Talk:Edward Lear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward Lear article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] The phrase...

"Ere the days of his pilgrimage vanish" must surely be one of the most pleasant references to mortality ever coined.

...was apparently removed because it did not adhere to the editor's idea of the Neutral Point Of View. I suppose that the editor must know of an even more pleasant reference to mortality or know people who believe that there are more pleasant references to mortality. It would certainly have been helpful if the editor had used this discussion page to explain why it was necessary to remove the sentence. Without that explanation we can only guess at the reason with the hint, "NPOV", to go on.

In any case please note that rephrasing a sentence like this is usually preferable to deleting it. If a phrase seems arguable to you, you should rephrase it in such a way that people cannot argue with it, or should that prove impossible, you should attribute it to the people who think such a thing. In this case, it should be sufficient to rephrase the sentence as follows:

"Ere the days of his pilgrimage vanish" may be one of the most pleasant references to mortality ever coined.

since this leaves open the possibility that it is not. This is the form of sentence which I have replaced within the article. -- Derek Ross 04:10, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The previous editor (actually, several edits ago) who entirely removed the 'pleasant reference' claim may have gone too far. But what we're left with now is a unsupported opinion. I take exception to seeing unsupported claims without popular citations in entries. The burden of research is on the claimant. Here are some Wikipedia guidelines on the subject: NPOV#Characterizing_opinions_of_people's_work. As the guideline suggests, I think we're definitely dealing with "the idiosyncratic opinion of the Wikipedia article writer" as opposed to a well-researched or at least referenced popular opinion. The claim in question here appears to be one editor's enthusiastic opinion. Unless this is a common belief (which should then be claimed and/or cited), it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia entry. This is a Wikipedia, not an art review site; as contributors, we must do research!
As for the claim's possibility of being true or its inarguability... While Derek Ross has technically sanitized it to the point of being inarguable, accepting this approach in Wikipedia opens a can of worms since every article could then be allowed to fill up with fans and detractors claiming (inarguably!) that all artists may be the best at something and may be the worst at something else. As the Wikipedia guideline points out, these possibilities are a contribution only when they are popularly supported and/or researched (and, ideally, backed up.)
In an attempt to preserve NPOV while retaining the 'pleasant' claim of Derek Ross, I have edited the page. -- 200.171.151.213 01:39, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As the original writer of the phrase, my ego was mildly bruised by its excision, but I thought it unwise to reinsert it myself. (I mean, if I didn't want my writing to be edited mercilessly, I wouldn't have submitted it, right?) I think Derek Ross's version is better, and 200.171.151.213's version is better yet. The purpose of the "reference to mortality" remark was to explain the meaning of the phrase, because I didn't think it would be instantly obvious to all readers. Dpbsmith 13:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am happy with 200.171.151.213's edit. It provides a much better solution than a plain delete and it was accompanied by an excellent explanation of the reasons for it. -- Derek Ross

[edit] Capitalization of "Cow"

I restored the capitalization of the word "Cow" in the limerick about the Old Man of Aôsta, because that's the way it was in the original.

I see only two ways to go with this. Either quote his poetry as it was published—my strong preference—or bring it fully into conformity with modern usage, which would mean removing the capitalization in the phrase "Old Man" and elsewhere.

As I say, my own preference is to quote things as originally published. Lewis Carroll spelled "can't" as "ca'n't", with two apostrophes; George Bernard Shaw spelled it as "cant", without apostrophes; Edward FitzGerald spelled his name with an internal capital "G"; the first line of John Masefield's "Sea-Fever" is "I must down to the seas again" (not "I must go down to the seas again); Melville's most famous book is entitled, "Moby-Dick, or the Whale," not "Moby Dick"; and citing them as published retains period flavor and personality. I am waiting for the day when some officious copy-editor "corrects" the capitalization in the works of e. e. cummings. Dpbsmith 20:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Drifting off the topic, but I feel I should point out that, whatever he might have done to the capitalization of words elsewhere, E. E. Cummings always spelled his own name with normal capitalization. --Paul A 04:33, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bong-tree

Does anyone know what species "Bong-tree" refers to in poems The Owl and the Pussycat and The Dong with a Luminous Nose? Or is it purely an imaginary poetic device? --Eoghanacht 21:38, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

It was originally one of Lear's poetic inventions and appears in several of his poems. In the introduction to Lady Strachey's book, Queery Leary Nonsense, The Earl of Cromer said,
Nothing, I should add, amused Lear more than the failure of some people to appreciate the utter absence of sense in his nonsense. He used to relate that someone once wrote to him to say that he had marched various botanical and other works without finding any allusion to a "Bong-tree". Where, his correspondent, asked, did the "Bong-tree" grow?.
Where indeed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:24, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Seems a bit odd that in the 130-odd years since the publication of the poem, no botanist has employed it as the name of a newly discovered tree. Perhaps: Bong tree (Learia bonga)? Thanks. --Eoghanacht 12:25, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

I live in Little Bongs, Knotty Ash, Liverpool, made famous by comedian Ken Dodd. On the site of the Knotty Ash Inn local eatery and public house once stood an ancient knarled & knotty Ash Tree a landmark known as the Bong Tree. Ken Dodd recently planted a young Ash tree on the original spot. Presumably while in employment at Lord Derby's Estate only 5 miles up the road Edward Lear visited this place and wrote it into his poem "The Owl and the Pussycat"

Another mystery cleared up, <grin>. Hooray for Lord Derby, Ken Dodd and Knotty Ash! Thank you, Anonymous Contributor! -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old Men

Does anyone know why Lear's poems in the book of nonsense are mostly about old men?

- Sheer laziness, I suspect. Or perhaps at the time it was the standard opening line for a limerick. It is interesting that in Lear's limericks the last line closely echoes the first, whereas most more recent ones tend to end with an unexpected punch-line.

[edit] Removed

I removed this section. I'm not sure it if has been tampered with, but it seems a bit far fetched. Anyone who wants to re-introduce it is welcome. - FrancisTyers · 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life

The love of Lear's life was Sir Franklin Lushington, Chief Magistrate of London. Together they traveled the world over, while Lear indulged his passion for painting.[1]

I reinserted the text, as some cursory Googling (lushington lear) appears to indicate it's true. - EurekaLott 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/w/Talk%7EEdward_Lear_9bd4.html"