![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Several comments and clarifications regarding the paragraph that mentions the ban on "Painted Bird" in Poland:
1. All of Kosinki's works were banned in Communist Poland and in 1989, when Communism in Poland was overthrown, "Painted Bird" and his other books were immediately released both in English and in Polish translations.
2. The paragraph seems to suggest that there is a connection between the release of Kosinski's biography written by Joanna Siedlecka and the ban on "Painted Bird" in Communist Poland. This can't be true, as Siedlecka's book was released in 1993, 4 years after Communism in Poland was overthrown and "Painted Bird" for the first time published in Poland and 2 years after Kosinski's death.
3. The paragraph implies that the reason for banning "Painted Bird" under Communism was its alleged historical inaccuracy. I assume that historical inaccuracy refers to the accusation that in the book Kosinski grossly exaggerated the brutality and cruelty of Polish peasantry under German occupation and that his vision is not representative of reality. Regardless whether this accusation is true or not, it is very arguable whether this particular accusation was the reason, or even the main reason among many, for banning the book. From his very first book, "The future is ours, Comrade", Kosinki was bitterly criticising Communism and was put on the black list in the whole Communist Block by the time he wrote "Painted Bird", in which he further criticised the Communist system. In such circumstances, it is difficult to determine what were the exact or main reasons for the ban on Painted Bird in the Communist Block.
4. In Communist Poland there existed no private publishing houses and banning a book simply meant that it was not never released. A lot of books released in the Free World, that were not "Communist" enough, were available only in Underground circulation.
5. For the reasons written above, I suggest putting the information about the ban on Kosinski's books in Communist Poland in a separate paragraph, not in the same paragraph as the one that mentions Siedlecka, as it's misleading.
6. Did peaseants exist in Europe in the 20th century. Were they not a form of feudal represion that had ended at the very latest with the end of WW1 ? I propose the use of the term people in its place.
An excerpt from the article:
Criticisms arose, when the public was confronted with another picture of the life of Kosinski during the Holocaust, as described in the book by unauthorized Polish biographer Joanna Siedlecka. In response, Kosinski stated that he never meant for The Painted Bird to be an autobiography, but defended the historical accuracy of the book nevertheless.
Comments:
1. Kosinski couldn't have responded to the biography written by Siedlecka as it was released in 1993, 2 years after Kosinski's death.
2. The phrase unauthorized biographer also doesn't seem to be fitting given the fact that she published the book after Kosinski's death. Simply writing that it was written and released after his death would be more accurate.
3. Note that journalists, writers and the public opinion living in Poland, including Polish Catholics and Jews who survived the Holocaust and stayed in Poland after WW2, didn't have access to Kosinski's books under Communism, were isolated from the Western press and the Western discussion forums and couldn't openly debate on Kosinski's works or respond to them before 1989. This fact should help understand why the opinions of the people who lived with Kosinski during the war were for the first time published as late as 1993, by Siedlecka, after Kosinski's death, making it impossible for Kosinski to respond.
4. The article mentions another picture of Kosinski presented by Siedlecka. In detail, Siedlecka, basing on conversations with Kosinski's wartime neighbours, came to the conclusion that Kosinski was not really wandering around the countryside during WW2 like the character in Painted Bird and that he didnt face such harsh treatment as described in the book. Regardless whether Siedlecka is right or wrong, can't we simply report in a few words what Siedlecka wrote, clearly state who this information comes from, and not use this euphemism? This is for people to know and let them judge themselves whether they trust it or not.
I only want to point out that to contribute to the neutrality of the article, you might consider changing the tone to reflect the fact that readers assumed the work to be based on his own real-life adventures but (at least here in USA) there was absolutely nothing within the splash pages or reviews or authors comments or bio to bolster this notion. It was an assumption ignorant people made since the book was labelled, categorized and filed under "FICTION". I personally read the book at age 18 (1985) and never even considered it to be anything but fiction. No one I knew assumed such either. Focusing the article on the accusation of plagerism and Kosinski's actual biography and subsequent "fall from grace" is misleading; Kosinski was beloved enough to be here in the states, wined and dined by the "beautiful people" and the toast of Existential academia. At the very least, some mention of his successes would be balancing. This article cheapens his contributions to literature and the Existential New Wave movement of the art world. Kosinski was a brilliant man, I do think he deserves better than this.
~~smibbo
" Kosinski came to the U.S. in 1957, from his native Poland. Here, as he had there, he gradually became known for a spectrum of sociopathic behavior ranging from mere megalomania to brutal sexual coercion, fraud and plagiarism. Yet he was so convincing that his powerful supporters (including Yale University and the New York Times) believed his side of these accounts for 25 years before evidence was finally published in the Village Voice showing the depth of his cons and dishonesty."
http://www.polaris.nova.edu/~alford/reviews/kosinski.html
So, i view of all these i would say that the article paints a rather positive picture of the old sod.
Take that also,
""Written with deep sincerity and sensitivity, this poignant account transcends confession," Elie Wiesel wrote in the Times Book Review. At the time of Kosinski's suicide, in 1991, Wiesel said, "I thought it was fiction, and when he told me it was autobiography I tore up my review and wrote one a thousand times better."" http://www.ukar.org/kosins.html
And what is that you are writing: "Kosinski was beloved enough to be here in the states, wined and dined by the "beautiful people" and the toast of Existential academia." What "beautiful people", what existential academia, existentialiste don't even like being refered to as a movement, let alone academia. You are seriously deldued.
1. "The painted Bird" has been probably printed illegally in Poland before 1989. 2. I belive Kosinski lived with his parents during the war by an another family.
Elie Wiesel should maybe be mentioned in "Friendships". Drsruli ( talk) 04:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
i think the article should include the fact kosinski was due to be at the sharon tate house the night the manson family murders took place. there is a huge section regarding that night in one of his novels - blind date - and such an experience has echoed in his works throughout his life regarding excessive violence. any suggestions?
I agree. If someone thinks that it is suspect, they can then add support for that suspicion.-- Epeefleche 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a letter in the NY Times archive: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/15/books/l-tate-did-expect-kosinski-124051.html that seems to be the one referred to in the New York Magazine article. It's behind a paywall, so I couldn't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpeschel ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
should be changed to the Goyim condition.
The more i read about this con the more complex his pathological lying becomes. Here's an "official" chronology West Texas A&M University Writing Center.
http://www.wtamu.edu/academic/fah/eng/wc/jkchron.htm
But according two the village voice, and two biographies, the obviously forged chronology, forged by kosinski himself obviously is anything BUT the truth, so this guy not only insisted by virtue of the life story he told others that he lived what he wrote, but issued a false chronology to validate this.
Jerzy Kosinski Chronology 1933 Jerzy Nikodem Kosinski born June 18, Lodz, Poland to Micezyslaw and Elzbieta (Liniecka) Kosinski.
1939-1945 Assumed dead and forced to wander throughout the villages of Eastern Poland in flight from the Nazis.
1942 Suffers speech loss in traumatic accident.
1945 Located by parents in Lodz orphanage.
1948 Hospitalized after skiing accident which shocks him into recovery of his speech.
1950-1956 Ski instructor in Zakopane, Poland. Social instructor summers in Miedzyzdroje, Baltic Ocean.
Also his ties with the cia have got to be mentioned, even in the talk page:
Right from the start, Kosinski wrote under duress — an impecunious young man, particularly situated to be of use to clandestine forces, he could leapfrog to advancement only by cooperating with these forces. Thus, his first book, the Future is Ours, Comrade (1960), was published under the pseudonym Joseph Novak, and appears to have been sponsored by the CIA:
Czartoryski recommends Kosinski to the CIA.
Between Kosinski's penchant for telling more than the truth and the CIA's adamant insistence on telling as little as possible, the specific financial arrangements concerning the "book on Russia" may never be made public. Indeed, full documentation probably does not exist. A number of facts, however, argue strongly that there was CIA/USIA intermediation on behalf of the book, with or without Kosinski's full knowledge and understanding. One major piece of evidence is the name of the original titleholder on the Doubleday contract: Anthony B. Czartoryski. A further clue was the address to which communications for "Czartoryski" were to be delivered: the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America at 145 East Fifty-third Street.
The clear presumption is that Czartoryski became aware of Kosinski's notes, suggested the possibility of a book to his contacts within the CIA, and then had the manuscript delivered to Doubleday, which already was quite familiar with arrangements of this nature; Gibney served unwittingly to protect the author's identity and the manuscript's origin. (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 112)
Surprisingly quick production. As for the book, not only its instant acceptance but its quick production would remain a mystery for many years. How could a graduate student at Columbia — struggling with his course work, engaged in various side projects as a translator, and busy with the details of life in a strange country — how could such a person have turned out a copy that could be serialized in the editorially meticulous Reader's Digest in less than two years? (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 117)
Exactly what the CIA would have wanted.
All in all, the book is everything an American propaganda agency, or the propaganda arm of the CIA, might have hoped for in its wildest dreams. In broad perspective, it outlines the miserable conditions under which Soviet citizens are compelled to live their everyday lives. It shows how the spiritual greatness of the Russian people is undermined and persecuted by Communism. It describes a material deprivation appalling by 1960s American standards and a lack of privacy and personal freedom calculated to shock American audiences. The Russia of The Future is Ours is clearly a place where no American in his right mind would ever want to live. (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 129-130)
As Kosinski's veracity in The Painted Bird came increasingly under question, his support came most noticeably from Jews, reinforcing the hypothesis of a Jewish tendency to side with coreligionists rather than with truth, despite the consequent lowering of Jewish credibility:
Byron Sherwin at Spertus also checked in with his support, reaffirming an invitation to Kosinski to appear as the Spertus award recipient at their annual fund-raiser in October, before 1,500 guests at Chicago's Hyatt Regency. He mentioned a list of notable predecessors including Arthur Goldberg, Elie Wiesel, Philip Klutznick, Yitzhak Rabin, and Abraham Joshua Heschel himself; the 1978 recipient, Isaac Bashevis Singer, had recently won the Nobel Prize. Kosinski was deeply moved by this support from Sherwin and Spertus, and its direct fallout was a move to make Spertus the ultimate site for his personal papers, with Sherwin serving as coexecutor of his estate. At the same time it accelerated his movement back toward his Jewish roots. In his greatest moment of crisis, the strongest support had come not from his fellow intellectuals, but from those who identified with him as a Jew. (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 389)
Not only did the Jews get mileage out of The Painted Bird, but so did the Germans, at the expense of the Poles, of course:
The German edition was a hit.
The book was doing reasonably well in England and France, better certainly than in America, but the German edition was an out-and-out hit. For a Germany struggling to shuck off the collective national guilt for World War II and the Holocaust, its focus on the "Eastern European" peasants may have suggested that sadistic behavior and genocide were not a national trait or the crime of a specific group but part of a universally distributed human depravity; a gentler view is that the book became part of a continuing German examination of the war years. Perhaps both views reflect aspects of the book's success in Germany, where Der bemalte Vogel actually made it onto bestseller lists. (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 234)
Attempt to dilute German guilt.
The Warsaw magazine Forum compared Kosinski to Goebbels and Senator McCarthy and emphasized a particular sore point for Poles: the relatively sympathetic treatment of a German soldier. Kosinski, the review argued, put himself on the side of the Hitlerites, who saw their crimes as the work of "pacifiers of a primitive pre-historic jungle." Glos Nauczycielski, the weekly publication of the teaching profession, took the same line, accusing The Painted Bird of an attempt "to dilute the German guilt for the crime of genocide by including the supposed guilt of all other Europeans and particularly those from Eastern Europe." (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 236)
Although Sloan does not speculate that the French may have had similar motives to the Germans for promoting Kosinski's book, we have already seen the French buying protection from accusations of complicity in the Holocaust, and wonder whether the high honor they paid The Painted Bird may not have been motivated to further deflect attention from their own collaboration:
Kosinski returned to New York on April 14, and only two weeks later received the best news of all from Europe. On May 2, Flammarion cabled Houghton Mifflin that L'Oiseau bariole had been awarded the Prix du Meilleur Livre Étranger — the annual award given in France for the best foreign book of the year. Previous winners included Lawrence Durrell, John Updike, Heinrich Böll, Robert Penn Warren, Oscar Lewis, Angus Wilson, and Nikos Kazantzakis. New York might be the center of publishing, but Paris was still, to many minds, the intellectual center of the universe, and Kosinski had swept the French intellectual world off its feet. Any who had doubted the aesthetic merits of The Painted Bird were now shamed into silence. The authority of the "eleven distinguished jurors" was an absolute in New York as in Paris; Kosinski's first novel had swept the board. (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, pp. 234-235)
http://www.ukar.org/kosins.html
hi ...can anyone add a photo? tx. -- Epeefleche 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.wtamu.edu/academic/fah/eng/wc/jkchron.htm see and then change the article!
The article about Kosinski is getting increasingly one-sided as the time goes on. It is turning into an attempt made by just one Wikipedian, Epeefleche, at choking the voice of reason. Sources are grossly omitted in his new editions and other facts are conspicuously removed by him. Poeticbent 22:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's just one citation removed by Epeefleche as of November 13, and replaced with a barrage of source-less quotations.
The meaning and the purpose of the above citation has been reworked by Epeefleche and the placement changed to diffuse its impact. Poeticbent 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The Finkelstein language was moved and added to, not "removed" as you suggest. It now follows the Village Voice-related discussion, rather than being embedded in the middle of it. Nothing is being choked. I have added sources that you suggest were "grossly omitted" in my editions [sic], Hermit-style, in a manner that JK would I imagine approve. My additions are now far more replete with citations than the article its was formerly. -- Epeefleche 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I left it where you put it, but put back some of the accurate material in the sentence that you had deleted, and put in a "sic" where JK's name was not spelled properly.
The article has long lost its informative edge and turned into a mockery of good writing. The episodes of Kosiński’s life instilled by Epeefleche serve only one purpose, which is to maintain the disproportionate and misleading myth of Kosiński as a man... a sorry political boxing rink of just one Wikipedian with a lot of time on his hand. Poeticbent 02:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As the cited-to writing indicates, Blacker was a publisher of Kosinski's books. He therefore has greater insight into the possiblities of the charges being true than the average person. But good point -- since people may not read the footnote, it is worth mentioning. -- Epeefleche 03:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The article has just been cleaned up with considerable effort. Anybody who'd like to see it being cleaned up even more should discuss it here in a specific way rather than tagging it again in total silence. Please read Cleanup#Specific_issues: "Some tags have alternate versions that apply to situations of greater specificity." -- Poeticbent talk 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to stay away from the controversy surrounding the Polish lecturer Ratajczak, however, his opinion on The Painted Bird was brought in to illustrate the accusations of anti-Polish sentiment directed toward Kosiński by some of his Polish readers. I do not see the need to go any further than that. -- Poeticbent talk 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Some readers accused Kosiński of anti-Polish sentiment. Dr. Dariusz Ratajczak, Polish lecturer at Opole University's Institute of Historical Studies wrote at length about Kosiński's Slavic “ Untermensch” in his 1999 collection of essays entitled Niebezpieczne tematy (Dangerous subjects), in which he also wrote "that Zyklon B was used at the camp as a disinfectant and not for murdering people, that the showers were for bathing and not for genocide, and that survivors' accounts of gassing are unreliable". In December 2001 Ratajczak was convicted by the Polish court of promoting Holocaust denial. ( Maciej T. Nowak, Gazeta Wyborcza, Dec. 11, 2001 (as per Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum webpage))
Others argued that The Painted Bird is a misinterpretation of the metaphoric nature of the novel. In newer editions Kosiński explained that his characters' nationality and ethnicity had intentionally been left ambiguous in order to prevent that very interpretation.
I agree with SlimVirgin that the subsection on anti-Polish sentiment is written very unclearly. This is what happens when editors with conflicting views try to edit the article at the same time. Statements live the lives of sacred cows, i.e. the second paragraph about the metaphoric nature of the novel which does not relate to Kosiński's presumed anti-Polish sentiment. Ratajczak is an extreme case by all standards and does not deserve the kind of attention in the corresponding subsection. I suppose with time broader and better examples can be found without taking attention away from the subject. The article is not about Holocaust denial and mentioning it opens a whole new can of worms. -- Poeticbent talk 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We ought not to be using a Holocaust denier as a source. It’s unacceptable. I propose that the whole subsection be readdressed. However, the opinions of Kosiński’s anti-Polish sentiment are there, see
Shtetl: Some Comments From Viewers In my opinion the subsection should remain, but perhaps with a different take and sources.
I noticed
User:Jayjg inserted a statement that contradicts the purpose of the subsection. This is how the article becomes torn apart. Varsovians were buying the book first time out of curiosity. Their opinions were to follow later. Contradicting each other is not helping. --
Poeticbent
talk
00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never actually read Ratajczak and therefore cannot confirm nor discredit sources on the basis of data which you seem to be familiar with a lot more than I am. However, please note that your suggestions are much appreciated. I would only add that according to www.auschwitz.org.pl "Ratajczak declared himself innocent and claimed that he had refrained from authorial comment when presenting the views of Holocaust revisionists." The source statement was not totally without context even if disproved by the court.
In closing. The article subsection on Polish objections to the book — after all the muscle flexing by two new editors who came on the scene — indicates that Polish people were just happy to purchase the copy. Unfortunately, that isn’t true. Polish internet is filled with voices of concern over Kosiński’s anti-Polish sentiment. But hush, let’s congratulate each other on joining the ranks of sacred cows. Antipolonism has magically disappeared from the article. JK would be proud. -- Poeticbent talk 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The sources are there all right, but they are all in Polish. I don’t want to get entangled in original research, therefore must rely on what has already been written in English about this matter. I’m not surprised that Ratajczak’s court case has been picked up by a Holocaust-denying organization since he’s been sentenced for Holocaust revisionism. Irrespective, the language barrier is the reason why it took so long to reveal Kosiński’s lies about his own past in the first place. I can only hope that it won’t have to take that long for the reaction of the Polish public to come through in this article. It might, though, considering your flair for wiping out what has already been said. Happy editing! -- Poeticbent talk 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Please help yourself and remove most of the article Jayjg. I see where you’re coming from. You contradicted Kosiński’s anti-Polish sentiment because you don’t like the thought. Bravo! Unfortunately there’s nothing I can do about that. However, please note that there isn’t a single word of original research coming from me in this article. On the other hand, you have whitewashed the article subsection on Kosiński’s anti-Polonism instead of adding a note about Ratajczak’s conviction (which would have been most appropriate), because of what you call an “unreliable source”. — It took me a couple of reverts to finally understand what you meant by “unreliable” (i.e. denying Holocaust). I hope you do remember though that the “proper sources” by both our standards were added by me, not by you. -- Poeticbent talk 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be an edit war going on recently. Could the participants explain what they are disputing here? For now I'll just note that Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, while an amateur historian, is an acknowledge academic and his works on Eastern European history have received positive reviews by specialists (ex. here by Aleksander Gella). I am not sure about other sites; the reliablity of each disputed reference should be discussed here - however certainly the article version I read just now in 'The Painted Bird' seems to be rather biased towards pro-Kosinski and thus not NPOV.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I made a redirection from Josek Lewinkopf to this page. May I suggest that you also highlight name Josek Lewinkopf in boldface as part of the first line. Britlawyer 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions provides that article names should be "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". For example, see the article entitled
Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton"). In this case, we have an individual who was born in Poland but achieved notability as an English-language writer in the United States. He wrote using the name "Jerzy Kosinski" as on
this book cover. Among English-speakers, he is known as "Jerzy Kosinski", not "Jerzy Kosiński". If there is no objection I will perform the move. --
Mathew5000
00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has been renamed from Jerzy Kosiński to Jerzy Kosinski as the result of a move request. -- Stemonitis 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Who butchered the quote about "Steps" said by David Foster Wallace? You took out the opinion and left only the description. Opinions are not disallowed on Wikipedia if we are quoting someone else whom we cite. Foster Wallace is a giant of modern fiction and he is illuminating his high praise of another author-- I think it's clearly relevant. Please leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicopac ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the man really held in such low regard today?
If all he did was not true, but just an effort at decption at the cost of others, living by cunning like a con man, his fear of finaly being caught may have prompted him to a sad action.
All the suposition withour fact in the document , including the referencing of plays, or other non accessible sources as fact, seem to indicate the article is indeed oddly slanted in his favour. who would benefit from a slanted view ?
I wonder if he clearly stated on the cover of his book that it was fiction ( the painted bird) or did he really belive in the fiction? Could self delusion of this false reallity have partly led to his dimise? Why did he delude himself this way ?
Out of curiosity, is there a connection between the last two things?
Josh, I really don't know. I'd speculate that he committed suicide because of a number of things, since depressed people become tend to become overwhelmed and every challenge seems magnified. The drubbing he was taking critically certainly wouldn't have helped. Also, survivor's guilt is a well-documented phenomenon, so that may have had something to do with it, since he survived WWII in Poland. But I haven't looked into it to see if he left any sort of explanation as to why. I suppose that would be in order to fill out the entry.... since we are just guessing here, maybe the actuall story of his life now evident on the internet produced an effect to make the decsion he took one he deemed correct to escape the justice that was his outcome of the years of living off cunning. His attempt to get even with those who would not let him write his own version of the history that had befallen him but stick to actuall evidence and fact was invovled.
Maybe there was more to the story than he wrote and this led him to perform as he did ?
Does he act like the character from the movie Catch me if you Can? About a confidence man who also did not get away with it ?
Editor, I think you need to re-think your analysis of the Being There. Your description completely overlooks the fundamental point of the story; the satire of the US media was only a sub-plot, a means to a greater end. The story was a statement on how we humans perceive and actually create reality through our own subjective lenses, which was nicely summed up with the last line heard in the film; "...because life... is a state of mind."
The theme was organized religion vs. pure, simple beingness.
Chance the gardener, like Jesus Christ, was completely misunderstood by his peers. What people couldn't understand or explain, they simply made up in their own minds, and their illusions became "the truth." Like Jesus, Chance simply was, no more no less. Simple, without deception, just "being there." It was a deceptive and convoluted world that could not understand this simplicity. Another visual in the film that underscored Kosinski's likening of Chance to Jesus was when we see Chance walking on water at the end of the film, in case anyone missed this message throughout the story.
Peter Litwin 11/15/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.108.21 ( talk) 23:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version 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) 06:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
He is Polish and American. He is also Jewish and is in the category Polish Jews. Is there a reason he is not in the American Jews category or can I add him? Anibar E ( talk) 03:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Quick failed for WP:POLAND due to insufficient inline citations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Making any kind of reference to the Pogonowski column is offensive and against Wikipedia policy. It should be removed immediately, and if those involved with it change it back, I think it should be reported to the quality control elements. There is no room to be using such an anti-Semetic, unsourced, uncredited, internet hit piece to attack a major 20th Century author.
It's a big project though and so I would like help. Anyone willing to join me? I could, for instance, bring in the esteemed literary critic Lawrence Langer's writing on The Painted Bird to reference that book, and possibly find more on his life. I'd just like some help.
-- Robert Waalk ( talk) 05:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
shouldn't the article make mention of the Second City TV parody of Kinsinski's claim that he always looked for hinding places wherever he went, a hide and seek gameshow-like parody called, as I recollect, "Let's Find Jerzy"?
15:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Michael Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.63.222 ( talk)
I read the Wikipedia article on the book "Being There" was supposedly plagiarized from. They're really quite different. This entire article is far too strong on the supposed plagiarism and ghost writer claims, especially when you consider the high profile sources that have defended Kosinski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.52.185 ( talk) 20:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jerzy Kosiński. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course I'm not mentioning any of this in the article since it's my own personal recollection, but I was a freshman residing at Alice Lloyd Hall at the University of Michigan in the fall of 1968 when Jerzy Kosiński stayed there for two weeks as part of the university's "Writers in Residence" program (Kurt Vonnegut was the Writer in Residence the next semester, in the spring of 1969).
While he was there he had meals in the residence dining hall with us students and he would discuss different topics, including how when he came to America he would call "Information" and talk to the directory assistance operators to practice his English. Embram ( talk) 04:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I removed the section of "The Painted Bird" which cites Iwo Pogonowski's self-public essay. There is zero information about newspapers or articles the villagers voiced their complaints in upon reading the translated version of the novel (which was only published in Poland in 1989), and a search on Google seems to indicate that Pogonowski is the only person who mentions them even reading it in the first place. Finally, a cursory look at that article alone reveals the shameless repeating of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories ("Radical Jews used [pornography] in the past to weaken morally and politically the majority in the countries of their residence", which seems to me like the author is using the controversy around the novel to push anti-Semitism in general. Midnight-Blue766 ( talk) 06:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Vanity Fair magazine has a feature article in their December 2023 issue about Jerzy Kosiński, written by Wayne Lawson, who co-edited two of the author's books. [7] Those interested in this topic might find it worth reading. Siberian Husky ( talk) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
It should be clearly separated into criticism related to plagiarism allegations, which seem disputed, and the ones about claiming a fictional story as part of his autobiography, which AFAIK are not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Several comments and clarifications regarding the paragraph that mentions the ban on "Painted Bird" in Poland:
1. All of Kosinki's works were banned in Communist Poland and in 1989, when Communism in Poland was overthrown, "Painted Bird" and his other books were immediately released both in English and in Polish translations.
2. The paragraph seems to suggest that there is a connection between the release of Kosinski's biography written by Joanna Siedlecka and the ban on "Painted Bird" in Communist Poland. This can't be true, as Siedlecka's book was released in 1993, 4 years after Communism in Poland was overthrown and "Painted Bird" for the first time published in Poland and 2 years after Kosinski's death.
3. The paragraph implies that the reason for banning "Painted Bird" under Communism was its alleged historical inaccuracy. I assume that historical inaccuracy refers to the accusation that in the book Kosinski grossly exaggerated the brutality and cruelty of Polish peasantry under German occupation and that his vision is not representative of reality. Regardless whether this accusation is true or not, it is very arguable whether this particular accusation was the reason, or even the main reason among many, for banning the book. From his very first book, "The future is ours, Comrade", Kosinki was bitterly criticising Communism and was put on the black list in the whole Communist Block by the time he wrote "Painted Bird", in which he further criticised the Communist system. In such circumstances, it is difficult to determine what were the exact or main reasons for the ban on Painted Bird in the Communist Block.
4. In Communist Poland there existed no private publishing houses and banning a book simply meant that it was not never released. A lot of books released in the Free World, that were not "Communist" enough, were available only in Underground circulation.
5. For the reasons written above, I suggest putting the information about the ban on Kosinski's books in Communist Poland in a separate paragraph, not in the same paragraph as the one that mentions Siedlecka, as it's misleading.
6. Did peaseants exist in Europe in the 20th century. Were they not a form of feudal represion that had ended at the very latest with the end of WW1 ? I propose the use of the term people in its place.
An excerpt from the article:
Criticisms arose, when the public was confronted with another picture of the life of Kosinski during the Holocaust, as described in the book by unauthorized Polish biographer Joanna Siedlecka. In response, Kosinski stated that he never meant for The Painted Bird to be an autobiography, but defended the historical accuracy of the book nevertheless.
Comments:
1. Kosinski couldn't have responded to the biography written by Siedlecka as it was released in 1993, 2 years after Kosinski's death.
2. The phrase unauthorized biographer also doesn't seem to be fitting given the fact that she published the book after Kosinski's death. Simply writing that it was written and released after his death would be more accurate.
3. Note that journalists, writers and the public opinion living in Poland, including Polish Catholics and Jews who survived the Holocaust and stayed in Poland after WW2, didn't have access to Kosinski's books under Communism, were isolated from the Western press and the Western discussion forums and couldn't openly debate on Kosinski's works or respond to them before 1989. This fact should help understand why the opinions of the people who lived with Kosinski during the war were for the first time published as late as 1993, by Siedlecka, after Kosinski's death, making it impossible for Kosinski to respond.
4. The article mentions another picture of Kosinski presented by Siedlecka. In detail, Siedlecka, basing on conversations with Kosinski's wartime neighbours, came to the conclusion that Kosinski was not really wandering around the countryside during WW2 like the character in Painted Bird and that he didnt face such harsh treatment as described in the book. Regardless whether Siedlecka is right or wrong, can't we simply report in a few words what Siedlecka wrote, clearly state who this information comes from, and not use this euphemism? This is for people to know and let them judge themselves whether they trust it or not.
I only want to point out that to contribute to the neutrality of the article, you might consider changing the tone to reflect the fact that readers assumed the work to be based on his own real-life adventures but (at least here in USA) there was absolutely nothing within the splash pages or reviews or authors comments or bio to bolster this notion. It was an assumption ignorant people made since the book was labelled, categorized and filed under "FICTION". I personally read the book at age 18 (1985) and never even considered it to be anything but fiction. No one I knew assumed such either. Focusing the article on the accusation of plagerism and Kosinski's actual biography and subsequent "fall from grace" is misleading; Kosinski was beloved enough to be here in the states, wined and dined by the "beautiful people" and the toast of Existential academia. At the very least, some mention of his successes would be balancing. This article cheapens his contributions to literature and the Existential New Wave movement of the art world. Kosinski was a brilliant man, I do think he deserves better than this.
~~smibbo
" Kosinski came to the U.S. in 1957, from his native Poland. Here, as he had there, he gradually became known for a spectrum of sociopathic behavior ranging from mere megalomania to brutal sexual coercion, fraud and plagiarism. Yet he was so convincing that his powerful supporters (including Yale University and the New York Times) believed his side of these accounts for 25 years before evidence was finally published in the Village Voice showing the depth of his cons and dishonesty."
http://www.polaris.nova.edu/~alford/reviews/kosinski.html
So, i view of all these i would say that the article paints a rather positive picture of the old sod.
Take that also,
""Written with deep sincerity and sensitivity, this poignant account transcends confession," Elie Wiesel wrote in the Times Book Review. At the time of Kosinski's suicide, in 1991, Wiesel said, "I thought it was fiction, and when he told me it was autobiography I tore up my review and wrote one a thousand times better."" http://www.ukar.org/kosins.html
And what is that you are writing: "Kosinski was beloved enough to be here in the states, wined and dined by the "beautiful people" and the toast of Existential academia." What "beautiful people", what existential academia, existentialiste don't even like being refered to as a movement, let alone academia. You are seriously deldued.
1. "The painted Bird" has been probably printed illegally in Poland before 1989. 2. I belive Kosinski lived with his parents during the war by an another family.
Elie Wiesel should maybe be mentioned in "Friendships". Drsruli ( talk) 04:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
i think the article should include the fact kosinski was due to be at the sharon tate house the night the manson family murders took place. there is a huge section regarding that night in one of his novels - blind date - and such an experience has echoed in his works throughout his life regarding excessive violence. any suggestions?
I agree. If someone thinks that it is suspect, they can then add support for that suspicion.-- Epeefleche 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a letter in the NY Times archive: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/15/books/l-tate-did-expect-kosinski-124051.html that seems to be the one referred to in the New York Magazine article. It's behind a paywall, so I couldn't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpeschel ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
should be changed to the Goyim condition.
The more i read about this con the more complex his pathological lying becomes. Here's an "official" chronology West Texas A&M University Writing Center.
http://www.wtamu.edu/academic/fah/eng/wc/jkchron.htm
But according two the village voice, and two biographies, the obviously forged chronology, forged by kosinski himself obviously is anything BUT the truth, so this guy not only insisted by virtue of the life story he told others that he lived what he wrote, but issued a false chronology to validate this.
Jerzy Kosinski Chronology 1933 Jerzy Nikodem Kosinski born June 18, Lodz, Poland to Micezyslaw and Elzbieta (Liniecka) Kosinski.
1939-1945 Assumed dead and forced to wander throughout the villages of Eastern Poland in flight from the Nazis.
1942 Suffers speech loss in traumatic accident.
1945 Located by parents in Lodz orphanage.
1948 Hospitalized after skiing accident which shocks him into recovery of his speech.
1950-1956 Ski instructor in Zakopane, Poland. Social instructor summers in Miedzyzdroje, Baltic Ocean.
Also his ties with the cia have got to be mentioned, even in the talk page:
Right from the start, Kosinski wrote under duress — an impecunious young man, particularly situated to be of use to clandestine forces, he could leapfrog to advancement only by cooperating with these forces. Thus, his first book, the Future is Ours, Comrade (1960), was published under the pseudonym Joseph Novak, and appears to have been sponsored by the CIA:
Czartoryski recommends Kosinski to the CIA.
Between Kosinski's penchant for telling more than the truth and the CIA's adamant insistence on telling as little as possible, the specific financial arrangements concerning the "book on Russia" may never be made public. Indeed, full documentation probably does not exist. A number of facts, however, argue strongly that there was CIA/USIA intermediation on behalf of the book, with or without Kosinski's full knowledge and understanding. One major piece of evidence is the name of the original titleholder on the Doubleday contract: Anthony B. Czartoryski. A further clue was the address to which communications for "Czartoryski" were to be delivered: the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America at 145 East Fifty-third Street.
The clear presumption is that Czartoryski became aware of Kosinski's notes, suggested the possibility of a book to his contacts within the CIA, and then had the manuscript delivered to Doubleday, which already was quite familiar with arrangements of this nature; Gibney served unwittingly to protect the author's identity and the manuscript's origin. (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 112)
Surprisingly quick production. As for the book, not only its instant acceptance but its quick production would remain a mystery for many years. How could a graduate student at Columbia — struggling with his course work, engaged in various side projects as a translator, and busy with the details of life in a strange country — how could such a person have turned out a copy that could be serialized in the editorially meticulous Reader's Digest in less than two years? (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 117)
Exactly what the CIA would have wanted.
All in all, the book is everything an American propaganda agency, or the propaganda arm of the CIA, might have hoped for in its wildest dreams. In broad perspective, it outlines the miserable conditions under which Soviet citizens are compelled to live their everyday lives. It shows how the spiritual greatness of the Russian people is undermined and persecuted by Communism. It describes a material deprivation appalling by 1960s American standards and a lack of privacy and personal freedom calculated to shock American audiences. The Russia of The Future is Ours is clearly a place where no American in his right mind would ever want to live. (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 129-130)
As Kosinski's veracity in The Painted Bird came increasingly under question, his support came most noticeably from Jews, reinforcing the hypothesis of a Jewish tendency to side with coreligionists rather than with truth, despite the consequent lowering of Jewish credibility:
Byron Sherwin at Spertus also checked in with his support, reaffirming an invitation to Kosinski to appear as the Spertus award recipient at their annual fund-raiser in October, before 1,500 guests at Chicago's Hyatt Regency. He mentioned a list of notable predecessors including Arthur Goldberg, Elie Wiesel, Philip Klutznick, Yitzhak Rabin, and Abraham Joshua Heschel himself; the 1978 recipient, Isaac Bashevis Singer, had recently won the Nobel Prize. Kosinski was deeply moved by this support from Sherwin and Spertus, and its direct fallout was a move to make Spertus the ultimate site for his personal papers, with Sherwin serving as coexecutor of his estate. At the same time it accelerated his movement back toward his Jewish roots. In his greatest moment of crisis, the strongest support had come not from his fellow intellectuals, but from those who identified with him as a Jew. (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 389)
Not only did the Jews get mileage out of The Painted Bird, but so did the Germans, at the expense of the Poles, of course:
The German edition was a hit.
The book was doing reasonably well in England and France, better certainly than in America, but the German edition was an out-and-out hit. For a Germany struggling to shuck off the collective national guilt for World War II and the Holocaust, its focus on the "Eastern European" peasants may have suggested that sadistic behavior and genocide were not a national trait or the crime of a specific group but part of a universally distributed human depravity; a gentler view is that the book became part of a continuing German examination of the war years. Perhaps both views reflect aspects of the book's success in Germany, where Der bemalte Vogel actually made it onto bestseller lists. (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 234)
Attempt to dilute German guilt.
The Warsaw magazine Forum compared Kosinski to Goebbels and Senator McCarthy and emphasized a particular sore point for Poles: the relatively sympathetic treatment of a German soldier. Kosinski, the review argued, put himself on the side of the Hitlerites, who saw their crimes as the work of "pacifiers of a primitive pre-historic jungle." Glos Nauczycielski, the weekly publication of the teaching profession, took the same line, accusing The Painted Bird of an attempt "to dilute the German guilt for the crime of genocide by including the supposed guilt of all other Europeans and particularly those from Eastern Europe." (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, p. 236)
Although Sloan does not speculate that the French may have had similar motives to the Germans for promoting Kosinski's book, we have already seen the French buying protection from accusations of complicity in the Holocaust, and wonder whether the high honor they paid The Painted Bird may not have been motivated to further deflect attention from their own collaboration:
Kosinski returned to New York on April 14, and only two weeks later received the best news of all from Europe. On May 2, Flammarion cabled Houghton Mifflin that L'Oiseau bariole had been awarded the Prix du Meilleur Livre Étranger — the annual award given in France for the best foreign book of the year. Previous winners included Lawrence Durrell, John Updike, Heinrich Böll, Robert Penn Warren, Oscar Lewis, Angus Wilson, and Nikos Kazantzakis. New York might be the center of publishing, but Paris was still, to many minds, the intellectual center of the universe, and Kosinski had swept the French intellectual world off its feet. Any who had doubted the aesthetic merits of The Painted Bird were now shamed into silence. The authority of the "eleven distinguished jurors" was an absolute in New York as in Paris; Kosinski's first novel had swept the board. (James Park Sloan, Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography, Dutton, United States, 1996, pp. 234-235)
http://www.ukar.org/kosins.html
hi ...can anyone add a photo? tx. -- Epeefleche 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.wtamu.edu/academic/fah/eng/wc/jkchron.htm see and then change the article!
The article about Kosinski is getting increasingly one-sided as the time goes on. It is turning into an attempt made by just one Wikipedian, Epeefleche, at choking the voice of reason. Sources are grossly omitted in his new editions and other facts are conspicuously removed by him. Poeticbent 22:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's just one citation removed by Epeefleche as of November 13, and replaced with a barrage of source-less quotations.
The meaning and the purpose of the above citation has been reworked by Epeefleche and the placement changed to diffuse its impact. Poeticbent 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The Finkelstein language was moved and added to, not "removed" as you suggest. It now follows the Village Voice-related discussion, rather than being embedded in the middle of it. Nothing is being choked. I have added sources that you suggest were "grossly omitted" in my editions [sic], Hermit-style, in a manner that JK would I imagine approve. My additions are now far more replete with citations than the article its was formerly. -- Epeefleche 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I left it where you put it, but put back some of the accurate material in the sentence that you had deleted, and put in a "sic" where JK's name was not spelled properly.
The article has long lost its informative edge and turned into a mockery of good writing. The episodes of Kosiński’s life instilled by Epeefleche serve only one purpose, which is to maintain the disproportionate and misleading myth of Kosiński as a man... a sorry political boxing rink of just one Wikipedian with a lot of time on his hand. Poeticbent 02:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As the cited-to writing indicates, Blacker was a publisher of Kosinski's books. He therefore has greater insight into the possiblities of the charges being true than the average person. But good point -- since people may not read the footnote, it is worth mentioning. -- Epeefleche 03:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The article has just been cleaned up with considerable effort. Anybody who'd like to see it being cleaned up even more should discuss it here in a specific way rather than tagging it again in total silence. Please read Cleanup#Specific_issues: "Some tags have alternate versions that apply to situations of greater specificity." -- Poeticbent talk 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to stay away from the controversy surrounding the Polish lecturer Ratajczak, however, his opinion on The Painted Bird was brought in to illustrate the accusations of anti-Polish sentiment directed toward Kosiński by some of his Polish readers. I do not see the need to go any further than that. -- Poeticbent talk 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Some readers accused Kosiński of anti-Polish sentiment. Dr. Dariusz Ratajczak, Polish lecturer at Opole University's Institute of Historical Studies wrote at length about Kosiński's Slavic “ Untermensch” in his 1999 collection of essays entitled Niebezpieczne tematy (Dangerous subjects), in which he also wrote "that Zyklon B was used at the camp as a disinfectant and not for murdering people, that the showers were for bathing and not for genocide, and that survivors' accounts of gassing are unreliable". In December 2001 Ratajczak was convicted by the Polish court of promoting Holocaust denial. ( Maciej T. Nowak, Gazeta Wyborcza, Dec. 11, 2001 (as per Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum webpage))
Others argued that The Painted Bird is a misinterpretation of the metaphoric nature of the novel. In newer editions Kosiński explained that his characters' nationality and ethnicity had intentionally been left ambiguous in order to prevent that very interpretation.
I agree with SlimVirgin that the subsection on anti-Polish sentiment is written very unclearly. This is what happens when editors with conflicting views try to edit the article at the same time. Statements live the lives of sacred cows, i.e. the second paragraph about the metaphoric nature of the novel which does not relate to Kosiński's presumed anti-Polish sentiment. Ratajczak is an extreme case by all standards and does not deserve the kind of attention in the corresponding subsection. I suppose with time broader and better examples can be found without taking attention away from the subject. The article is not about Holocaust denial and mentioning it opens a whole new can of worms. -- Poeticbent talk 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We ought not to be using a Holocaust denier as a source. It’s unacceptable. I propose that the whole subsection be readdressed. However, the opinions of Kosiński’s anti-Polish sentiment are there, see
Shtetl: Some Comments From Viewers In my opinion the subsection should remain, but perhaps with a different take and sources.
I noticed
User:Jayjg inserted a statement that contradicts the purpose of the subsection. This is how the article becomes torn apart. Varsovians were buying the book first time out of curiosity. Their opinions were to follow later. Contradicting each other is not helping. --
Poeticbent
talk
00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never actually read Ratajczak and therefore cannot confirm nor discredit sources on the basis of data which you seem to be familiar with a lot more than I am. However, please note that your suggestions are much appreciated. I would only add that according to www.auschwitz.org.pl "Ratajczak declared himself innocent and claimed that he had refrained from authorial comment when presenting the views of Holocaust revisionists." The source statement was not totally without context even if disproved by the court.
In closing. The article subsection on Polish objections to the book — after all the muscle flexing by two new editors who came on the scene — indicates that Polish people were just happy to purchase the copy. Unfortunately, that isn’t true. Polish internet is filled with voices of concern over Kosiński’s anti-Polish sentiment. But hush, let’s congratulate each other on joining the ranks of sacred cows. Antipolonism has magically disappeared from the article. JK would be proud. -- Poeticbent talk 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The sources are there all right, but they are all in Polish. I don’t want to get entangled in original research, therefore must rely on what has already been written in English about this matter. I’m not surprised that Ratajczak’s court case has been picked up by a Holocaust-denying organization since he’s been sentenced for Holocaust revisionism. Irrespective, the language barrier is the reason why it took so long to reveal Kosiński’s lies about his own past in the first place. I can only hope that it won’t have to take that long for the reaction of the Polish public to come through in this article. It might, though, considering your flair for wiping out what has already been said. Happy editing! -- Poeticbent talk 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Please help yourself and remove most of the article Jayjg. I see where you’re coming from. You contradicted Kosiński’s anti-Polish sentiment because you don’t like the thought. Bravo! Unfortunately there’s nothing I can do about that. However, please note that there isn’t a single word of original research coming from me in this article. On the other hand, you have whitewashed the article subsection on Kosiński’s anti-Polonism instead of adding a note about Ratajczak’s conviction (which would have been most appropriate), because of what you call an “unreliable source”. — It took me a couple of reverts to finally understand what you meant by “unreliable” (i.e. denying Holocaust). I hope you do remember though that the “proper sources” by both our standards were added by me, not by you. -- Poeticbent talk 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be an edit war going on recently. Could the participants explain what they are disputing here? For now I'll just note that Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, while an amateur historian, is an acknowledge academic and his works on Eastern European history have received positive reviews by specialists (ex. here by Aleksander Gella). I am not sure about other sites; the reliablity of each disputed reference should be discussed here - however certainly the article version I read just now in 'The Painted Bird' seems to be rather biased towards pro-Kosinski and thus not NPOV.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I made a redirection from Josek Lewinkopf to this page. May I suggest that you also highlight name Josek Lewinkopf in boldface as part of the first line. Britlawyer 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions provides that article names should be "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". For example, see the article entitled
Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton"). In this case, we have an individual who was born in Poland but achieved notability as an English-language writer in the United States. He wrote using the name "Jerzy Kosinski" as on
this book cover. Among English-speakers, he is known as "Jerzy Kosinski", not "Jerzy Kosiński". If there is no objection I will perform the move. --
Mathew5000
00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has been renamed from Jerzy Kosiński to Jerzy Kosinski as the result of a move request. -- Stemonitis 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Who butchered the quote about "Steps" said by David Foster Wallace? You took out the opinion and left only the description. Opinions are not disallowed on Wikipedia if we are quoting someone else whom we cite. Foster Wallace is a giant of modern fiction and he is illuminating his high praise of another author-- I think it's clearly relevant. Please leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicopac ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the man really held in such low regard today?
If all he did was not true, but just an effort at decption at the cost of others, living by cunning like a con man, his fear of finaly being caught may have prompted him to a sad action.
All the suposition withour fact in the document , including the referencing of plays, or other non accessible sources as fact, seem to indicate the article is indeed oddly slanted in his favour. who would benefit from a slanted view ?
I wonder if he clearly stated on the cover of his book that it was fiction ( the painted bird) or did he really belive in the fiction? Could self delusion of this false reallity have partly led to his dimise? Why did he delude himself this way ?
Out of curiosity, is there a connection between the last two things?
Josh, I really don't know. I'd speculate that he committed suicide because of a number of things, since depressed people become tend to become overwhelmed and every challenge seems magnified. The drubbing he was taking critically certainly wouldn't have helped. Also, survivor's guilt is a well-documented phenomenon, so that may have had something to do with it, since he survived WWII in Poland. But I haven't looked into it to see if he left any sort of explanation as to why. I suppose that would be in order to fill out the entry.... since we are just guessing here, maybe the actuall story of his life now evident on the internet produced an effect to make the decsion he took one he deemed correct to escape the justice that was his outcome of the years of living off cunning. His attempt to get even with those who would not let him write his own version of the history that had befallen him but stick to actuall evidence and fact was invovled.
Maybe there was more to the story than he wrote and this led him to perform as he did ?
Does he act like the character from the movie Catch me if you Can? About a confidence man who also did not get away with it ?
Editor, I think you need to re-think your analysis of the Being There. Your description completely overlooks the fundamental point of the story; the satire of the US media was only a sub-plot, a means to a greater end. The story was a statement on how we humans perceive and actually create reality through our own subjective lenses, which was nicely summed up with the last line heard in the film; "...because life... is a state of mind."
The theme was organized religion vs. pure, simple beingness.
Chance the gardener, like Jesus Christ, was completely misunderstood by his peers. What people couldn't understand or explain, they simply made up in their own minds, and their illusions became "the truth." Like Jesus, Chance simply was, no more no less. Simple, without deception, just "being there." It was a deceptive and convoluted world that could not understand this simplicity. Another visual in the film that underscored Kosinski's likening of Chance to Jesus was when we see Chance walking on water at the end of the film, in case anyone missed this message throughout the story.
Peter Litwin 11/15/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.108.21 ( talk) 23:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version 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) 06:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
He is Polish and American. He is also Jewish and is in the category Polish Jews. Is there a reason he is not in the American Jews category or can I add him? Anibar E ( talk) 03:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Quick failed for WP:POLAND due to insufficient inline citations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Making any kind of reference to the Pogonowski column is offensive and against Wikipedia policy. It should be removed immediately, and if those involved with it change it back, I think it should be reported to the quality control elements. There is no room to be using such an anti-Semetic, unsourced, uncredited, internet hit piece to attack a major 20th Century author.
It's a big project though and so I would like help. Anyone willing to join me? I could, for instance, bring in the esteemed literary critic Lawrence Langer's writing on The Painted Bird to reference that book, and possibly find more on his life. I'd just like some help.
-- Robert Waalk ( talk) 05:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
shouldn't the article make mention of the Second City TV parody of Kinsinski's claim that he always looked for hinding places wherever he went, a hide and seek gameshow-like parody called, as I recollect, "Let's Find Jerzy"?
15:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Michael Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.63.222 ( talk)
I read the Wikipedia article on the book "Being There" was supposedly plagiarized from. They're really quite different. This entire article is far too strong on the supposed plagiarism and ghost writer claims, especially when you consider the high profile sources that have defended Kosinski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.52.185 ( talk) 20:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jerzy Kosiński. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course I'm not mentioning any of this in the article since it's my own personal recollection, but I was a freshman residing at Alice Lloyd Hall at the University of Michigan in the fall of 1968 when Jerzy Kosiński stayed there for two weeks as part of the university's "Writers in Residence" program (Kurt Vonnegut was the Writer in Residence the next semester, in the spring of 1969).
While he was there he had meals in the residence dining hall with us students and he would discuss different topics, including how when he came to America he would call "Information" and talk to the directory assistance operators to practice his English. Embram ( talk) 04:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I removed the section of "The Painted Bird" which cites Iwo Pogonowski's self-public essay. There is zero information about newspapers or articles the villagers voiced their complaints in upon reading the translated version of the novel (which was only published in Poland in 1989), and a search on Google seems to indicate that Pogonowski is the only person who mentions them even reading it in the first place. Finally, a cursory look at that article alone reveals the shameless repeating of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories ("Radical Jews used [pornography] in the past to weaken morally and politically the majority in the countries of their residence", which seems to me like the author is using the controversy around the novel to push anti-Semitism in general. Midnight-Blue766 ( talk) 06:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Vanity Fair magazine has a feature article in their December 2023 issue about Jerzy Kosiński, written by Wayne Lawson, who co-edited two of the author's books. [7] Those interested in this topic might find it worth reading. Siberian Husky ( talk) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
It should be clearly separated into criticism related to plagiarism allegations, which seem disputed, and the ones about claiming a fictional story as part of his autobiography, which AFAIK are not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)