Talk:Crome Yellow

Untitled

Please consider adding a link to Librivox's free, public domain recording of this book: http://librivox.org/crome-yellow-by-aldous-huxley/ Thank you --thistlechick 16:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

rewrite needed

This article really needs to be rewritten. I assume it's a contemporary text written on the book, but there is little encyclopedic content and the tone certainly isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.

RandomP 21:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It also ought to spell the title of the book correctly, not bowing to the US mis-spelling of the element. It is Chrome Yellow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.201.99 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to assume the spelling is deliberate, Americans spell "chrome" with an H as well. Pretty sure it's Huxley's deliberate choice. You'd need evidence to assume otherwise, the printed cover in the photograph shows it spelled the way it is here.

On another issue, is the mention of Julian Davis relevant? Has his book been reviewed anywhere notable? Or just one of the many "authors" online trying to sneak in a free plug? Turns out Finlay Lloyd publishers is owned by Julian Davis! Wouldn't be amazed to find it was Julian who added that edit...

188.29.165.92 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cromeyellow.jpg

Image:Cromeyellow.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 this Wikipedia article 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Famous Portrait of Asquith

I have just attempted to restore the reference to HH Asquith’s little cameo in “Crome Yellow”, only to have it deleted on the grounds – both erroneous – that it is “a libel” and that “it cannot be confirmed online”. And instructed to “discuss on the talk page”. So here goes.

Asquith's cameo in "Crome Yellow", and the sniggers at his expense which it caused, is touched on in one of his leading biographies (Stephen Koss - that's mentioned in Asquith's biography, in a post 1918 section which I wrote up in autumn 2016) and also in Paul Johnson's History Of the Modern World (1917-91) which I read about thirty years ago but don't immediately have to hand. The latter tome was where I first heard of it.

Asquith's behaviour around young women, particularly in his drunken later years - staring down cleavages, inability to keep his hands to himself - is perfectly well-known. His wife Margot had broken off conjugal relations on doctors' orders after a series of difficult pregnancies had almost killed her. His coterie of young women friends included people like Lady Diana Manners (later Cooper) - on the whole they seem to have treated him as an embarrassing old uncle whom they regarded with a certain amount of affection, whilst at the same time not wanting to be sat next to him.

Ann De Courcy is a reputable writer and her recent biography of Margot Asquith was well-received. It is therefore a “reliable source”. Nobody is under any obligation to provide an online source for other people’s convenience. You can buy a copy of the book on Amazon easily and cheaply enough if it bugs you that much, although annoyingly she doesn’t give exact citations to primary sources for her discussion of Asquith’s behaviour – she just says that the letters and diaries of people in his social circle (of which she lists several pages in her bibliography) are full of references to Asquith’s groping and ogling. Most of these are obviously hard to get hold of, so you have to rely on the author having done his or her research. The wartime diaries of Asquith’s daughter-in-law Cynthia apparently contain quite a few references, poorly inked out (Ie. still legible), to Asquith’s lechery.

Whether young women would put up with all this today is a different question, but this was a century ago. A generation ago, I was brought up to disapprove of old-fashioned men who claimed that “no” didn’t always mean “no”, but in the mores of a century or more ago a woman was often expected to feign reluctance and even “put up a fight”. Sometimes the fight was a sham, to comply with social norms, and sometimes the woman genuinely was unwilling and was fighting off an assault. In her memoirs through which I just had a flick, Lady Diana Cooper mentions several instances of having to fight off such assaults by various men in her bedroom (she fought one off by strangling the man for three minutes) and in theatre dressing rooms – even one by Ernest Bevin after WW2 when he was Foreign Secretary and her husband was Ambassador in Paris. Nobody is suggesting that Asquith ever went that far, or at any rate not this late in his life (although Lloyd George certainly did, well into old age). I merely mention all this to show that Asquith’s groping and ogling was less remarkable than it would be today. That said, Duff Cooper, Lady Diana’s future husband, found Asquith’s interest in his girlfriend extremely tiresome.

Ottoline Morrell's own relations with Asquith were ambivalent. He had made a clumsy, fumbling pass at her back in the 1890s (whilst “supervising her reading” as she was keen to educate herself) which had helped to bring on a nervous breakdown and a flight to Switzerland. However, she appears later to have forgiven him, and he was a welcome guest at her house in this era. She was displeased at Aldous Huxley's rudeness about him in “Crome Yellow”.

Of supporting relevance, Lytton Strachey makes a reference to Asquith making a beeline across the lawn to badger Dora Carrington at some party or other. It’s mentioned in some book or other about Ottoline Morrell. I noted down the quote and a page reference a few years ago but never got round to posting it in Asquith’s biog – if I can’t find it I’ll have to consult said book about Ottoline in the library when I am in a position to get back up to London this autumn.

But none of these excursions into social history matter very much. The bottom line is that “Mr Callamay” in the book, who has a “Roman profile” and with whom young women were reluctant to go on car journeys, is clearly supposed to be Asquith. Hs little cameo in the book caused him some embarrassment when it was published. All of that is confirmed by what Wikipedia calls “reliable sources”, ie. reputable books. Three of them in fact (De Courcy, Koss and Paul Johnson).Paulturtle (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I see from Paulturtle's talk page that this same question was raised with him in 2015. I notice, too, that he has now conceded here that Mr Callamay's appearance in the novel is a cameo, not a "portrait". There are two main points at issue, however. The first is whether there are reliable references (two are needed where the matter is contentious) that state that Mr Callamay is meant to represent Asquith...since the article in question is about the novel, not Asquith himself. Secondly, is it important enough to add to the other instances already mentioned in the paragraph in question. WP is an encyclopaedia that gives a broad picture of the subjects covered, not a blog that lists every bit of salacious tittle-tattle about people whose relatives are still living. I am not impressed at all by the high-minded blather given in defence of the unnecessary intrusion of such detail. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And I am “not impressed at all” by these increasingly silly reasons attempting to justify further obstruction. To deal with the two points which you raise.

Strictly speaking, Huxley’s intentions are not relevant. The article does not say that any of the other people (Bertrand Russell, Ottoline Morrell) are “meant” to be the person they are taken to be. It is technically possible that the resemblance is purely coincidental in every case. However, it was assumed at the time and has been assumed by writers since, that Mr Callamay, the former PM who is a regular guest of the social set in question, has a Roman profile and is a bit of a pest around young women, is supposed to be Asquith.

Your second point is just “I-don’t-like”, a sorry excuse for blocking properly-cited edits. Of course it’s of potential interest to readers and students. If any other novel contained an unflattering cameo of a former PM or indeed a leading public figure of the era you would expect a brief mention in the article. Nobody is suggesting that it merits more than a sentence or two. Asquith has been dead nearly a century and he is an historical figure – you don’t censor discussion of somebody’s peccadillos (Gladstone’s eccentricities with prostitutes? Lloyd George’s womanising, not to mention living openly with his mistress?) because his great-grandchildren are still alive.

And there’s nothing “contentious” about any of this – Asquith’s behaviour around young women or the fact that the former PM in the book was and is taken to be Asquith. Both are presented, unchallenged, in reputable published books, as I have pointed out to you at some length above. Material does not become "contentious" because you were previously unaware of it.Paulturtle (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I advise you to WP:AGF. All I see from you is a lot of special pleading and no evidence to support your argument that Callamay = Asquith, or even that such was the gossip. Perhaps we need to widen the discussion via the Novel Portal. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And, since you were the one who brought it up the topic of good faith, "I advise you" to read the section of that article telling you that in order to have others assume good faith on your part, you first need to demonstrate it. It's not easy to do so when you use dismissive, derogatory language like "blather" and "special pleading", or sneer about five year old stuff on my talk page or my use of the word "portrait", and particularly not if you deny the existence of evidence which has been laid down in front of you in plain English at considerable length. All of this, sadly, is a typical pattern of behaviour when somebody deletes or blocks properly cited information of which he was unaware, and then, instead of accepting somebody else's sharing of knowledge with good grace, comes up with ever more absurd reasons for not including it.

The novel is a roman a clef, and when the book was published Callamay (in Chapters 26 and 27) was taken to be a thinly-disguised parody of Asquith, who was often a guest at Garsington and had a bit of a reputation for pestering young women. It caused a few giggles at his expense and Ottoline was annoyed at what she presumably saw as breach of confidence on Huxley's part. I've directed you to no less than THREE reputable published books where these matters are briefly mentioned. I'm not really sure what more I am supposed to do.Paulturtle (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Try quoting word for word the relevant passages where it is said that contemporaries believed that Callamay depicted Asquith. All you have talked about so far are mention of Asquith's habits, not discussion of the novel. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to type it all out word for word on the talk page for you. The books which I've drawn to your attention mention that the portrayal was taken to be of Asquith and that Ottoline was cross about it. There is no need to discuss the novel at length - it is a couple of brief mentions in a brief novel, briefly mentioned in books about Asquith. And the reason I've discussed "Asquith's habits" at length above is for your education, because you initially believed the suggestion that Callamay was Asquith to be "a libel" (you do know that you can't libel the dead, don't you?).Paulturtle (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A simple google for "asquith crome yellow" turned up, for me, an abundance of clear and reliable sourcing for this connection. For example, the Dictionary of Real People in Fiction or The Fateful Year: England in 1914, and p 129 of this article. It seems widely recognized by Asquith's contemporaries, and by literary critics and biographers today, that Callamy represents Asquith. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. That line from the 1974 book about Ottoline ("a ci-devant Prime Minister, toddling feebly across the lawn after any pretty girl") is often plagiarised without attribution. Now I know where it comes from. I was planning to spend half an hour ploughing through some books about Ottoline and Lytton Strachey next time I get up to London, but that won't be for months.Paulturtle (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks too, Oulfis, particularly for the elegant way in which you dovetailed that information into the sentence. The passage from Ottoline Morrell's letter is also quoted in Nicholas Murray's biography of Aldous Huxley. It's good to have that identification attributed so close to the novel's appearance. Sweetpool50 (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Themes or details

The Themes section contains details of encyclopedia value, but seems mis-titled.

@Sweetpool50: may the deleted details and citation about fasting girls [1] be added there? – Fayenatic London 10:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it stems from a narrative within the narrative and does not add to an understanding of the novel. It is therefore an irrelevant detail and WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)