Talk:Herman Melville bibliography

Herman Melville bibliography received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Bibliographies List‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
List	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Northwestern Newberry[edit]

I added reference to Northwestern/ Newberry edition, which actually makes much of this article much in need of revision to change the text and add links to the individual works. UNfortunately I do not have time to do this, but it would be a great service if someone could follow up! ch (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies that I do not have the time or knowledge to make this into a useful and reliable article, but the list is still unreliable and sometimes self-contradictory. I moved Billy Budd to "works not published in HM's lifetime," but the poems which are listed as "unpublished" are almost certainly actually published in the Northwestern-Newberry edition. ch (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Billy Budd back, since it is a novel (or a novella) and not a short story. I agree that perhaps the sections could be rejiggered and the entries better elucidated, but I don't know how much expansion can be done. Also, since I don't have access to the "Northwestern Newberry" editions of his works (nor would I say that particular edition is the definitive edition of his texts, Norton and Chicago might disagree) I don't know what else we could define as a "work" that's not listed here. As to your assertion: "the poems which are listed as 'unpublished' are almost certainly actually published in the Northwestern-Newberry edition" — I would like to ask, what does "almost certainly actually published" mean? How is something "almost certainly actually"? And does the "uncollected or unpublished" refer to "uncollected or unpublished" in Melville's lifetime or now, I do not know. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. I was trying to make the same point, but should have known better than to use humor. I should simply have pointed out that the poems are in fact now published. I suspect that the editor who started the article was in the same position as you and me, that is, trying to be of service but not having enough time to do it thoroughly.

As to your other points, which are also well taken, no text is "definitive," whatever that means, but the Northwestern/ Newberry volumes present the reader with as much information as possible about the texts published during HM's lifetime, and the best information about the unpublished ones. The edition then provides a "reading text," which is the editors' best reconstruction of what Melville would have approved if modern editorial practices were followed. Other editors could come to different texts, especially in punctuation, spelling, etc. but the differences would be relatively minor.

In fact the text in the Norton Moby Dick is substantially that of the Northwestern/ Newberry edition, which, like all those in the series, is available to publishers free of charge since it was produced under a federal grant. The Chicago text of Billy Budd, which was produced in the 1950s, is used in the Northwestern/ Newberry edition.

"Expansion"? There is much to be said on the Bibliography of HM. In addition to a knowledgeable version of what I, a complete outsider, explained above, there is much that should be written, unless the article is simply a "list" of the works of HM, in which case perhaps we should suggest that the list be moved to the HM article.

What do you think? ch (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why is this article about a specific collection of Melville's publications?[edit]

Regardless of "definitive" or "completeness" of an anthology of Melville works, the lead should be focused on the works of Herman Melville, and certainly should not begin with the name of a collection of his works. As it is now, the beginning serves as an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.cash.m (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point. The edit recently made to change this by Alcmaeonid is not an improvement, because all it did was to minimize the description of the volumes without really removing the focus on the edition. Therefore I have undone it. What really needs to be done is a cpmplete rewriting of the introductory paragraph, so that it focuses on HM's works and does not call attention to any one edition of these works.MackyBeth (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to Alcmaeonid for undoing his sensible edits. I have undone my own undoing, since I now realize that I took the beginning of this article, "The writings of HM" as to refer to the specific edition. In order to eliminate the confusion, I changed the wording to "The bibliography of HM", which is also closer to the actual title of this article.MackyBeth (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fragments from a Writing Desk 1 and 2[edit]

The section Essays lists Fragments, but I am not sure if it was an essay. As I recall, it was a short story. In any case this prose has a special status because it was written and published in 1939, 7 or 8 years before HM became a writer. In his Melville's Reading, Merton M. Sealts, Jr. calls it a "juvenile" work.MackyBeth (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]