Talk:Jonathan Livingston Seagull

message: should not omit any major facets of the topic - much too brief in all sections. needs major expansion.
This short story tells the about the hidden truths behind the daily chores of our lives... that we undertake without the slightest thought provocation.
The story is an excellent morale booster and acts as a guiding light for anyone who is wanting and committed to progress to the next level in the ladder of life, be it with your work place, your private life, spirituality... anything... you can relate the book to it, and it will turn out to be an eyeopener.
The story itself can be completed within about 30-40 minutes... but understanding the REAL meaning behind it takes some time, as you start to think about the experiences that you can relate to the book.
The primary aim of the book is to get the best out of you, in any field, because if one looks under the several layers of things that we are playing upon, it all boils down to the hidden punch line of this book... Self Belief And The Courage To Go On When Times Are Bad
A must read for every literate person on the planet.
The things that the book says, operate at a sub-conscious level in almost every one, but once a person is made aware of those hidden "sub-conscious" feelings and thoughts, those thoughts get a better response from the brain, yielding to a still better thought process... something like a Positive Feedback Cycle.
--Vishy 13:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've removed this section from the article.  There is some salvagable stuff in here but I'm not familiar enough with JLS to do it.  As it stands, it's far too POV and revolves around debunking some critic who is irrelevant.
Like any piece of literature with any scope, Jonathan Livingston Seagull can be interpreted in many ways. Several early commentators, focusing mainly on the first part of the book, see it as part of that American self-help and positive thinking culture epitomised by Norman Vincent Peale, or, less kindly, compare it to the children's tale The Little Engine That Could. But while Jonathan Livingston Seagull may take the form of a traditional animal fable, and can be enjoyed by young children at that level, its greatest attraction has not been to children. Indeed, just as the fables of Aesop and the Buddhist Jataka tales were not originally designed to be children's entertainment, so does Jonathan Livingston Seagull exist on different planes of interpretation, of which the children's book is probably the least important. 
This multi-level character of the book was abhorrent to many reviewers at the time: in 1972, when "postmodernism" was an obscure theory of architecture rather than a culture-wide buzzword, Beverley Byrne noted how,
:No matter what metaphysical minority the reader may find seductive, there is something for him in Jonathan Livingston Seagull. ... the dialogue is a mishmash of Boy Scout/Kahlil Gibran. The narrative is poor man's Hermann Hesse; the plot is Horatio Alger doing Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. The meanings, metaphysical and other, are a linty overlay of folk tale, old movies, Christian tradition, Protestantism, Christian Science, Greek and Chinese philosophies, and the spirits of Sports Illustrated and Outward Bound ... This seagull is an athletic Siddharta tripping on Similac, spouting the Qur'an as translated by Bob Dylan ... One hopes this is not the parable for our time, popular as it is -- the swift image, all-meaning metaphor that opens up into almost nothing. (Byrne, B 1972. Seagullibility and the American ethos. Pilgrimage. 1:1, pp 59-60.)
One doubts that Byrne would approve, but her analysis has turned out to be almost prophetic. Twenty-first century society, or as much of it as we at its beginning can see emerging, is multicultural, tolerant of cognitive dissonances, constantly seeking new ways of re-appropriating the old. Even our conservatism now carries a multiplicity of meanings.
Today, this multiple layering of meaning, not to mention the ransacking of sources to construct a new playful non-ultimate meaning, is precisely what lends a book appeal. Indeed, there is no longer a single way to look at life, or at a book, and Jonathan Livingston Seagull was, in retrospect, a marker on the road from the 20th to the 21st centuries, from the certainties of modernism to something we call postmodernism -- unless a different name comes along, of course.
One could not claim that it is a deep book in the sense that Crime and Punishment is deep. But it has width, scope, and above all, spirit. It may start off with a paean to progress, but by the end of the book, progress has subsided into no-gress, into the realisation that all is as it must be. It soon escapes from any conceptual framework in which we try to put it. Contrary to Byrne's hopes, it has indeed become the parable for our time. Or at least one of them.
: I've moved most of this back. I tried to shave off most of the POV stuff, but I wasn't sure how to shape up the last coupla paragraphs. Like all lit-freaks, I'm totally overawed by the pompous tone of the author, while realising it's totally wrong for this piece. Am leaving this section around, in case somebody wants to refer to this during cleanup. Once you think the 'Interpretation' section is good, we can delete this section altogether. Gaurav 15:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't "Twenty-first century society" be a bit better limited?  21st century society isn't, after all, the same "multicultural" and "tolerant" society all over the world (or, depending on your interpretation, in many places at all). FireWorks 20:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed section 

message: I once read somewhere that the protagonist may have been named after an airshow performer named Johnny Livingston. Bach himself seems to say otherwise, though (see links above). Has anyone else ever heard this story? I can confirm that Johnny Livingston existed, but that doesn't mean Bach used his name. -Rbean 05:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Johnny Livingston?

message: I have found no mention anywhere on the web of Johnny Livingston the "gay rights" activist.  I have found plenty of mention of Johnny Livingston the competitive pilot of the 1920s.
The Book
More Johnny Livingston Info
I suggest that his description as a "prominent Gay Rights Activist of the 20s and 30s" be backed up by a reference or deleted.  The link currently referred to is DEAD.
JBTascam12-18-2007 : 15:16 EST  —Preceding comment was added at 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Johnny Livingston a "Gay Rights Activist?"

message: After doing some copyediting, I ended up with the following paragraph.
: Hence, love, deserved respect, and forgiveness seem to be equally important to the freedom from the pressure to obey the rules just because they are commonly accepted. The general idea of this book may be not very far from Christian ideology, despite the fact that some non-traditional Christian minorities express very negative views. For example, some say it pays far too much respect to human individuals.
I don’t know if it is still true to the intended meaning of the original author (the author of the above paragraph, that is), but that’s how I read the text.  If anyone wants to cite specific sources, please do so before putting it back. — Daniel Brockman 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that the strictly negative view I observed only once (not too good statistics) may reflect the highly specific view of that small community that community may be actually less Christian than they think about themselves. They view may be not frequent enough to mention here. The main idea of my chapter was that the third part underlines the importance to forgive. The importance to forgive is one of the very central ideas in the Bible. I remove the problematic sentence, putting the words about forgiveness back.  Audriusa 21:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section apparently claiming that some Christian minorities think ''J. L. Seagull'' pays far too much respect to human individuals 

message: I have always assumed that Jonathon Livingston Seagull was a metaphore for Hinduism?  Some of the things that are said seem to align in particular almost directly with Krishna tracts, such as the useless things the gulls spend their lives on, (eating, fighting, reproducing, and sleeping or something like that).
Possibly add a section on this link to the article?  I am neither a theologin or literary expert but I could probably compose something with a rereading of this book and some hindu literature.
:No, not Hinduism per se; it reflects any number of old and New Age philosophies. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism 

message: I removed the following section:
::One doubts that Byrne would approve, but her analysis has turned out to be almost prophetic. Twenty-first century society — at least as much of it as we at its beginning can see emerging — is multicultural, tolerant of cognitive dissonances, constantly seeking new ways of re-appropriating the old. Even our conservatism now carries a multiplicity of meanings.</p>
::Today, this multiple layering of meaning, not to mention the ransacking of sources to construct a new playful non-ultimate meaning, is precisely what lends a book appeal. Indeed, there is no longer a single way to look at life, or at a book, and Jonathan Livingston Seagull was, in retrospect, a marker on the road from the 20th to the 21st centuries, from the certainties of modernism to something we call postmodernism.
::One could not claim that it is a deep book in the sense that Crime and Punishment is deep. But it has width, scope, and above all, spirit. It may start off with a paean to progress, but by the end of the book, progress has subsided into no-gress, into the realisation that all is as it must be. It soon escapes from any conceptual framework in which we try to put it. Contrary to Byrne’s hopes, it has indeed become a parable for our time.
This reads more like an essay than an encylopedia article.  There are no new facts presented here, and the content is very subjective.  The current critical interpretation of the book is probably worth mentioning, but shouldn't be in the "first part of the book" section.
Honestly the entire interpretation section seems at odds with Wikipedia's goals. This section should discuss how the book has been interpreted.  Currently much of it simply states what each section means, presumably according to only one particular interpreation.
--Starwed 09:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a section 

message: Given the actual word count of the book, I think a case could be made that it is a "short story" rather than a "novella". However given the fact that the story is published on its own in mass market editions (somewhat rare for short stories, though not unheard of - see James Clavell's The Children's Story) and has considerable notability, I think it's fair to use the novella description for this book. I note it has been accepted by the Novels Wikiproject, also. 23skidoo 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternately, there is now a Short Stories task force spin-off to the Novels Wikiproject and this books could be listed under that. Thoughts? 23skidoo 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Novella vs. short story

message: According to Wik's bestseller article, it was number one two years running - I don't know if any other book has achieved this. Kdammers 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  best-seller 

message: During the late 1960's, Richard Bach was a staff writer with a regular column in Flying magazine. He had engaged in a project to tour rural America putting on a series of one-man barnstorming airshows using his personal Stearman biplane. He had considerable trouble with aviation authorities over his crusade to re-enact the legendary barnstorming shows of the 1920's. His articles in Flying chronicled his experience. The early ones were straighforward, describing his experiences.  This may have been his original intent. However, as he became more aware that his project was revealing the loss of the pioneering spirit that had prevailed and envigorated aviation, he also realized that this applied beyond this narrow field. The stories evolved from realistic descriptions to a metaphoric story about a rebelious seagull. Yes, the book is based on a series of articles about an individual flyer (Bach himself) and his clashes with authority (the FAA). If Bach claims he "channelled" Jonathan, then he is doing so with considerable tonge in his cheek.
The interesting thing about this is that we can confirm the existence and content of the articles by reviewing back issues of the magazine. I remember them distinctly as I read them when originally published. The book is basically a re-publishing of the columns/articles he wrote for Flying, with some editing. To be complete, the article should acknowledge this background.
The discussion on The Wizard of Oz has a section on the possible political interpretations that were intended by the Author. We have no way to confirm what was Baum's actual spin. When viewed in the context that created it, the literal meanings of JLS are clear. There is much on the allegorical meanings of the story in this article, but nothing on the political situation that spawned it. Claytori 02:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Context 

message: I removed material unrelated to JLS. If someone wants to start a section called "Similar works," or if someone wants to create a CATEGORY called "Inspirational Fiction" (or add this book to a similar already-existing Category), by all means do so. It's already in "Spiritual books" and "Self-help books." But similar yet completely unrelated works do not belong in See Also or in External Links. I also deleted the review of the movie, as it was quite juvenile and sophomoric and unprofessional. If people want viewer reviews of the movie, there are at least 25 of them on the IMDB link provided. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unrelated material

message: Removed the following citation-needed-laden paragraph.  -- SEWilco (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CN the four commonalities 

message: I've removed the following speculation: this is an encyclopedia, not a chat magazine, and unless someone can come up with something better than "local stories" and "it has been speculated that..." the claims are worthless and detract from the quality of the article.
Jonathan Livingston Seagull may have been named after an aviation pioneer named Jonathan Livingston, who hailed from Cedar Falls, Iowa.  The Waterloo, Iowa airport (ALO) is named "Livingston Betsworth Field", in honor of Jonathan. Jonathan also had a brother nicknamed "Bite" who flew until his death in the early 1990s.  Local stories have Jonathan, Bite and Richard Bach (the author) flying antique airplanes together around the Midwest when Richard belonged to the Iowa Air National Guard in the 1960s.  It has been speculated that these adventures may have been the inspiration for a number of his short stories and novels as well.  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnny Livingstone - again 

message: Jonathan Segal Chicken. Sol Weinstein (Author), Howard Albrecht (Author), Buck Brown (Illustrator). ISBN-13: 978-1936404438. http://www.amazon.com/Jonathan-Segal-Chicken-Sol-Weinstein/dp/1936404435/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1443269666&sr=8-1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.162.26.178 (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Parodies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Livingston Seagull. 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://web.archive.org/web/20160114110434/http://www.theflyingseagullproject.com/about-us/ to http://www.theflyingseagullproject.com/about-us/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified