Talk:Kubla Khan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Including the poem
Why not put the full text of the poem here instead of an external link? Since it was published in 1816 there shouldn't be a copyright issue? RedWolf 17:51, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Basically, an encyclopedia article on a piece of literature should not be a copy of that piece of literature, but rather be some sort of information about that literature. And furthermore here on Wikipedia the poem would be fully editable, so how could one tell whether that's what Coleridge really wrote? You'd have to refer to an off-Wikipedia copy of the source material anyway, to do that. Bryan
- As quoted in WP:NPS, "Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles. Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias". Now Kubla Khan is fairly long, but having it side-by-side with the article infinitely increases the overall understanding of the text--Also, when the length of the article increases, the poem will not overwhelm the page. Let's put it back. AdamBiswanger1 04:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tone of disbelief
This article seems to condemn the man. Why the tone of disbelief? Did Coleridge have a reputation for dishonesty? Or is it just a reaction to his drug addiction? The phrase "Coleridge claimed" apears twice in the article. As does the phrase "This claim seems unlikely". What motivation would Coleridge have to bend the truth. It seems narrow minded to assume that "A Vision in a Dream" is a reference to a "dream" in the literal sense. Did Coleridge explicitly state that he was sleeping? Please elucidate.
- I'm also confused by the tone of disbelief. I don't think it's warranted.Wightpants 14:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's been a awhile since I've dipped into the Coleridge scholarship, but yes, there are problems with dishonesty. A substantial passage or two in "The Biographia Literaria" had been plagiarized.Bill 11:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gently"
I've removed the reference to Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency". The poem used in that book is actually The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.Wightpants 14:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, both poems feature in the book. I've put the refernce back in. :S Wightpants 14:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
But now there are two references, one near the top and one near the bottom! I like the book, but I think there should be only one reference. --71.125.9.240 05:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC) What THE HELL is goign on guys! Com'on, this can't be serious... DAMN IT
I think it is very important to note that it was NOT Coleridge himself who talks about the Opium induced dream. This was added later by an editor about 78 years after Coleridge's death in a book entitled "Complete Poetical Works". Coleridge's original note was:
"This fragment with a good deal more, not recoverable, composed, in a sort of Reverie brought on by two grains of Opium taken to check a dysentery, at a Farm House between Porlock & Linton, a quarter of a mile from Culbone Church, in the fall of the year, 1797."
A reverie does not mean he was asleep, so the part about the claim being "unlikely" isn't very fair to the original author of the poem.
There was also no mention of a "person from Porlock" in this original note.
-Anonymous, April 10th, 2006.
The preface WAS written by Coleridge. It appeared when the poem was first published in 1816. One of the reasons there is some skepticism about the preface is that the story it tells is different from that in the note quoted above.Bill 11:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a possibility that the last section - "A damsel with a dulcimer" etc - was added prior to publication in 1816, and that "Mount Abora" is actually Mount Tambora, which erupted with spectacular effect in 1815?
[edit] Popular culture
I've reinstated the use in popular culture section, because the rather large revision was not discussed, and some popular references have returned now, so it would be 'unfair' to include only these and not others. -- C mon 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is the point of this page?
Sorry but this page seems of little value. There is no significant discussion, explanation or elucidation of the poem. It appears to be merely a depository for tabloid infotainment trivial popular culture references. Worthy of an encyclopedia entry? Not in any way in my opinion. Trash it all and start again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.189.130.13 (talk • contribs) .
- You're welcome to rewrite the article from scratch if you feel it's necessary. You can do it at your user page or wherever (ask me if you need a page created). —Keenan Pepper 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the Wikipedia's great strengths is that it treats popular culture as if it matters (whereas other more *serious* encyclopedic tomes may deem popular culture too trivial to discuss.)
I have loved this poem for many years. It was fascinating to find out in this article about how much its tone and its content has influenced creative persons in literature, film-making and music. Mfgreen 02:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm with 84.189.130.13 on this. The "In popular culture" section has got way out of hand, it occupies over half the article. What's the point? Kubla Khan is one of the most famous poems in the English language, so of course it is referenced in popular culture, but there's no need to list every single video game or pop group that uses the word Xanadu! How about moving the entire section to a separate page? --Auximines 10:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia references
I removed the extensive section of references to the poem in popular culture. There is no value to such a section; as has been mentioned above, this poem is quite famous and frequently referenced. It took up half the article. If any of the trivia should be kept, it should be incorporated into the article rather than a list.--Cúchullain t/c 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
