User talk:Esowteric/Archives/2017/February

The Signpost: 6 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Idris Shah
Hello, Esowteric - After reading today's featured article on one of Doris Lessing's novels, I read the article on her. From that article, I went to a linked article, Idris Shah and just finished skimming the entire article. Being a copy-editor, things just jump off the page sometimes, and I found something I have to ask someone about. I looked in the revision history and found that you had edited the article as recently as December. Then, to my dismay, I saw the semi-retired banner at the top of your user page, but my dismay turned to delight when I saw you were still actively editing. Here's what I found: in the middle of the large third paragraph of the section Idris Shah, I read this sentence:


 * He described Shahs' books as "trivial", replete with errors of fact, slovenly and inaccurate translations and even misspellings of Oriental names and words – "a muddle of platitudes, irrelevancies and plain mumbo-jumbo", adding for good measure that Shah had "a remarkable opinion of his own importance".

I have highlighted in bold the word I noticed. It looks like it is the possessive form of the plural form of the last name of Idris Shah. I figured it was probably a typo, and that it should be possessive form of the singular last name – Shah's books –, but since earlier in the article I read something about Idris Shah and his father publishing books together, and even this sentence, just after the one I just quoted:


 * He took a dim view of Rushbrook Williams' festschrift (collection written in honour of) Shah, saying he considered many of the claims made in the book on behalf of Shah and his father, concerning their representing the Sufi tradition, to be self-serving publicity marked by a "disarming disregard for facts".

seems to suggest that Idris and his father wrote the book. So it is possible that Elwell-Sutton really did mean both father and son. If he did mean father and son, it should read:


 * He described the Shahs' books... ("the" would need to be added)

If he meant only the books of the son, it should read:


 * He described Shah's books... (the apostrophe would have to be moved).

I may be wrong, but I think you may be more familiar with this topic and the materials than I am. Can you make the determination which was meant here, and fix it? Thanks, and best regards. – Corinne (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, Corinne. He was attacking [Idries] Shah's books, such as The Sufis, and also claims that were made in the festschrift about Shah and his father. Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  15:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)