng's own discussion of what seemed pertinent to the issues raised in Siegel's quote. I thought Siegel's criticism was (beyond my personal subjective evaluation) raising some points about how the novel was constructed, the identity of Valentino, and the relationship between the two, particularly the question of orientalism and the implied western vs. other 'arrogances.' I thougt it would be important to offer a more rounded discussion of these points; as they obviously weigh heavily in a discussion of fact/fiction, but by doing so seem to bring in issues (ie orientalism) that hold certain connotations and discursive wieght of their own. In my opinion, these issues, newly introduced by the Siegel quote, must be properly addressed (or at least counterbalanced) as well.

Also, is there a specific locale of the article where a mention of the Valentino Achak Deng Foundation (http://www.valentinoachakdeng.org/) belongs? It is mentioned in the external links section, but referred to as "Valentino Achak Deng's personal webpage," that website is in fact much more than a "personal website." It is actually the website for his charity foundation, an agency rather than a person. Also, the foundation which the website is for, is very directly related to the novel itself; the proceeds of the book are being given to the foundation. I think this is something pertitent to the book, but I'm not sure where in the article to place it, no section seems to rightly fit.

I'm new here, any tips/comments would be appreciated! Escherelate (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this deletion from the article.

I realize that many people love this novel and can't stand to see a critical opinion of it, but please, don't delete sourced material. Wikipedia is not fan site and Lee Siegel's opinion is notable. As far as I know, it is the only notable opinion that takes a less than fawning position about the book.

Here it is in full for the record.


 * However not all critics were impressed. Lee Siegel sees as much of Dave Eggers in the novel as Deng, unable to tell the two apart, saying: "Where is the dignity in that? How strange for one man to think that he could write the story of another man, a real living man who is perfectly capable of telling his story himself -- and then call it an autobiography. It is just one more instance of the accelerating mash-up of truth and falsehood in the culture, which mirrors and -- who knows? -- maybe even enables the manipulation of truth in politics. And Eggers's book is also another unsettling thing. I never thought I would reach for this vocabulary, but What Is the What's innocent expropriation of another man's identity is a post-colonial arrogance -- the most socially acceptable instance of Orientalism you are likely to encounter."

-- Middle Aged (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with Mark Twain
Regarding this entry:


 * Francine Prose of the New York Times Book Review compares Eggers's fictionalizing with Mark Twain: "One distinction is that a masterpiece like Twain's (Adventures of Huckleberry Finn) can make us feel exactly what it was like to live at another time, in another culture; it's easier for the novel than for even the most incisive biography or historical study to make the reader experience the subject from the inside."

Francine Prose is not comparing What Is the What to Huckleberry Finn, considered one of the greatest masterpieces of American fiction - she is making a general point about how novels are able to transcend non-fiction to "make us feel exactly what it was like to live at another time, in another culture" - her point (if you read her entire pieces) is essentially an apology of why fiction matters and is important. That's all fine and good but she is not making a value judgment that What Is the What is as good as Huckleberry Finn. -- Middle Aged (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

orientalism
It is unfortunate that the only page in Wikipedia about the book is done to highlight a controversy. While it is a part of our democratic principles to allow for all opinions, this book deserves more. As to the reference to orientalism, there is a profound difference here in that Mr. Deng sought out Mr Eggers to author the book for him. This is not the case of a western re-write of history. Mr. Deng's Foundation, funded by the book, is laudable, this opinion is not. Madonna1269 (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Madonna1269
 * Agreed. Have at it!  --AStanhope (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see more also. I think the problem is someone added a "controversy" section heading - it's not a controversy, it's a literary critic opinion, and framed that way. The long "response" paragraph that follows Lee's quote doesn't really help IMO. If you read Lee's quote, it says how strange to call it an autobiography because 1) it's a fictionalized novel 2) it's not written by the author. It's a valid criticism, it's not an autobiography. I agree the orientalism charge might be overly harsh, Deng has confirmed the story is mostly accurate. All this comes back to trust in the narrator which is perfectly acceptable within literary criticism. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Article title
Someone keeps changing the article name to include the books sub-title. According to the rules on book article titles, sub-titles should not be used unless for disambig purposes. Naming_conventions_%28books%29. The article should be called simply What Is the What, as it was previously. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lee Siegel revisited
The enormous block quote persistently inserted by Middle Aged has hereby been truncated. Lee Siegel's opinion, as stated by Middle Aged, is one of the very few notable negative criticisms of Eggers/Deng's work, and it should be cited. But no one should have to read the most biting paragraph in the critical essay in the middle of a general, expository article that attempts to describe the book generally. The block quote took up as much space as the introductory paragraph about the book, and was featured far more prominently than any other critic's opinions - which, good or bad, should indeed be included as succinctly as possible in a Wikipedia article. Anyone wanting to delve into deeper analysis can quite easily look down at the source links and read Siegel's article in its own original context.

-- Sempriniwalrus (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Luol Deng
Also the brother of Chicago Bulls forward Luol Deng —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.234.121 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that's true, and the biographical info in Luol Deng's article in no way supports it. I'm removing the info from the article. If you have a source, please produce it.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  19:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)