Talk:James Russell Lowell

older comments
This page really needs to be wikified. Added notice. -- KneeLess 04:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

needs sections Bluemoose 09:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lowell features as one of the principal characters in The Dante Club by Matthew Pearl. I'd like to suggest a link to biographies of Lowell, his uncle Robert Traill Spence and grandfather Keith Spence at http://www.buyorkney.com/roots/biographies/james_russell_lowell/.Merrydancer 10:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not to 'merrydancer'.
 * Change " These writers usually used conventional forms and meters in their poetry, making them suitable for families"=== indicating poetry isn't normally suitable for families?? Of course it is! 98.123.126.45 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most confusing comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. If it's not a note to merrydancer, why did you reply to them? And also, it's been 16 years. Also, yes, conventional forms and meters make poetry more palatable for family readings. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sidebar
Make Wikipedia articles consistent. Add in the top sidebar for this subject the standard summary of his political appointments.

Propagate this fix across all articles on persons in Wikipedia.

Jimlue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry...What do you mean by "sidebar"? And, Wikipedia articles, by definition, are not entirely consistent, even if you want to "propagate this fix across all articles on persons on Wikipedia". I'm afraid It's doubtful your comment here would result in such massive edits. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

James Russell Lowell - 1855.jpg}} to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File: will be appearing as picture of the day on December 22, 2019. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-12-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Commemoration Ode?
Revised Lives : Whitman, Religion, and Constructions of Identity in Nineteenth-Century Anglo-American Culture by William Pannapacker says "Lowell was proclaimed by many critics to have written the greatest poetic summation of the Civil War and tribute to Lincoln in his “Commemoration Ode" " (p. 93). Is this the same one he presented at Harvard? Is it independently notable? Does it merit more of a mention here? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's certainly the same poem and that's some high praise... I for one find Lowell's "Commemoration Ode" tedious so I'm not sure it's a common reaction. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking further into this, Pannapacker cites Aaron, The Unwritten War p. 70 for that paragraph Looking at my copy of Aaron, I see nothing of the sort. However, I have found some pretty high praise including "PROBABLY most literary critics and lovers of verse, if they were asked to name the finest single poem by an American writer, would accord that distinction to James Russell Lowell's Commemoration Ode." Eddie891 Talk Work 01:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Goodness... These "most literary critics and lovers of verse" need some better taste! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Heavily ungrammatical
Sorry to come at this from a linguistic point of view, but Lowell's writing isn't "ungrammatical"; it's nonstandard. Yes, I understand that his writing is boldly, proudly, and flagrantly representing a non-standard dialect, but that's not the same as being ungrammatical, which means something like "not conforming to grammatical rules." It is conforming to grammatical rules: those of a 19th-century Yankee dialect. Wolfdog (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's important that we're avoiding original research here so we must look to reliable sources. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the source I originally cited when adding that phrasing so I can't confirm what it says. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you were thinking of comedic re-spellings or eye-dialect spellings? Again, this is distinct from a lack of grammaticality. Here's a source that mentions this as a concept (though it just as much mentions Lowell's attentions to detail with his eye-spellings): source. Wolfdog (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would ask what I was thinking. I added the material under dispute but it was not my own thinking. As I noted above, I am unable to recall what the original source's wording was and no longer have access to that source. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The copy of sullivan I have access to says (forgive the extended quote, don't want to omit context + not sure what was being cited) on p. 213:
 * "But Lowell's nature, as he said, was 'naturally joyous.' He knew he must really, and he did, building anew on the literary reputation already firmy established by 1848, certainly his most productive year. In 1848 alone, a year of revolution throughout Europe, appeared Lowell's two most important works, The Biglow Papers and A Fable for Critics. Phrased in the caustic, disarmingly ungrammatical Yankee dialect of one Hosea Biglow, the archetype of his no-nonsense rustic kin, The Biglow Papers, First Series, for all its humor, is a damning assault on the evils and pretensions of mid-nineteenth century America..."
 * There's more to the page, available on archive.org with free registration, but I think that's the relevant context. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is very helpful so thank you. My recommendation would be to quote verbatim (According to Sullivan, the book was written in "caustic, disarmingly ungrammatical Yankee dialect") to avoid any accusations of original research. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I sincerely appreciate your willingness to avoid OR fights -- thanks. Ha, I'm asking what you're thinking because we're both human beings. So: are you saying we should quote "caustic, disarmingly ungrammatical"? You're not worried that this will raise more questions than clarifications? (I suppose we could say The Biglow Papers, as one biographer describes, are "phrased in the caustic, disarmingly ungrammatical Yankee dialect" of the early 19th century.) Wolfdog (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I thought you were asking me to interpret the definition of ungrammatical. I do think the phrasing you offered that quotes the original source is a fair compromise. If sources suggest different ways to describe it, I would recommend we also include those. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * None seems to be as colorful as Sullivan's descriptions. This dissertation for example says the Papers are "replete with nonstandard spellings" and "quasi-phonetic spellings". This document speaks of phonetic spellings and Lowell's own inconsistencies, while aiming to be quite objective-sounding in tone. The original Google Books source I linked above mentions the use of deliberate misspellings and says Lowell "worked to capture the sounds, cadences, and distinctive perspectives of a vernacular Yankee mind-set". Does any of this appeal to your intentions? (Certainly, descriptions of the character using the dialect being a "country bumpkin" are mentioned in the sources.) Wolfdog (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think any and all of those would be fair play for inclusion. I'm also at the point where I wonder if having an article on The Biglow Papers is justified, considering these complications and, obviously, abundance of sources. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Is there any reason to privilege the "caustic, disarmingly ungrammatical" phrase in particular? It looks like most of the sources focus on spelling. Wolfdog (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tried out some new phrasing on the page. Let me know what you think. Wolfdog (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Organizational structure
An editor has suggested a new organizational structure for this article (see version here), which creates a new section on "Personal life" rather than spattering those details chronologically throughout the biography. I'm posting here for some opinions from other editors and would love to hear more. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)