Talk:The Lucy poems/Archive 1

(p. 161) Lucy Gray
(reminder) 'Written at Goslar in Germany in 1799. It was founded on a circumstance told me by my Sister, of a little girl who, not far from Halifax in Yorkshire, was bewildered in a snow-storm. Her footsteps were traced by her parents to the middle of the lock of a canal, and no other vestige of her, backward or forward, could be traced. The body however was found in the canal. The way in which the incident was treated and the spiritualizing of the character might furnish hints for contrasting the imaginative influences which I have endeavoured to throw over common life with Crabbe's matter of fact style of treating subjects of the same kind.' [I.F.] Crabb Robinson records that Wordsworth said that his object in Lucy Gray 'was to exhibit poetically entire solitude, and he represents the child as observing the day-moon, which no town or village girl would ever notice'. [Diary, September 11th 1816.]

The poem was later given the title Lucy Gray, or Solitude. - In: Brett. Ceoil sláinte 21:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Influence: Bristow, Joseph. 42.


 * Lucy Gray is different and not part of the Lucy poems. It is closely related to "We Are Seven". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Notes
I'll put some notes below. I was thinking that "Strange Fits" and "Untrodden Ways" deserve their own pages, and the others do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Was thinking similar. Thanks for this Ottava. Ceoil  sláinte 21:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm asking Jayvdb to upload Lyrical Ballads 1815 to Wikisource so that all five poems can have page links to the original text. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Ceoil  sláinte 22:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hartman
Hartman, Geoffrey. Wordsworth's Poetry 1787-1814. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.

15-16 (after discussing "The Solitary Reaper"): In the Lucy poem, "Strange fits of passion," the moon dropping suddenly behind the cottage roof engenders a suddenly a thought of death, and if the poet mutes its implication (it is called "fond and wayward") the thought has some truth, as the ensuing poems telling of Lucy's death suggests. Is Wordsworth aggrandizing the prophetic character of ordinary perception or subduing an extraordinary perception? In "The Solitary Reaper," likewise, ordinary attention blends with a stronger awareness (call it imagination or revelation) as if the poet were afraid of distinguishing them too precisely.

21 On "The Boy of Winander" (after discussing inwardness, reflecting over a grave, mourning "a prior mode of being but meditates on the necessity of a loss which leads into matured awareness"): This interpretation of the second paragraph accords with other considerations. The timing of the boy's death and the tone in which it is narrated reminds us strongly of the Lucy poems. Both Lucy and the Boy of Winander die before consciousness of self can emerge wholly from consciousness of nature. (Of the Lucy poems it would be more exact to say before the poet's consciousness of Lucy's individuated and mortal nature can emerge.) It is as if the Boy of Winander were fated to reach a developmental impasse.

23-25 Entire section on "Strange Fits of Passion"

157-162 Lucy poems as a whole

285 "Peele Castle," therefore, repeats in an open and personal way the thought of radical loss haunting the Lucy and Matthew Poems.

376-377 Bibliography of other works on Lucy.

I'll provide more details on those sections via email if needed. I'll add in information from the two big sections on my own now. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Others

 * Leavis, F. R. "'Thought' and Emotional Quality". Scrutiny, XIII (1945): 53-55. (discusses "A slumber did my spirit seal"
 * Christensen, Francis. "Three years she grew in sun and shower". Explicator, IV (1945): 18.
 * Gierasch, Walter. "I travelled among unknown men". Explicator, I (1943): 65.
 * Ferry, David. The Limits of Mortality: An essay on Wordsworth's Major Poems. Middletown, 1959. 73–80.

Parody
Leaving long quote here until I can figure where best to plant it,
 * These parodies were intended to question definitive interpretation of the series, and highlight its indeterminacies. This is particularly true of Butler, who satirised over emotive interpretations of the Lucy poems,
 * I said above, 'as Wordsworth is generally supposed to have felt'; for anyone imbued with the spirit of modern science will read Wordsworth's poem with different eyes from those of a mere literary critic. He will note that Wordsworth is most careful not to explain the nature of the difference which the death of Lucy will occasion to him. He tells us that there will be a difference; but there the matter ends. The superficial reader takes it that he was very sorry she was dead; it is, of course, possible that he may have actually been so, but he has not said this. On the contrary, he has hinted plainly that she was ugly, and generally disliked; she was only like a violet when she was half-hidden from the view, and only fair as a star when there were so few stars that it was practically impossible to make an individuous comparison. If there were as many as even two stars the likeness was felt to be at an end. If Wordsworth had imprudently promised to marry this young person during a time when he had been unusually long in keeping to good resolutions, and had afterwards seen someone who he liked better, then Lucy's death would undoubtedly hae made a considerable difference to him, and this is all that he has ever said that it would do. What right have we to put glosses upon the masterly reticence of a poet, and credit him with feelings possibly the very reverse of those he actually entertained? ... If Lucy was the kind of person not obscurely portrayed in the poem; if Wordsworth had murdered her, either by cutting her throat or smothering her, in concert, perhaps, with his friends Southey and Coleridge; and if he had thus found himself released from an engagement which had become irksome to him, or possibly from the threat of an action for breach of promise, then there is not a syllable in the poem with which he crowns his crime that is not alive with meaning. On any other supposition to the general reader it is unintelligible. Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead image


I really don't like the new lead image... I think there are multiple problems with it. For starters, I don't think the article should put a "face" on Lucy like this -- the poems certainly don't; apart from the physical fact of her death, Lucy is really rather incorporeal, more an ideal than an actual woman. I think putting a picture that a) wasn't directly inspired by the poem; b) isn't contemporary; and c) is painted by a Realist rather than a Romantic is a big mistake. Finally, readers new to the subject may be put off by a washed-out, anaemic-looking red-head an image they may not find attractive. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I thought the last Wordsworth portrait was too dark and forboding for the article. He wrote the poem in the first flush, and the crossed arms, grey hair and dark tones go totally against the spirit of the poems for me. I do like the Whistler, but am very open on this, and to be fair I only questioned it tonight. Suggestions are welcome, but I would say, no lead image is preferable to what we had. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't argue for going back to the Wordsworth portrait; that one doesn't really work either. I'm hard put to think of an image that would be appropriate, off the top of my head, but let me think. In general, I'd prefer not to use a female portrait, real or idealised, for the reasons I explained above. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we are left with finding a younger, softer portrait of Wordsworth. I'll start digging, see what is out there. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm checking through our ARTstor to see if anything strikes me, but it's being super slow this evening. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cough - the poems are dark and foreboding. It would be a really bad misreading to not see that. The poem deals with loss and melancholy, and this image is a portrait of Wordsworth in such a state. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Moonlight par excellence...Modernist (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That could work for me. It's still kind of late, but it works a bit better for me. Let me sleep on it. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

try his work at commons, he's a pre-romantic...influential...Modernist (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We need something more innocent. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just what I was about to say. I like this one, but it's too full of despair. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its too over the top for the series. Ideally we need an idealised portrait of an idealised late 18th c female, preferally in nostalgic tones, whith tragedy and loss dripping from each bruch stroke. The painting should reflect Wordsworths view at the time, not modern interpretations or paintings that fit in with current modes of interpretation. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A big ask, I know. Ceoil (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec x 5)It will be hard, I think, to get the right sense of loss without making it too heavy. Might smaller figures in a landscape work? Something Friedrich-esque of a man observing the moon (he has one, but there are two men in it), à la "Strange fits"? Kafka Liz (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm coming around to the idea of no image in the lead, a blank canvass as it were, and discussing the depiction of women by the romantics more generally in a seperate section. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry kids, it's just not my thing - innocence? try Academic art - William-Adolphe Bouguereau Phaedriel's favorite painter...Modernist (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How about something by Samuel Palmer, like ? Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is really right either... Kafka Liz (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the proposed images work. They are off topic, don't deal with Wordsworth's state, and don't seem to discuss the psychological complexity of both anxiety and melancholy, nor the darkness of the poem's desire for the death of a loved one. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S., I had to change the formatting - the images and section headings were making text unreadable. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ottava, would it kill you to be more careful and considerate when dismissing other? Myself Liz, Modernist and Lith are a team, and we have been through the FAC process together more than a few times. A little faith please. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to go against MoS standards in such a way and have things that don't make sense encyclopedically, fine. Go ahead. I will delist the page and I want to make sure that I am not brought up at FAC at all. I really think that the image changes and the captioning disqualify it from being an FA and I don't want to be associated with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If our efforts are such that you dont want to be associated, thats fine. Fuck off so and leave us in peace. Congratulations, your ego has lost you a friend. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If by "your ego" you mean "MoS standards that have been in place for a long time", perhaps you have a point. Excuse me for wanting to make something a standard encyclopedic page. You obviously don't want that. You stated above that you are working with others who don't want it to follow MoS. If thats so, fine. Own the page. Don't have it comply with MoS. I don't really care. I built the page because I care about an encyclopedia, not because I am here to make friends. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never lived by MOS, as I say its a guide only, for people who do not really know what they are doing (eg: you, it seems). Anyway. these recommendations (NOT demands!) just in. I know it is you habit to chase and badger thoes who make suggestions, but please dont in this instance. There are people here that are interested in the page and are not so defensive and wrapped up in their own little bubble of comfort that they will fly at anyone who dares prick it with a dose of reality. . Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)\
 * MoS has it for a reason. FA is about meeting the MoS. Furthermore, if you honestly think that a caption that is larger than the action image is some how appropriate for an encyclopedia, then I really don't know what to say. And I love how you can criticize me about not being interested in the page, when I was the one that actually made it into a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * FA is about meeting the MoS. Well well well. I wanted to stop reading there. "I was the one that actually made it into a page". Such a bitter thing to say. Fine you added and I'm trying to build on that, But you.just.cant.take.it.can.you. A shared nom was always on the table (I also added unless you dont rembemer), but if I am dealing with a child, better you run off to Sandy now and short cut us all weeks of circular agony. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, most of what you added was poorly worded POV (seperation,seperationseperationseperationseperationseperation), and thoes sections will be rewritten anyway. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * POV? Wikipedia is about POV, especially in an interpretative section that relies on what scholars say. NPOV declares that all POV must be stated based on their weight. And poorly worded? Not really. The added decorative flourishes do not match what the scholarship says and has actually made quite a few violations of the Verifiability guidelines. And I really don't understand why you keep mentioning Sandy as if she wouldn't know what she is talking about when it comes to FA, especially when she weighs the merits of various opposes and supports. Do you not care about that? And you made it clear that this was not a co-nom, especially when you stated that you had another group to co-nom with, so your point there is extremely confusing. From what I can see from the reviewer right now, most of your changes are the ones being complained against, especially with the addition of material that is not cited and the caption proboems, so it seems like the page has degraded a lot since I worked on it, not improved. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats your problem right their in a nutshell. they are not "complained against", they are suggestions. I suggest you just go away and grow up. Ceoil (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "The page has degraded a lot since I worked on it". ottava helps and later. so it seems like the page has degraded a lot since I worked on it, not improved. Which part of "Fuck" or "off" are you having prolems with. Because their are trained professionals that can help with this kind of thing. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, YOU brought up Sandy: "Ask Sandy if you think you can get it through. I really don't think it can", ah, remember now?. And the co-mon thing is a real cheap shot, I have always been careful in mentioning other editors as co-noms. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Add to poorly worded, no logical flow. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for a younger portrait of Wordsworth, there's this one.... Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Too plain for the lead. It could work well in the background section, however. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Captions
I removed large chunks of captions because of Captions in order to accommodate the MoS for FA. Lets try to create some captions, but here are things to look out for (taken from the above page):
 * 1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
 * 2. is succinct. ("More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting. ")
 * 3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article.
 * 4. provides context for the picture.
 * 5. draws the reader into the article.

So, a few lines at most, must say how it is related to the poems, and probably should connect directly to a section in the text. I didn't like the other paintings above, because I couldn't justify how these directly related to the text at the very top of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are indeed right that the Wikipedia guidelines recommend short captions, ans most articles follow this. Does anyone know why? Academic papers typically have longer captions that explain the significance of the image. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? All of the books that I have might have a short caption or just information on the artist and who is depicted. I know some text books have detailed captions, but they follow a completely different formatting principle. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nature's guideline says:
 * "'Each figure legend should begin with a brief title for the whole figure and continue with a short description of each panel and the symbols used. For contributions with methods sections, legends should not contain any details of methods, or exceed 100 words (fewer than 500 words in total for the whole paper). In contributions without methods sections, legends should be fewer than 300 words (800 words or fewer in total for the whole paper).'"
 * 100 words is far more than Wikipedia normally uses. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nature is also a scientific journal, and scientific captioning need detailed explanations for various aspects. Literary captioning don't. I would suggest less than 20 words. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * MOS is a guide line not a set of rules. Please bear with me, the article is only at tidying up the first draft, it is not fully written yet. I want the captions to be fully contained and to nest into the text as with half way down the page here. Page is still only a work in progress. Remeber Ottava, it was you not me who decided to take it out of user space, and you did say to me that I could make editorial decisions as I saw fit. I'm nowhere near finished, I'm still warming up, and playing around. Reverting me is not cool. "100 words is far more than Wikipedia normally uses". Right. I would suggest less than 20 words. Right. Goes to show what you know. and Apoc2400, where the hell did you come from, who are you????? We are not (or at least I'm not) children trying to play within the scope of a rule book, we are trying to find a format that best suits the article, and fair enough we havn't found it yet, but we are trying, and please stop bitching. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, I would oppose the page based on the problematic citations. They really detract from the flow of the page. Ask Sandy if you think you can get it through. I really don't think it can. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ottava, did I just not say that the page is far far from finished? Run to Sandy? Please. The irony is that I really need your help, and I need you to work with me, not against me. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Hartman(n)
The references for Herbert Hartman are in conflict. The bibliography spells his last name as "Hartmann", but the article references and his name in the article content drop the second 'n'. Most, but not quite all, online sources agree with the one 'n' spelling. Also, in the references, the publication year is listed as both 1934 and 1938, with a 1934 year listed in the bibliography and sources. Another possible issue is that the name Hartman is used twice in the article without the first name qualifier; I am uncertain as to the possibility for confusion between the two authors, or if proximity to the full name and references are sufficient identifiers. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Tacking on: I can't verify this for the source since it's a direct quote and I don't have access, but other sources properly spell reality rather than use realisy in the poem quote that begins "But I cannot truly say that I grieve" ("... whether it has any realisy, I cannot say"). Also, the majority of available sources state "had", rather than "has" in the quote, though I also saw "has". -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've checked and fixed the Herbert Hartman references (one n, 1934). Regarding the issue of the two Messrs Hartman, I'm currently of the mind that having the linked reference suffices, but I'll give it another read and think about ways to clarify things further. I'll see what I can find out about the reality/realisy quote, but I imagine it will turn out to be a typo. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: The quote was actually cited to the wrong source, but I tracked down the correct one and fixed it. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

More sources to add
Two more sources to include:

Davies, Hunter. William Wordsworth. New York: Atheneum, 1980.

p. 101 "The poems about Lucy are perhaps Wordsworth's best-known work which he did in Germany, along with 'Nutting' and the Matthew poems, but the most important work was the beginning of The Prelude."

"Dorothy also appears a lot in the other poems he started writing in Germany and she is often thought to have been an element in the origin of Lucy... Strange stuff to write about your sister, but the Lucy figure in the end dies, which is equally bizarre. Perhaps Lucy was part-based on some unknown girl who had died. One possible friend (who had died three years earlier, in 1796) was Mary Hutchinson's sister, Margaret, a friend from the Penrith days. Literary scholars are still turning over these Lucy poems, looking for clues, tracking down the influences."

p. 124 "The new poems in the second volume included 'Strange fits of passion', and some other Lucy poems (the ones written in Germany)..."

Hayden, John. William Wordsworth and the Mind of Man. New York: Bibli O'Phile Publishing, 1992.

p. 6 "Psychological analysis of individual experiences and people occur fairly clearly in a number of works for which no other reading makes much sense-"Strange Fits of Passion"... But in other works the psychology is somewhat obscure and in need of explanation..."

p. 62 "Wordsworth, as we saw in Chapter II, does not exhibit in his works... much interst in associationist psychology beyond explaining some elemental workings of the mind. But he did notice how the mind sometimes put things together on an individual basis, and like so many other things psychological these instances interested him sufficiently to turn them into poems.

'Strange Fits of Passion,' is perhaps the best example of one of these poems of association. Unline the other Lucy Poems, this poem has been correctly interpreted a number of times, and there seems little disagreement today on the main point of the poem. The speaker, who is in love with Lucy, is riding toward her cottage when an optical illusion causes the moon to appear to set behind it as he and his horse approach. He is riding along in a reverie with his eyes on the moon when it 'sets' suddenly, and he relates the moon's setting to Lucy's possible death."

p. 157 "The series of early poems known as 'the Lucy poems' also often suggest an absence of demarcation between life and death; and placing them in this context can make the meaning of those often oscure poems a little clearer. In 'A Slumber Did My Spirit Seal,' if the 'spirit' in the first line is identical to the 'she' in the third, we could simply have another instance of the breakdown of distinctions...

Indeed, why should the speaker have 'fears,' when 'she' could as well be asleep and seems beyond death; likewise in the second stanza we are not told that she is dead, but rather that she has no 'motion,' 'force,' hearing, nor vision, but is part of a larger community of 'rocks, and stones, and trees.' As Alan Bewell insists, the speaker is 'unable to discriminate living from inanimate things....'

In 'Three Years She Grew in Sun and Shower,' Nature decides to '"take" the three-year-old Lucy into the same larger community:
 * 'And hers shall be the breathing balm..."

p. 158 "She joins the clouds, willows, storms, stars, and rivulets, as we are told in Nature's soliloquy. The narrator then tells us Lucy 'died' and left him with a 'memory of what has been, / And never more will be.' Such, however, is his view, not the correct view of Nature.

Of all the Lucy poems, 'I travelled Among Unknown Men' is the most conventional and easily understood, even though the death of Lucy is conveyed in a round-about way:
 * And thine too is the last green field
 * That Lucy's eyes surveyed.

'She Dwelt among the Untrodden Ways' is likewise more easily understood, but the last stanza is worth scrutiny...

Again, you have circumlocutions-not euphemisms- for 'die' ('ceased to be' and 'is in her grave') and again the speaker gives his view, which need not be the poet's."

Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Temporary removal
While all the 'Lucy' poems imagine the death of the subject, she is not mentioned by name in "A Slumber did my spirit seal". The character of Lucy further appears in Wordsworth's "Lucy Gray" and his "The Glow-worm".

"poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility: the emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the tranquility gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does itself actually exist in the mind.""


 * I'm not sure as yet quite where this should go, but I think it doesn't quite belong in the "Context" section. Perhaps later, in the introduction of the "Poems" section? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The first section can be integrated into The Lucy poems but that blockquote... I haven't a clue. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor I, and I'm a bit worn out to work on it tonight, I'm afraid... I'll try to think of something, but would you be averse to dropping it if need be? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears unnecessary. We need to think about trimming the sections of the first two poems (try to get 5 paragraphs total for each) and then something for the 3rd poem. I will try to work in the two sources above sometime this weekend, and add info from 2 other sources. With those four sources, that should be about 95% of the scholarship that is out there on the poems. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ottava; I think the quote appears criptic and vague here out of its origional context. I'll try and help put together something on "I travelled" over the weeked; Ottava feel free to snip away at "..untrodden", but "Strange fits..." is ok? Anyway, your call. Ceoil (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually scratch that. I'm hoping that both Awadewit and Mattisse will help and give input in a pre-FAC review, maybe we should leave the text in place until then? Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think we should allow Awadewit and Mattisse to weigh in how effective the poem sections are and if they should be summarized, expanded, etc, before we actually change anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Any luck with thoes earlier portraits of Wordsworth yet? No pressure, like...;) Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To do list
Maybe for focus whe should list out what should be done before we go for a 2nd peer review.
 * Ottava and Ceoil to finish "I travelled among unknown men" by sunday night or they are both blocked for a month.
 * Decide on a lead image that all are happy with, or we go with Ceoils preferance and Ottava is blocked for a month.
 * Respond to Ruhefish's PR in full, though Liz seems to have single handely taken care of most of this (or we could just block Ruhrfish?)
 * MOS tidy-up ie dashes, biblo format, ISNBs, etc
 * Image licences Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Parody" is uderdeveloped. I can look after this. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * re no. 3; then he would be "ruhefish" indeed, no? heh heh...  Litho  derm  20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Litho, have you seen the discussion above about the lead image. Any ideas? O and I'm about to fix my misspelling of Ruhefish's name, making you look like a random mentalist. Be warned. Ceoil (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested something by Samuel Palmer, he being William Blake - lite, and my suggestion seems to have been taken...  Litho  derm  20:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. OOps. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Either that or something by the Pre-Raphaelites, Rossetti et al. Ottava seemed to want a younger portrait of Wordsworth, but didn't like the one I found . Litho  derm  20:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Like so:  Litho  derm  21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would certainly include the first portait, very much against the, ahem, pencil engraving. We might need to be clever to justify including the Rossetti. Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded it, if you want to use it: .  Litho  derm  22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice one, Lithoderm. Thanks! Kafka Liz (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its in, thanks Lith. I'd like to place the Rossetti in the death section, I have an angel now. Can you upload pls. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The link above goes to commons; its already there...  Litho  derm  22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

re: the isbns, it looks like they are missing from most of the bibliography... I'll help, but anyone else who wants to pitch in should feel free. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ISBNs can be found at WorldCat. The younger picture above was the one that I had but was never able to scan (old scanner software wont load on this computer). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * P. 402. Talks about the portraits of Wordsworth. P. 90 has a much better portrait of Dorothy. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see it on google books. There is a good portrait here, about half way down dora_as_bridesmaid.jpg. If we can find out who painted it and when. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and replaced the current Dorothy picture with the portrait version (they correct features of her face, etc). Also, Dora was his daughter, I believe. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Im my openion Thomas de Quincey is an ugly plug, and marginal to this. Do we need his likeness. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The characterization of de Quincey adds too much detail and is inappropriate, as with an image against a blockquote. There are much better images of him, but this one can easily be removed. There is some more minor criticism to add, but I think we can safely remove all of the pictures besides Wordsworth, Dorothy, Coleridge, Oliphant (since she organized them along with Powell and there isn't an image yet of Powell), and the Lyrical Ballads. An image of Powell or Thomas Poole would be nice if they can be found. I will try to finish off the last of the criticism coming up soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would strongly disagree with removing the images of the artwork. They place Wordsworth's poetry within the context of contemporary visual art and make it easier for visual learners to navigate the article.  Litho  derm  03:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I should clarify - I don't want to suggest that we should remove the art. I just wanted to say that we could -safely- remove it, meaning, the paintings aren't "OMG this is essential or else". :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found some major critiques of the poems by some eminent critics (and some not so much) that I missed before. I will add them slowly. There wont be anything ground breaking, but I will be adding some more information to the page. I will focus mostly on the themes and critical response (so, analysis and opinion). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Images
Do we have to have De Quincy's image right underneath the title "Identity of Lucy"? It has a hilarious and unintentional suggestion that somehow the "ugly plug" was The Identity of Lucy... maybe that's just me.  Litho  derm  23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, and I don't think Ceoil or Ottava will mind if it goes. I'm taking it out. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For De. He has much better images. However, Wikipedia seems to always get the bottom of the barrel. I think it was that awful London copyright law that lasted until the Foundation decided against it. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm familiar with this London copyright law? In any case, I think we are agreed that an image of de Quincey is not really necessary here? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The London law allowed indefinite copyrights on portraits, which was very annoying. Wikimedia states that since it is in Florida, it will follow US law and not accept any copyrights for artists who have been dead over 100 years. That allowed us to put a lot of old portraits into commons. De is not necessary. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Finished
I added the last of any major stuff. If there are a few holes, please list them and I can expand. I have some more information that can be added, but nothing of utmost importance. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ottava; it's looking good. I might add a bit more to "I travelled...", but I'll need a day or two for that. Thanks also for clarifying about the copyright law - I wasn't familiar with that particular wrinkle, and it's good to know about.


 * One question I had was about "Three years": All the other poems except this one use ballad meter. I'm not sure what the name of this meter is, but we might want to make a note of it in its section. Can you find us some information on this? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a lyric certainly. As for its style? Frances Ferguson refers to it as "romance-six" (p. 189). What does that mean? I haven't a clue, but I guess it is to say that it is similar to six line stanzas found in some medieval romances (I wouldn't know which ones, as none stand out in my head). I have some more information on this poem if we need to expand it by a few lines (as with the last poem). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Small thing, but the two extracts from "I travelled.." need cites. I only have access to google books at the moment, not a proper anthology, so...Ceoil (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are cites really necessary? The poem is public domain, and it's obvious from the context (or should be) that the stanzas are from the poem itself. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just put (lines __ - ___) after. That is standard in such cases. In pages like Prometheus Unbound (Shelley), the references were used to link to wikisource pages, which is a little different. However, standard "lines" use is fine here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Go Liz. Ceoil (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

F&f's examples for FAC

 * Sentence 1: "five verses" Most people think of a verse as a line or stanza; true, it can mean a poem, but the sentence remains ambiguous: it can be read as five poems or a series of poems each with five verses.
 * Sentence 2: "seminal?" Is it needed, when Wordsworth and Coleridge are mentioned? "Co-authored?" Although "coauthor" can be used as a verb, "jointly authored" is better, or even "jointly written."  "represents both Wordsworth’s first major publication and the beginning of the English Romantic movement?" It didn't represent W's first major publication, it was W's fmp; similarly, it marked the beginning of the ERM ("represent" is too general).
 * Sentence 3: "The "Lucy" series chronicles the poet’s unrequited love for the deceased eponymous heroine."  Sounds like a funeral director's note.  To "chronicle" is to record; it could apply to a poem if something is already known about it, but it sounds off in an introductory sentence.  Same with  "unrequited," "deceased," "eponymous." Please find simple substitutes.
 * Sentence 4: "Although she remains physically distant and subtly incorporeal in all five poems, to Wordsworth she represents "the joy of my desire" and is longingly referred to as 'cherished'." What does it really mean? "Physically distant" and "subtly incorporeal?"  Is it someone always seen from afar, and then always shrouded in mystery? And why "although?" In other words, why can't a figure shrouded in mystery be the joy of my desire, especially in poetry?  More importantly, it is too much abstract information too soon.  We need to know something more concrete about these poems.  (Especially for people like me who are vaguely thinking of "Lucy Gray" from junior high-school!)
 * Sentence 5: "The foreseen reality of her death weighs heavily on the poet throughout, imbuing the verse with a melancholy, elegiac tone." The expression "foreseen reality" assumes we know something about the death already, but we don't.  The last part, on the other hand, seems like an overkill.  "Melancholy, elegiac tone?"  What else can it be?
 * Sentence 6: "Although today the "Lucy" poems are considered among Wordsworth's finest work, Wordsworth did (not) conceive of them as a group nor were they published as a series during his lifetime." The subordinate clause should offer a counterpoint; as it stands, it is ambiguous: it seems to be stressing "finest," not related pieces.
 * Sentence 7: "Between the 1798 and 1802 editions of Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth made many revisions to the poems and their sequencing." Why is this important?  And why 1798?  The poems were written only in 1800 (we were told upstairs).

Someone like me, who knows a few poems of W. by heart (or thinks he still does), should be reeled in swiftly by the lead. The first seven sentences, however, have snuffed whatever little excitement I brought here. I'm afraid the article will need to be majorly copy-edited (if the rest is anything like these sentences). Will swing by again in a week or thereabouts. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot, for the life of me, see one proper objection in the above. Instead, I see absurd comments. For example - "deceased" needs a "simple substitute". You can't get more simple than "deceased". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know who you are or what your game is, but you don't know how to write English. If you want to play hard ball with me, I'm happy to oblige.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me start with Sentence 6. We use adversative subordinating conjunctions when one proposition is opposed subordinated to the other.  What is the opposition subordination in: Proposition 1 ("today the "Lucy" poems are considered among Wordsworth's finest work") and Proposition 2 ("Wordsworth did (not) conceive of them as a group nor were they published as a series during his lifetime.")  Examples of such illogical use have been staples of high-school grammar books for over a hundred years.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Corrected later  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will let your uncivil comment to justify why your oppose is meaningless. Everyone here knows about my ability to write pages. Come attack my abilities to write a page when you are capable of writing something like Samuel Johnson. I find it delightful that you attempt to lecture me about English when you are unable to complete an "if/then" clause with the necessary "then". Then, you attempt to suggest that standard English would force a "but" in a standard introductory clause. No, that is not acceptable. Now, if you would like to be civil, come up with objections under the FAC criteria, and state them, that is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting I should have put a "then" in the sentence about hardball?! :) Where did I say anything about "but?" Please answer my question about sentence 6.  Where is the opposition subordination in the two propositions?  While we are at it, let's consider sentence 5: "foreseen" is that which is known beforehand.  Do you mean "The foreseen reality of her death" or simply "Her foreseen death?" If you don't mean the latter, what, in your words, is the difference between the two?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Corrected later.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to know where you mentioned "but" then look up the definition of "adversative conjunctions". Now, for your question - if you think there is no difference for the two, what point do you have in wanting one changed for the other? Pages are done through the expressions and colloquialisms of the writers and have the flavor based on such. Such flavoring is not an oppose ground. If there is a grammatical problem then produce it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean subordination; I've now corrected it above. I did say so in my first post, but then got distracted with doing too many things at dinner time. However, the question remains: where is the subordination in the two propositions? As for your question, I didn't say there was no difference between the two expressions, I asked you what that difference was. I think the expression "The foreseen reality of her death" is meaningless. If you don't, then you should be able to explain it to me. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  04:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets continue this on a talk page, shall we? I feel that we are talking past each other right now, which is the center of the confusion. You can pick which talk page. I recommend either this FAC talk page, the Lucy poems talk page, your talk page or mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I had meant to do that in the first place, but never got around to doing it.  I don't have much time tonight, but let me say briefly that it is not a question of an individual style.  It is poorly written.  There are plenty grammatical mistakes.  The lack of subordination between the clauses is an example and I can produce plenty more.  It really needs to be copy-edited carefully both for grammar and usage.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I rewrote some of the lead but for different reasons than you provided (repetition of the same phrases over and over). There have been four copyeditors going through, so the page has changed, and probably will change during the FAC (as many people go through and fix simple things). If there is anything specific that needs to be addressed, please comment. I moved from the talk page my one response (see below). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Fowler's talk page: Okay, lets have a discussion about what you want to see. I think a side by side comparison would probably be best for us to get synchronized on this. For example, when I saw 'Same with "unrequited," "deceased," "eponymous." Please find simple substitutes.' I was confused. Of course, "eponymous" could have a "simple substitute" (but could just be removed), "deceased" seems simple enough, and "unrequited" should be simple enough for most people.

So, we can work on that to come to terms on what you mean. Also, there was this - "The foreseen reality of her death weighs heavily on the poet throughout, imbuing the verse with a melancholy, elegiac tone." You seem to have a problem with melancholy and elegiac. Melancholy and elegies can go side by side, but one deals with death and the other with sorrow, siblings but not the same.

The word "chronicles" could be changed, but there would have to be a word that shows a historic progression over time. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not that most people don't understand "deceased" or "eponymous," it's more that together so many Latinized constructions make for ugly English. Apparently, you like to hold forth with meaningless fluff like, "Melancholy and elegies can go side by side, but one deals with death and the other with sorrow, siblings but not the same."  Huh?  Here, btw, is the OED on "elegiac": "Of the nature of an elegy; pertaining to elegies; hence, mournful, melancholy, plaintive; also (rarely) of a person, melancholy, pensive."  And you still haven't told me what "foreseen reality of her death" means, or for that matter told me how the independent clause subordinates the subordinate clause in the example.  Listen, I don't have time to engage people who like to nickel and dime the trivial stuff.  I will be back in a week.  If the article is still in the poor shape it is in now, I'll have something more to say.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A "Latinized construction" would be a word order reversal ala Milton. I think what you mean are words of Latin origin. Sure, Keats made it clear that simpler Germanic words would be truer to English, but this is not poetry. If it is meaningless fluff, then it is meaningless fluff. Such is not against MoS or FAC. And "foreseen reality" means he foresaw her state. Then you seem to think that a "subordinate clause" must be "subordinated" in a different sense. A subordinate clause is merely one that cannot stand on its own in a sentence. That sentence is correct because that clause is an aside (or parenthetical clause). If you want, I can give you the proper technical terms for your future use. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? Here is Webster's unabridged: "Latinize: to make latinate especially by the use of Latin loan words "   Again, and for the last time, I didn't ask for meaning of "foreseen reality;"  rather, I asked for that of "foreseen reality of her death," and how that latter is different from "foreseen death."  As for the sentence with the subordinating conjunction, here it is again: "Although today the "Lucy" poems are considered among Wordsworth's finest work, Wordsworth did (not) conceive of them as a group ..."  No that's not a "parenthetical clause;"  Where would you put the parentheses?  When you use conjunctions such as "although," "though," "while," or "whereas," you are contrasting two statements or suggesting that there is an unexpected situation.  What are you comparing or contrasting here?  Alternatively, what is unexpected?   Your sentence is illogical.  What you want to say is something like, "Although today the "Lucy" poems are (usually) considered to be a single work, Wordsworth did not conceive of them as such."  Putting "finest" in there and not having "single," makes it illogical.  As for your disquisition on Keats, the cliche "Prefer the Saxon to the Romance," which has been around at least since the early 20th century, usually applies (within limits) to prose.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PS As for your offer of grammatical advice, please apply it first to your own sentences: "if you think there is no difference for (sic) the two, what point do you have (sic) in wanting one changed for the other? Pages are done (sic) through the expressions and colloquialisms of the writers and have the flavor based on such (sic). Such flavoring (sic) is not an oppose ground (sic)." If you don't introduce alternative flavors into your diction, your FA chances will be iffy.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Before you try to lecture about grammar, try not to make such obvious mistakes as thinking the verb "latinize" is the same as "Latinized construction". As pointed out before, if there is no difference between the two sentences about foreseen, then you have no reason to bring it up. "As for the sentence with the subordinating conjunction, here it is again" Really? Because if you paid attention the sentence does not exist and has not existed for some time. You still keep making the same mistake over and over. I teach college students grammar. I have studied linguistics for a very long time. Finally, "When you use conjunctions" - as pointed out before, you have failed at getting standard definitions right, so you can stop the lecturing over topics that aren't even part of the page anymore. P.S. - don't try to lecture someone about FA when they wrote the FA that is stated to be one of the best. Your P.S. has ridiculous claims about grammar improprieties which do not exist. It is apparent that you aren't here out of good faith. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also some advice - 1. When trying to define technical terms, do not use a standard dictionary. 2. When trying to comment about Keats and latin constructions, be sure to have read Bate's The Stylistic Development of Keats first. 3. When you try to claim a dictionary definition, realize that the definition states "to make latinate", which, when applied to "construction", means latin sentence construction. If you looked up the term "inversion" in a linguistic dictionary, you will see that it is one component of this. If you need some help with it, please read this. It is a very simple guide to "construction". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to pick apart your "best FA" as well? You teach grammar to college students? In what language? English? Then (in addition to the howlers above) what explains: "I teach college students grammar?" Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and try to "pick apart" the Samuel Johnson page. Over a dozen of our top copyeditors along with our assistant FAC director worked on that page and think the prose is great. You have already started this off by being uncivil. Now you are only verifying that your opinion has no basis and should be disregarded. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I'm the guilty party with "general reticent to comment on the poems" (I've never gotten over reticent as a synonym of reluctant), and I changed "noticeable thematic shifts can be derived" to "noticeable thematic shifts are evident", creating a tautology, apparently. Clearly the opposers are looking for much more straightfoward wording. They're mostly right—I have no idea what is meant by "Although he did not change the theory of his poetry and only claimed to be refining his development from a mimetic to an expressive form of representation"—and yet I get the feeling there's also plenty of "pointiness" in the room. Clearly we need one of the opposers to just, say, help with the article. But such is not the way of FAC. Best of luck gentlemen [y señoritas–ed]. Birchcliff (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Y señoritas. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive
Can somebody with the knowledge archive this page from and including Lead image on down as far as Y señoritas just above me there. So as we can start the rework with a clean slate. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)