Talk:Bruno Tolentino

Oxford Poetry Now

Mentioning Oxford Poetry Now, the article says it is "(a bogus title; perhaps it's Oxford Poetry which was intended, of which Auden was an editor during the 1920s)". All I know is that his book in English, "About the hunt", was published by "Oxford Poetry Now" and has its mark. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What I intended to say was that there is no English literary review with that exact title, "Oxford Poetry Now". There is "Oxford Poetry". If, however, Tolentino was an editor to "Oxford Poetry" during the 1960s or 1970s, as his Brazilian biographies claim he was, he could not be successor to W.H. Auden, who at the time was living in the USA and had long left editing of "Oxford Poetry" to others. As to the publisher of Tolentino's English book, "About the Hunt", I can say nothing about it, as I searched for it in the British Library online catalog - and it is not listed there (as are other books by him, all in Portuguese)Cerme (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you say, but I have a book of him on which it is printed "Oxford Poetry Now". You can check this info here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/About-Hunt-Bruno-Tolentino/dp/B001A17HV8. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I see is that the book is unavailable at Amazon.com.uk and there are no copies of it at the British Library. And the fact that it was published by a publishing house called Oxford Poetry Now does not prove the existence of a literary magazine going by the same nameCerme (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The journal Oxford Poetry Now did exist, it is cited in the catalogue of the Oxford University Libraries' portal, Olis, at http://library.ox.ac.uk/WebZ/OXSCAN?sessionid=01-46183-826266368. However, the numbers to which Bruno Tolentino contributed were edited by James Lindesay. The three copies that I possess are 2, Michaelmas 76, 3, Michaelmas 77 and 4, Trinity 88. Tolentino was the magazine's patron, not its editor. The volume About the Hunt was published under the Oxford Poetry Now imprint in 1978; I presented a copy to the library of the Taylor Institute, Oxford, which now appears on Olis at http://library.ox.ac.uk/WebZ/GeacQUERY?sessionid=01-42256-1321727741:termsrch-ti%3D=ABOUT^032THE^032HU+--%3E+40381612:format=B:next=html/geacnfbrief.html:bad=error/badsearch.html:entitytoprecno=1&entitycurrecno=1&numrecs=10&dbname=ADVANCE1. It seems that Tolentino never fulfilled his copyright obligations with Le Vrai Le Vain, which was published by La Part du Feu, an imprint of the magazine Actuels, in 1971; the only library copy that I am aware of is in the Albert Sloman Library at Essex University, see http://serlib0.essex.ac.uk/search/?searchtype=X&SORT=D&searcharg=Tolentino,+Bruno&searchscope=5, where Tolentino was working in some capacity in 1972, I am told. I was myself present in 15 May 1987 when Tolentino renewed his acquaintance with Yves Bonnefoy in Oxford and know that he knew Charles Tomlinson and Michael Hamburger. Other claims remain conjectural. His claims regarding publication with OUP, becoming poetry editor at OUP in succession to Auden, etc. are entirely fictional. However, Le Vrai Le Vain is a substantial book, perhaps one of his best, and I argue in the forthcoming edition of PN Review that the French poems are the originals. I believe that the article should mention Anulacao and the Revelacao prize that it won.Natterhatch (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Partiality

This article is too inspired in Alexei Bueno's opinion, which is very acid, dedicated more to the man than to the poetry, mentioning a case of plagiarism in a book written when Tolentino was 17 and not intended to be published in large scale (it was never cited by him within his works). After all, Alexei Bueno's opinion doesn't fit exacly in an encyclopedia form, to be our main source. This article lacks the other side, mentioning José Guilherme Merquior's, Ivan Junqueira's or Antonio Houaiss' opinions at least. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you will excuse me my poor English, I failed to gather what - "This article cares the other side, mentioning José Guilherme Merquior's, Ivan Junqueira's or Antonio Houaiss' opinions at least" - means. I suppose you say that my text is lopsided, as I mentioned only Bueno's personal sleighs on Tolentino, and that I failed to mention other proeminent Brazilian critics' opinions.

However, If you pay close attention to the text, you will see that:

(1)I quoted verbatim from Bueno's opinion about Tolentino's poetical technique (which is less than complimentary, but does not refer to his personal qualities).

(2) I have included Ivan Junqueira's opinions about Tolentino, and could have included Merquior's & Junqueira's, provided they came from a reliable source (e.g., a book with title, place and year of publication, ISBN and exact page)Cerme (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My question is that Bueno's opinion dominates the article in a point that, referring to "the other side", you say: "Others still - as the poet and critique Ivan Junqueira - preferred not to consider the issue of plagiarism and/or hoax in connection to Tolentino's career". That is, this "issue of plagiarism" was an accusation on his first book, when he was 17 years old, in an amateur publication among friends, that he never counted in his own bibliography. And Bueno doesn't specify this accusation, he doesn't say which are these poems, and this book is so obscure that I'm sure he simply never read it. But then you put this question as a question to be justified in his complete work ("(...) highlighting instead his mastery in the art of pastiching the classics", but pastiche or parody in only part of his work, and doesn't need to be mentioned to justify any imprecise and obscure plagiarism accusation). Merquior's opinion was published in book, it is a reliable source. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bueno was very specific in his charges of plagiarism, as you can see below (from the same source quoted in the article):

"Após um rumoroso processo pela publicação de um livro inteiramente plagiado, em 1957, Infinito Sul – cujo título era de Sílvio Castro e os poemas de Celina Ferreira, Walmir Ayala, Afonso Félix de Souza e outros [...]" . I translate, for the sake of the English-speaking public: "[Refering to Tolentino:]after a scandalous lawsuit for publishing an entirely counterfeit book, 'Infinite South', whose title was taken from Silvio Castro, containing poems by Celina Ferreira, Walmir Ayala, Afonso Felix de Souza and others [...]"

Therefore, according to Bueno, what Tolentino did was hardly a practical joke between friends, as publishing poems from others and presenting them as one's original work is cheating copyright and rendering oneself liable to a civil lawsuit aimed at restoring the original authors' finantial rights over their work. Something, I daresay, that raises suspicions about Tolentino's later inflated claims about his literary achievements. However, if Bueno was lying, Tolentino could charge him with libel before a court. Did he? Cerme (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tolentino was ALREADY DEAD when Bueno wrote it. It is a relevant episode to be cited, also because Bueno, giving it so much attention, caused more discussion. But it makes no sense to incorporate it as a primary aspect of Tolentino's work - pastiche was not a recurrent aspect of his writing, and researches are being written about new aspects of his work. I still think that the article still lacks more relevant opinion about Tolentino's work, and that Bueno's opinion prevails too much.

Now about plagiarism: there is a document where Tolentino mentions a case of plagiarism: in "O escritor por ele mesmo" [The writer by himself] - a series published in 2001 by Instituto Moreira Salles with recordings of writers reading their own works, with a booklet in which they wrote about his poetics -, there is a "Chronology". It is very detailed, mentioning the year when he wrote to Bonnefoy, etc. But in respect to 1960 ant 1961, it says:

1960 - Recebe o Prêmio "Revelação de Autor", do Sindicato de Editores e da Câmara Brasileira do Livro, pela coletânea inédita Seteclaves, da qual irá extrair seu primeiro livro, Anulação & Outros Reparos.

1961 - Ganha o processo judicial referente aos textos de Seteclaves, pelos quais era acusado de plágio. Com o dinheiro recebido, compra um sítio na Estrada dos Bandeirantes, onde passa a criar galinhas.

It was written very earlier than Bueno's text. And it calls the book Seteclaves (?). --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get it when the article says that he is one of the most influential and important intellectuals of his generation. Where is the source of such absurd affirmation? Tolentino is not even *widely* recognized as a poet of greater importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.199.84 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. I have changed the phrase to make clear that this opinion was (is) held by Tolentino's circle and have provided further refernces in the text of the articleCerme (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was sadly unwilling with Tolentino. Alexei Bueno's account of his work is amateurly unprecise, it gives no support for the reader to confirm his alegations, even in respect to his poetry (because he spends a lot of time talking about his life instead). But about the case of plagiarism, it is simply ill-fated to take an obscure case of when Tolentino was 17 years old, in a domestic publication that nobody knows today, and spread it to all of his official works, that had never anything to do with plagiarism accounts (and should Cerme do it without having read them, when nobody did it since their publication?). When the article quotes Ivan Junqueira as someone who doesn't take the issue seriously, it's makes it appears an actual issue in his work, when it was not! And the article didn't have any mention to his Prêmio Jabuti awards, two of them in life and one posthumously. While Bueno is cited too many times, José Guilherme Merquior or Antônio Houaiss are never mentioned. Etc. --Leonardo T. Oliveira 12:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Teixeira de Oliveira (talk • contribs)

The problem, however, it that Tolentino himself never left his work speak for itself, and the questionable accounts he spread (or left others spread) about his life and his supposedly resounding feats abroad, his literary friendships, etc., are a part of the legend he fashioned around himself, therefore their importance in a biographical account of his. As to the Jabuti prizes, they were already mentioned in the article; the Jabuti prize, neverthless, as a publishers' soponsored award, had his choices questioned many times, and is in itself no "proof" of literary worth. And what was this posthumous prize Tolentino received? Please offer detailsCerme (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking to you about his literary worth, I'm talking about relevant material for the article, and a mention to the most famous literary prize in Brazil should be in evidence (in its introduction) in an article about a poet (as it is in other writers: 1, 2, 3, etc., always pointing out the award as regarded the most important literary prize in Brazil), or YOU're not letting his work speak for itself. I don't disagree about the relevance of his mythomania, it can and should be treated in a specific section. But it can't influence the approach on his work for its own, like taking a blank accusation of plagiarism against an unknown domestic book and depict it as an actual issue for all of his official books (?!). This is not even to start to discuss his poetry for itself (and I personally think that this is what everybody should do after so many pretensious acclaims by his readers). About his poetry, beyond the testimony of José Guilherme Merquior or Antônio Houaiss, there are those of João Cabral de Melo Neto, Alcir Pécora or Luis Dohlnikoff, they are more elaborated than Bueno's gossip and could take place in the article. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let the "Jabutises" stay in the lead, however controversial that might be (after all, the Nobel Prize is no less controversial as far as its choices are concerned). But as to the plagiarism issue.... Is it unimportant? Had Tolentino simply gotten over it, yes; the problem, however, is that during his entire literary career, Tolentino played the same card played by other rightist Brazilian literary figures, that of faking themselves as international, cosmopolitan members of the world republic of letters in order to attack Brazilian "barbarism", "populism", "cultural backwardness" - in passing, identifying such deemeaning traits with the Left. Therefore, the issue of literary impersonation was an important trait of Tolentino's career and Alexei Bueno is the only RS that covers it throughly. As to the other sources you point, please provide footnotes with book title, publisher, publishing place, year and ISBN, OK? Cerme (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

But what prize isn't controversial? I can't see your point for what an encyclopedia should do, that is to select relevant data about a subject. Of course, I could agree in the sense that we could discuss Tolentino's poetry and its connection with contreversial prizes (even if in the case of Jabuti he wasn't exacly a persona grata to win their favor) and idiossincrasies or political ideologies, but your last comment was so blatantly personal that I can't believe we have much about to talk. I've already said that I agree that his political preferences are relevant for the article, but where in the world does all of what you said is important for the plagiarism issue? Are you trying to say that he becomes more suspicious of plagiarism in all of his works because of his conservative and controversial declarations? Shouldn't we look at his poetry instead? Do you think this aspect went unnoticed since the publication of each book, and it's being revealed by you now based on preconceived assumptions? Why does an encyclopedia should register this kind of speculation? There are several unpleasant writers with unpleasant opinions, but if you're not willing to approach their work by its own you shouldn't bring your resistance against them to an encyclopedia that could do it. And I'm criticizing this aspect about the article as it is now. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole issue is that, throughout his life, Tolentino - in opposition to, e.g., a Carlos Drummond de Andrade - never contented himself with living the everyday life of a common chap and leaving his work to speak for itself, but contrariwise insisted on parading himself as a public intellectual who supposedly had a capital of influence and international connections unsurpassed by any of his Brazilian contemporaries. Therefore the importance of his youthful plagiarism episode , as it was not a simple prank, but something representative of his lifelong pretentions, his modus operandi, so to speakCerme (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And I'm being objective when I say: what does it have to do with his poetry for its own sake? IF this episode of SUPPOSED plagiarism has any relevance, it does in relation to his personal life. If you say that it is relevant to his poetry because it casts suspicion on all of his works, wouldn't this suspicion be much more verifiable in his books instead of blank malicious suspicion from a remote and supposed prank? Even because suspicion has no value without any connection with evidences, and I honestly don't know if even Alexei Bueno intended to say that his poetry was at all suspected of plagiarism because of this episode - but YOU're interpreting this way, and the article is currently reflecting it. I think it is inappropriate in every sense.

Let me make a supposition. Think about a poet that has some opinions to which you mostly agree, even if considering them a little provocative and exaggerated. Now think that independent of this controversial persona, his poetry had real value. Would you think it honest to find people who DOESN'T KNOW HIS POETRY and who disagree with his opinions making assertions about his poetry based on what he said outside it? Wouldn't be fair simply to give attention to his poetry and to try to find its value? That's what you're doing, clairly showing your personal preferences here when you: 1. don't consider that Bueno's accusation can't even be confirmed (and that Tolentino by himself, before Bueno's accusation, mentions a court acquittal of this charge), 2. automatically give it a poetic relevance, and 3. cast suspicion on all of Tonentino's poetry because of it, even if his official work was never approached this way by his critics.

I personally have my reservations about both Tolentino and his poetry, but I think it forbidding to see someone acting tendenciously against his poetry influenced by his controversial persona - Wikipedia isn't the place to punish arrogant personalities diminishing the possible value of their works (even if I agree with you that we have to be careful with the opposite extreme: his tendencious fans, that can incur in similar falacies).--Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clear. It's not up to me or to Wikipedia to ascertain the truth of Bueno's allegations about Tolentino's supposedly plagiarisms and biographical forgeries. However, such allegations have their place in the article, as they cast light on one of Tolentino's most salient literary traits, that is his pretentions to play a role as a guiding literary figure for his entire generation. In the way of an analogy, let's us suppose that, for some reason or other, one could stil not ascertain whether Ossian was a forgery or not, and there were still, two centuries later, ongoing controversies about its actual autorship. Undoubtely, there would today be various scholars who would still argue for the forged character of the poem by pointing to the connection between James Macpherson and contemporary Scottish nationalism, and all that the Wikipedia editor could do was to expose this line of reasoning without deciding for or against it. By the same token, in writing an article about Tolentino, I must expose the various suspicions of literary and/or biographical forgery that developed around him, and, without deciding about their reality, to draw a connection between his pretences at being regarded as a cosmopolitan figure and the existence of such suspicions. That's what I have tried to do - no more and no lessCerme (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and you're wrong: Ossian had the work of Samuel Johnson to expose a solid dispute of the *text*, while Bueno casted a blank suspicion on Tolentino's *life*. And that's what I'm telling you: you're blending the relevance of Tolentino's life and his work. His life is indeed under a lot of suspicion, but not his work! I'm telling you that this case of plagiarism - that has contradictory allegations (that is, Bueno is not the only source) - is not spread to his official books. It was totally invented by you, and the text reflexts this question gratuitously. Again: we have to separate the suspicion on his life and the literary approach of his work.--Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

However, Leonardo, I did not make any personal assumptions while composing my text - as this is something strictly forbidden by Wikipedia. I only exposed what, in Bueno's view (and Bueno, is, after all, a bona fide scholar), was a red thread connecting Tolentino's personal life to his work: his pretentions at appearing as a guiding literary figure, as well as his cosmopolitan stance as opposed to the dominant "national-popular" character of contemporary Brazilian literature. I simply collated the sources on Tolentino I could find, and if you have an alternative interpretation to offer based on reliable sources, then please add them. Only remember to provide authors' names, titles, publishing houses, years and places of publication, and ISBNs when possibleCerme (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think you made ​​the text reflect this mistaken notion that I mentioned before. Being more objective, as I said not even Bueno tries to cast suspicion of plagiarism on all of Tolentino's works, so it makes no sense to report it as was done, and specially, there is no reason to write the following as a compensation of the matter: "Some, such as the poet and critic Ivan Junqueira, do not consider the issues mentioned above as real cases of plagiarism and hoaxing in Tolentino's career, highlighting instead his mastery of the art of pastiching the classics". Junqueira's text is from 1998, it doesn't deal with literary plagiarism, it can only deal with the controversial image of the poet in relation to its independent literary value. So this treatment of the question is clearly mistaken in my opinion.

And regarding the case of plagiarism itself, the version of Bueno should be confronted with the version of Tolentino too, as I've said above. But from here I agree: it's time to work on the article instead of discussing.--Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not only that, in my view, what Bueno does. He is not simply making a case against Tolentino, but also underlining something which is prominent in his work: the blurring of borders between actual reality and an imagined reality, evident in the fact that late in his life, for instance, he wrote a book in which he faked a past as an insurgent against the military dictatorship, when by his own (Tolentino's, that is) account he had left Brazil in 1964. But then it is a fact that hoaxing and multiple personae are legitimate literary techniques, after all - as Fernando Pessoa has made it evident to the Universe of Lusophone literatures. But then , the article suffers from banking on a few RS and expanding it through additional sources would be welcomeCerme (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, write a thesis about this, because nobody said that, not even Bueno: Tolentino's life doesn't have anything to do with his literary relevance today, these disputed episodes don't even appear in his poetry, they're absolutely independent data and I think you've never read any book of him to make this association.--Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Restoring older version

Someone - perhaps a Tolentino fan - has simply restored the fictional and mythological account of Tolentino's life created by himself and glued it to the previous version - where the editors tried to sort between actual fact and self-mythology. The result was that the whole article became an unreadable mess. I would advise further editors to read the talkpage - specially the information procured by the editor Natterhatch -before modifying the articleCerme (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruno Tolentino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120712182150/http://library.ox.ac.uk/WebZ/GeacFETCH?sessionid=01-58802-1007354789:recno=1:resultset=1:format=F:next=html/geacnffull.html:bad=error/badfetch.html::entitytoprecno=1:entitycurrecno=1 to http://library.ox.ac.uk/WebZ/GeacFETCH?sessionid=01-58802-1007354789%3Arecno%3D1%3Aresultset%3D1%3Aformat%3DF%3Anext%3Dhtml%2Fgeacnffull.html%3Abad%3Derror%2Fbadfetch.html%3A%3Aentitytoprecno%3D1%3Aentitycurrecno%3D1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)