Talk:Weimar Classicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to many historians and scholars, Weimar Classicism is a literary movement that took place in Germany and Continental Europe, and its influence is still felt in many areas.

I had no idea that there was a debate about this! Good job with the article. — goethean ॐ 22:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to make this my personal project for some time, since most of which I contribute is centered about its periphery and source. There is more to come soon enough.^—ignis_scripta— 22:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Terms 2 Image 3 Halted progress 4 igni's uncertain prose

[edit] Terms

I have recently added a collection of terms to work with. These are mainly derived from Schiller's Aesthetic Letters and will be expounded upon with this permeating further editorial, substantial additions, and, to put it simply, there is a great deal of work to do. I recommend referencing Wilkinson and Willoughby's edition for it is most scholarly when compared to any others available.^—ignis_scripta 18:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

igni, could you translate "Der Weimarer Musenhof" for the image caption? — goethean ॐ 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's makeshift, but it certainly shall make due. — ^ignis _scripta 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halted progress

I may be forgiven this, but the article's progression, due to my unavoidable leave, continues to remain in stasis. Sometime in the future, perhaps I will be capable of adding the necessary materials so that it may stand as testimony to Wikipedia's usefulness, though it nevertheless is exemplary, for sources were provided very early in its development. — ^ignis _scripta 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if the case may be thus as I wrote four months hence, I still keep an eye on this article such that it may not become the sorry victim of various unspeakable hindrances during its travels across the internet's landscape—a not uncommon misunderstanding, for example, being how others wish to misconstrue an article's desire to travel somewhere with a confused state toward nowhere (and by this I do not wish to induce in the minds of any readers that I mean to hoard this article—I wish that it may become the best possible one on the subject, even if I an unable to do so myself for the while—in such a case I am certain we all can agree on these matters). — ^ignis _scripta 21:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] igni's uncertain prose

igni, on Dec 24 2006 I made some edits to the intro to correct some deficiences introduced by your uncertain grasp of the English language. You reverted some of them with the comment "providing adequate semantic naturalness for a clear, yet simple, précis", which illustrates the point. You are in love with the words, but are a little fuzzy on the meaning and application of your too-extensive vocabulary. No well educated native English speaker would use "semantic" to modify "naturalness". And the problem shows up in the opening phrase of your article: "Weimar Classicism...is an oft-disputed cultural and literary movement of Europe...". Goethean, above, was either too gentle or ironic in pointing out the problem with this sentence, albeit he was apparently addressing an earlier version. Weimar Classicism's tenets may have been controversial but its existance as a movement is not, so it is just as much an error to say it is "oft-disputed" as it was to say "according to MANY historiana and scholars..." which implies that there are other historians and acholars who think it is something else, or didn't exist at all. I wish you all the best with your project, but you need to be aware of this problem with your prose style in English. Andyvphil 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside from your slights to my prose (which are perhaps unfounded, for conventions in verbal usage have their limits, however you seem to feel that is not at all the case in your endeavor to police them), and you are, at any rate, not the first to make such comments, I do agree that Weimar Classicism is not always perceived as controversial, but such a statement, like all others, will need citation in order for it to stand in the article (see WP:OR); this is doubly indicated by the fact that I myself have not placed a citation for my own,—though it is indeed required—and I have nevertheless placed a comment at the end of the paragraph (it is in editorial form, so it does not show unless you were to edit the page) to indicate how shaky that particular paragraph is.

Whatsoever the matter may be, I did not intend for my following edit to your own to stand as a "revert" of sorts, i.e.:

"a European cultural and literary movement founded by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller"

In this portion I thought that there was too much adjectival density ("European cultural and literary") and "founded" also appeared to my mind to be something of a stretch for they never attempted "to found" the movement in any strict sense, as I am sure you might agree, but rather attempted "to propound" certain ideas and methods that were later referred to as "Weimar Classicism".

Even though you may find my prose (style) disagreeable, I am very grateful you chose to voice your opinions here, in spite of how irrelevant, and misguided, some of them in fact are. (Not to mention it would be preferable, or rather, most appropriate for you to ask for another editor's opinion before attributing one to him/her with the aim to bolster some opinion as well.) — ^ignis _scripta 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

igni, I'm not trying to put you down. You are obviously much more knowledgeable in this subject than I, and I encourage you to continue your work. Your prose style is more puzzling than disagreeable. It sounds like you've swallowed a very old Thesuarus but not quite digested it. You address your reader in a way that has a whiff of the archaic (not entirely unpleasing in treating an 18th Century subject, but idiosyncratic and difficult for any other contributor to match)... I don't claim to know for sure that goethian intended "I had no idea that there was a debate about this!" as gentle irony, but it seem the most plausible explanation, given his quotation of you, and one that you showed no sign of being aware of. In any case, I didn't and needn't rely on his support to make my point, which was that describing WC as "oft-disputed" was unclear and misleading. You still don't seem to grasp this, witness your saying, above, "...I do agree that Weimar Classicism is not always perceived as controversial...". The problem is that "oft-disputed" is NOT an exact synonym for "controversial". If you had written "Weimar Classicism was a controversial...movement..." or "The significance of Weimar Classicism is oft-disputed" at least your meaning would have been clear. As it stands currently a natural reading of your opening sentence is that the real EXISTANCE of the movement is disputed, a meaning that I don't think you intend... As to your comment on my edit, let me first repeat my comment at the time: "tightened the prose, no intent to change meaning". If the movement had an existance beyond Goethe and Schiller it was founded by them whether they intended to found a movement or not. But if you prefer "propounded by" I am certainly willing to concede on a matter of taste to the primary author. The "revert" I was referring to was the re-appearance of "oft-disputed". You also introduced "prospect and emulation of the classical" which needs to be something like "perspective on and..." to make sense. And "due to their prematurity" is a poor substitute for "because it was premature" not merely because prematurity is an ugly word, but because individuals can be premature in many senses whereas the adjective "premature" is much clearer as applied to the movement. As with "oft-disputed" it is clear after very little thought what you MUST mean but you are making the mind of your reader do extra work, sorting through other readings of the sentence, and that is the opposite of limpid prose. I truly hope this is helpful. Andyvphil 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then, you most certainly brought up matters that were not altogether pertinent to the issue at hand, but I see how it is the wording could have been misconstrued in such a way given my previous attempts to make the article's synopsis briefer. With that said, your commentary has been indeed a good help, and, I must add, not editing so often as I should, in order to gather experience, I tend to forget people actually read this article with the hope to understand it. — ^ignis _scripta 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)