Talk:Imagism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] older entries
On what basis is FS Flint called a pseudonym? The manifesto may have been ghosted by Pound, but Flint was a real enough person, it seems. Filiocht | Blarneyman
Moving text pre-rewrite:
Imagism was a movement in early 20th century Anglo-American poetry. It rejected romantic and sentimental Victorian traditions in favour of precision of imagery in clear, sharp language. Imagist principles were articulated by Ezra Pound, H.D., and Richard Aldington in a manifesto published in the March, 1913 issue of Poetry under the name of F.S. Flint.
The three tenets of the Imagist Manifesto:
- Direct treatment of the "thing", whether subjective or objective.
- To use absolutely no word that does not contribute to the presentation.
- As regarding rhythm: to compose in sequence of the musical phrase, not in sequence of the metronome. Filiocht | Blarneyman
[edit] Revert
I reverted the heading edits because Imagist and Imagism are proper nouns so need caps in headings Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A 'Further Reading' Section?
Perhaps some readers would find a 'further reading' section of interest? Suggestions:
- William Pratt: The Imagist Poem, Modern Poetry in Miniature, 1963, expanded 2001, ISBN 1586540092
- Julian Symons, Makers of the New: The Revolution in Literature, 1912–1939, Andre Deutsch, 1987, ISBN 0233980075
The first because it is specific to the topic of the article; the second because it is - I think - one of the best of its kind. —Stumps 07:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say add this. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've added it. Not sure about placement. I've put it before the References because I like the uniformity of the References ... especially the online links ... coming last. and also somehow it looks better with the short 'Further Reading' going before the longer References, BUT I think the Jones book better than the Pratt, and the current arrangement seems to place emphasis the other way around. Any opinions anyone? —Stumps 08:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- You've placed it where I would have, FWIW. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've added it. Not sure about placement. I've put it before the References because I like the uniformity of the References ... especially the online links ... coming last. and also somehow it looks better with the short 'Further Reading' going before the longer References, BUT I think the Jones book better than the Pratt, and the current arrangement seems to place emphasis the other way around. Any opinions anyone? —Stumps 08:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] References
How did this get to be a FA when the criteria is supposed to be "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations"?...I find it hard to believe there is no such appropriate place in this article.Rlevse 04:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fantastic article
Just wanted to stop by and praise the editors who worked on this article. I read it rather nervously, because I used to be deeply into Pound and his strain of Modernism (exemplified by Hugh Kenner's Pound Era book), but I was very impressed. Well done! (I do agree with Rlevse that the article could really use some inline citations at points, however, especially for quotes and particular little-known facts.) Sdedeo (tips) 06:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Process
The article is informative and in depth but it doesn't make any reference to the ambivalance with which the poets featured in various anthologies had towards the name, and to what extent it could really be considered a school. The introduction to the penguin Imagist poetry book suggests that it was to a large extent a PR exercise by Pound which was taken over by Amy Lowell whereas this article makes it seem much more solid than perhaps it was.
[edit] Imaginisim
I happened across this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginism, which describes a type of poetry I've never heard of, and seems to have appeared at the same time as Imigism. There's no mention of it elsewhere, so I was wondering if it isn't a mistake, or if it's a real movement, if the timeline could be better defined. 66.57.225.195 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)DEL