Talk:John Betjeman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Quick question
Quick question - Were Betjeman and MacNeice not already aquainted from Marlborough rather than later on at Oxford as stated?
- I believe you are right. Anthony Blunt was another of his contemporaries at Marlborough.--Oxonian2006 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The juxtaposition of "Princess Anne" with "Oh little body, do not die" is a bit alarming, but I'm not sure how to rearrange the article. Perhaps the quote should be preceded by a heading such as "Quotations". -- Heron
And while we're at at it, was that poem really printed as prose? Also, it's missing a quotation mark—I assume it goes at the end. —JerryFriedman 18:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can look this up Saltmarsh 14:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC) done Saltmarsh 14:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I have just consideably extended Betjeman's work & bibliography. I am about to extend the top of the article. Please let me know if I'm standing on any toes! Saltmarsh 14:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Quick question - Were Betjeman and MacNeice not already aquainted from Marlborough rather than later on at Oxford as stated?
[edit] Grave picture
Um... Betjeman's article is the first wikipedia article of a person I've seen which has a picture of the person's gravestone (and its the only picture in the article too)... it doesnt seem to be an especially notable gravestone (the fancy calligraphy is a question of taste and not that unusual), except for its occupant. If it was Karl Marx's grave or Jim Morrison's grave, there is probably a reasonable argument for having pictures of those graves in an article, as they are notable tourist/sightseeing stops. I don't think Betjeman's grave is - what is the rationale for having a picture here of it? seems a bit morbid and is out of line with other articles. I think it should be replaced with an image of the poet when, you know, he was alive. Bwithh 22:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it's a very pretty church in exactly the sort of area where people do vitit such sites and his grave, like many other poets, is certainly mentioned on all the usual local tourist bumph. Frankly it seems far more serious that we don't mention Slough, which if not his best work is certainly his most famous.Alci12 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- See Charles Parnell article for another example of the grave's use as part of the article. I agree that there certainly should be a more extant image in contrast to the image in question, however, its removal would be a little rash, especially if the only cause for doing so were to pander to tourist interests. I think that the inclusion of the gravestone, and I refer once again to the Parnell article as a student of Irish history, gives an insight into the character of the indicidual concerned, the very nature of the object depicted demanding (usually) some profound, if not initially response.
[edit] Fantastic Article
As the centenary of the poet's birth approaches, I felt that I knew far too little about the man in question. Turning to Wikipedia, I found an article which was balanced, excellently referenced and generally very well-written, and come away much better informed. Such small 'nuggets' found scattered across the Wikimedia world do the Wiki foundation, especaiily Wikipedia a great deal of credit.
[edit] Come friendly editors and decide on Slough
In contrast to the sentiment above (by Alci12), I think this article really should make mention of Betjeman's most famous poem, even if it is not necessarily his best. It could even be in as brief a mention as "While best known for his poem Slough, Betjemena's verse ranges widely in both style and substance." Or something like that. But since it is his best known work it should be mentioned in his page. Agreed? Eusebeus 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Agree. Slough is undoubtedly his most widely known work, and shows both Betjeman's humour and his concern for architecture, both significant in his life and works. It's also very funny. DuncanHill 13:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Whilst "Slough" may be a work often quoted, isn't it pure guesswork to say that its 'his most widely known'? I'd have plumped for A Subaltern's Love-song as his most widely known, even if many people wouldn't recognise it by it's title.
Mighty Antar 14:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Depression and daffodils
I thought the depression and daffodils comment was said by Larkin about himself
You may well be correct. It was Phillip Larkin who according to Collin's Concise dictionary of Quotations said "Deprivation is for me what daffodils were for Wordsworth" in an article in The Observer newspaper in 1979. Is the quote in our article simply a mistake, or was it Betjeman paraphrasing Larkin or visa-versa? Mighty Antar 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
