Talk:Dover Beach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dover Beach is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] New Ratings

Dear midnightdreary, I'm not sure what the ratings really mean, not sure if I should be happy or sad that this page is rated Start and Mid-importance. Start, I assume, is a step above stub, and I cannot imagine that as long as it has that nasty bit of garrulous text at the front that the caveat writer added (containing those oblique quotations from Matthew himself), and which, frankly, does not seem to me to belong on this page, that it should get rated any higher. As to Mid-importance, what if I were to stamp my feet and let my bottom lip protrude and throw a hissy fit? Didn't work? Okay. Frankly, as much as I love this poem, I'm not sure but that you are right. Arnold's page itself seems to me more important, and somehow I have doubts that that page would rank above Mid-importance, at least not from a poetry point of view (however, were it ranked from the point of view of importance in the history of literary criticism, it should be, I think, of the utmost importance; actually the Matthew Arnold page has no importance rating only a quality rating, do you know why that is?). By the way, what are your thoughts on the initial section entitled Arnold's thoughts on the analysis of poetry? I'm frankly thinking it might be time to move taht section to the Arnold page where I believe it belongs. Do you think that would improve this page? (I'm not trying to solicit a higher rating; merely trying to get a second neutral opinion before I make the move. Given the hurly-burly this page has seen I'm thinking it best not to act too unilaterally.) In any event, thanks for taking the time to rate the page. Mddietz 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about this too much. The rating/importance is mostly irrelevant to anyone outside of WikiProject Poetry. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia in general. It's also incredibly informal. We're just now trying to revitalize the project and the assessment has only been in place for a couple days as a step one. It really doesn't mean much, but I went with Start class after exactly two seconds of serious consideration because it probably could use more sources. --Midnightdreary 02:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
midnightdreary, thanks, I think. I really was looking for an answer to my question on the section entitled Arnold's thoughts on the analysis of poetry, but as you did not read the article, I understand that you cannot help me with that. Mddietz 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well... the section is clearly too long and adds undue weight to the article. If the editors here want this article to be about Arnold's thoughts on the analysis of poetry, it's great. If they want this to be an article on "Dover Beach," it's terrible. :) -Midnightdreary 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Great! The second opinion is much appreciated. The individual who added it is, I believe, no longer around, however, I felt that I should have a second opinion before I did anything with it given the hulabaloo that surrounded its creation. Thanks. Mddietz 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

This sentence from the first item in the "References to the Poem" section seems to me to be not entirely correct:

However, the speaker in "Dover Beach" is of unknown gender, and a common practice among Victorian poets was to write dramatic monologues from the perspective of someone else (e.g., Robert Browning's "Fra Lippo Lippi").

1) Most critics have taken the speaker to be Arnold himself; in those few instances where Arnold worded his poems as coming from a distinct character, he usually, as in "Strayed Reveller," assigned the speech explicitley to the speaker. 2) Browning and Arnold were close friends. To my knowledge Arnold does not attempt the sort of character pieces that Browning did, although he seems to have admired them. 3) Nothing here suggests that the sex of the speaker is particularly in question. 4) The comment seems to me to rather miss the irony of Hecht's poem. I should like to see a more extended comment on this poem, i.e. "Dover Bitch," in the main portion of the article. Hecht's response to the poem is not unimportant and counterpoints the poem in a very refreshing way. Arnold loved a good joke,-- I think he would have thought this quite funny. One parody of his writing during his life time, he actually went out of his way to promote to his readers. Mddietz 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

I sought (from the English lecturers at the very college Arnold himself was a Fellow of) advice about whether the sources chosen represented the corpus of thought or not. Whilst the work of Profs Tinker and Lowry are now considered somewhat "elderly", they are still respected and accepted. Allott is the most respected work, and Honan's being considered an essential supplement. I also asked if there were any works that were omitted for a novice to the subject and it was thought not, the current sources would be comprehensive enough for any 'new reader'. I am still awaiting a response from another lecturer, but doubt it will vary from the first opinion. Thanks for the work that has been put into this article.--Alf melmac 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Alf, thanks for taking the time to do this extra leg work. I had hoped I was on target with this. Thanks, Mddietz 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving article's discussion page

Might I suggest that now (Or soon) would be a good time to maybe archive some of this pages' contents? Anything that is now considered archaeic (old/closed discussion's etc.) could be archived in order free up space... the notice at the top of the edit box advises this also. Thoughts? ScarianTalk 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Scarian, I think that might be a very wise idea. But I have no idea how to do that.

  • Top of page The stuff at the very top of the page is a couple of years old and can certainly be archived.
  • Caveat seems yet to be a wild roaring slug fest, although increasingly it does seem that the caveat writer is arguing with himself.
  • Alternatives to caveat can go; they do not seem to be needed now.
  • Response to the criticism in caveat seems to have been generally ignored, which probably it should have been.
  • Interpretations and Reference My comments on the nature of the changes I made in the page (all of which I think are under the heads Interpretations and Reference) are probably archivable, although I do not know if it is too soon after the changes discussed in them to do so. Do they not need to be left up awhile in case some of the original contributors or other editors want to review the work.
  • Criticism and Moved from article My dialogues with the caveat writer, at least my side of them... well in some cases I have simply deleted my own portion as they really added no value to the page. The caveat writers comments I refuse to touch in anyway. He might accuse me of censorship, and I wouldn't want that.
  • Problems with article your call...
  • Feedback can we leave that in. It may have some relevance to the future status of the page. Or am I being a little egotistical?
Mddietz 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hooah, I will archive these on your recommendations. It is better to move on now - there is so much junk from the 'caveat' writer, I don't know which of his personalities are in charge of writing... Hmmph... Keep an eye on me whilst I archive just in case I screw up and remove something you want/need on here. ScarianTalk 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed a fair bit... The archive link is at the top of the page. Someone tell me, is it me or is the page still slow to load? (I have a download going on so that could be it, but it's bandwidth usage isn't that high) Also, the article archival link doesn't look too pretty at the moment. If I have made a mistake in archiving don't hesitate to tell me off for it and correct it. Also, I may have archived some material that could've been kept such as Alf's mediation (I don't know if it was resolved or not... that's why I was a little bit worried about archiving it) - but fortunatly we have Wikipedia history pages so nothing is lost forever. Hooah. ScarianTalk 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks fine to me but let us see what anon says. I'm not having any trouble loading, but I'm at work and we have a pretty high-speed connect. Mddietz 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Archived (into Archive1) the last of the caveat related discussion material. What is left now should be only the material relevant to editing the page. Mddietz 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions

First, why is the full text in the article itself? All it serves to do is make the Analysis section longer than it already is (and it's pretty long). Besides, that's what Wikisource is for. Secondly, are people really getting agitated over a little ol' article on a little ol' poem? Spread some WikiPeace! :) --Midnightdreary 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There was just some aggravation... I think WP:OWN played a part... But, as Alf has pointed out, it's an important little ol' poem ;-) ScarianTalk 00:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
So short poems don't get the text in wiki-articles? (well you learn something every day...), does that apply to nursery rhymes like This Little Piggy, I've never read any style guidance on poetry, never having edited any of those articles before.--Alf melmac 00:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think "This Little Piggy" is a tad shorter than "Dover Beach," so I think four lines is a bit more excusable (what would really cause a discussion though is which of the two has more importance? :) I'll stop!). Other than that, check out WP:NOT#TEXT. I would suggest that the placement of the Wikisource box is perfect for people that are just looking for the text. Really, it just breaks apart a great analysis section (I'm assuming; I merely skimmed!). --Midnightdreary 01:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
After some further research, I found WP:L&P which suggests that for short copyright-free poems, full text inclusion is acceptable. There are no guidelines as far as what they mean by "short." In that case, I'd suggest it's up to the interested editors. As the unofficial personal caretaker of Edgar Allan Poe's poems, I never include full text within the article but leave a visible Wikisource box (as you folks already have here). If you choose to include it, though, I would at least recommend a separate header for it so that it doesn't cut into anything and it's easy to find. So, yeah, hope that helps. :) --Midnightdreary 01:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Very many thanks for a comprehensive answer. Somehow, I'm not tempted to discuss the relevant importance between This Little Piggy and Dover Beach :D I'm guessing that both Mddientz and the anon would prefer to have the text in so your idea about giving it its own section should be considered. Thanks again.--Alf melmac 10:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I frankly wondered about this when I included the text of the poem. Guess I should have done a bit of research on that. I rather like having the poem in and would vote to keep it in. Quoting extensive passages from a poem as part of the analysis of that poem has been a common practice since the about the mid-nineteenth century when Arnold was writing; he actually makes a comment on that somewhere. The New Critics in dismissing summary statements tended continue this practice as the poem itself was foremost and by quoting from it, they could avoid having to summarize it. Printing the entire poem is, however, not a standard of the analytical process. I originally had the analysis interspersed within the poem, but moved it out of the poem as an act of appeasement. The way it is now it is more like an annotated poem. The earlier version, even though the poem was quoted in whole, had, to my mind, much more the feel of an article than a mere reprinting of the poem. Perhaps anon might have some constructive thoughts on this issue. But if I do not hear differently I think I'll change it back to the way it was. Mddietz 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Not having heard anything to the contrary, I have gone ahead and returned the interelaving of the comments with the poem. I added a few words to make the connection with the Sophocles section a little more clear, & provided dates for Sophocles to help clarify the historical relationship. I separated the caveat into its own section as it really is not continuous in matter with the analysis. I have not heard from anon, so I assume he is now pleased as punch with the results we have achieved. For now I plan to do nothing more of any significance with this page, but hope to revisit it in a month or two (after I have finished another major project I have started and which really should take priority. Mddietz 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hooah, a bit more could be done (by anyone who know's about this poem), e.g. Arnold's thoughts on the analysis of poetry could be cut down... it's a bit lengthy to read. And References to Dover Beach (Or whatever the section's title is) could, also, be cut down. We don't need that many references, just the most notable will do. Agree or disagree? ScarianTalk 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think the comments provided by anon really belong more appropriately in the Matthew Arnold article, but... I fully agree on the References to Dover Beach: some of these are interesting, others are rather so-so. The catch-22 reference is nicely written because it makes the connection more explicite and because Heller was clearly in tune with the source poem. Lumping the vast majority of these into a single paragraph would probably be the best way to handle them. Right now they look too much like a laundry list with an "oh I got one, too" feel to them. I still want to make a more thorough search of the critical materials and add in comments like the one I mention from Riede somewhere above. But in due time, I have to go work on other things right now. Then I will come back to this and the Matthew Arnold page. Thanks for all your help. Mddietz 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)