Talk:Thomas Holley Chivers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Thomas Holley Chivers has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on August 18, 2007.
June 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Thomas Holley Chivers is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Recent edits

Regarding recent edits by anonymous IP 59.171.25.109... those contributions are great and may be accurate, but the material you changed was already sourced. It made it look like that information came from the sources that are cited; it's not. If you have other sources that say different things, add that stuff and include the source. I'm actually kinda excited to hear that you have that publication and would love to see it incorporated into this article! I've reverted your edits just so that the information in this article can remain verifiable by the sources already given. Does that make sense? --Midnightdreary 12:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, what this article really lacks is information about Chivers's "Life of Poe" and his defenses of him after Poe's death. Adding that would make it more suitable to change the word "enemy" in the intro to "a defender of the late poet's reputation" or whatever you had it as. --Midnightdreary 13:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Years ago I edited an edition of The Lost Pleiad. Not sure why you deleted the standard S. Foster Damon refs, Search after Truth and the other information, which is entirely accurate, though I see your point about the already sourced material. As the author of this Wiki page, it's up to you to check out these books and recast this page so that it tells the truth. As it is now, it doesn't. But let's get this clear: you are mistaken in that Chivers was never Poe's enemy; Rufus Griswold was--for some unknown reason--the person who attempted to mutilate Poe's legacy after his death, not Chivers. Sorry if this sounds too dogmatic but if you check the facts about Chivers you'll see that the whole tack of this and the "Did you know" page is absolutely off. God knows how many jr. high students are spouting this nonsense now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.171.25.109 (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually grabbed a copy of Chivers's "Life of Poe" just yesterday. The information that is currently in this article is fully sourced and accurate based on those sources - so I'm not sure why the whole tack of this page is absolutely off (sounds a bit extreme, unless you're saying that Silverman, Meyers, Kennedy, and Moss are all completely wrong). But, with that said, I will go into this new source and expand further. Don't feel the need to lecture me on the history of Poe and Griswold; I'm sure I can keep up with you just fine. Further, I doubt that many junior high students are spouting this "nonsense" as I can't really believe much Chivers studies still exist, let alone in junior high. Anyway, if there is information I removed which is worth re-entering, go for it - but properly cite this additional information separately from what's already sourced (you can see the Wiki-mark-up based on what's already sourced if you don't know the method here). --Midnightdreary 13:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chivers was never an enemy of Poe. That's the lecture. Please check the S. Foster Damon. This is not a contest about keeping up. It's just keeping accurate, right? That's what this project is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.171.25.109 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, please make sure to indicate that Chivers' offer to support Poe was given THE YEAR BEFORE POE DIED, and not early in the Poe-Chivers relationhip as you seem to imply. This is bourn out in Chivers' collected letters, which are also available for your inspection in book form at any college library, and is also indicated in S. Foster Damon.

Damon is the standard source for Chivers. After him there's Charles Henry Watts' Thomas Holley Chivers; His Literary Career and His Poetry (University of Georgia Press, 1956).

There is also some question about the abuse business you mention early on in the article, after you tell us that Chivers was Poe's enemy. Unless some new letters have been uncovered regarding Chivers and his first wife to throw definite light on what happened between them, I would not use the word abuse. Indeed, the implication was not abuse but a possible flirtation between Chivers' young cousin and someone else. The word abuse--implying some form of domestic violence--is not indicated by the surviving letters.

Please go back to the original sources and you'll see. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.171.25.109 (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, but in the Chivers' Life of Poe book, if you read it carefully, you'll see that the scholarly introduction sets out the whole idea that Chivers was not Poe's enemy, but someone attempting to answer Griswold's recriminations. So apprently you've laid your hands on the book, but you haven't read the introduction.

Also, by stating at the get-go that Chivers was Poe's enemy, you've started the article off with an untruth. That's why the page is "off." Please don't underestimate Jr. High School students, but more than that, please don't aid in spreading untruths through the agency of the Wikipedia. Chivers used to be a project of mine. He was one of the first advocates of Shelley in America, and his sonic experiments in Eonchs of Ruby--designed to replicate the speech of Angels which he encountered in his Swedenborgian reveries--are some of the earliest attempts at "sound poetry" in American literature. He also used African-American chanting and speech-rhythms in some of his "songs"--so he was an early ethnographer as well. So actually, this eccentric Georgian doctor (it was rumored that he kept one of his dead daughters in a sealed glass casket full of alcohol) was quite advanced in his literary experiments. to have him reduced to "an enemy of Poe" when scads of information out there indicate just the opposite is rather much.

On the other hand, and to the eternal negative: Chivers was a slave-owner. That's a whole different subject.

Well, I'm not sure where you think these sources came from if they weren't used by me to begin with. I mean, be careful saying that I'm the one saying anything about Chivers (i.e. "the abuse business you mention earlier" and "as you seem to imply") - it all comes from these listed sources, not me personally. I have never said to you that I believed that Chivers and Poe were enemies; merely that sources I have found suggest it. You certainly wound me with this line: So apprently you've laid your hands on the book, but you haven't read the introduction. You'll pardon me for picking up the book less than 24 hours ago, having a need for 8 hours of sleep, then having the audacity to go to work before reading the book - as I said, it's worth taking a look at this source, but I do need some time to get around to it. Please be kind and assume good faith, as I am with you. In other words, I am not purposefully destroying Chivers life and work, nor am I purposefully adding contentious or incorrect information. I'll do my best to check, re-check, and confirm all while I'm juggling other things. And, again, remember you're welcome to edit this too: just make sure to use in-line citations in a similar format as what I was using. Thanks for talking about this; it's worth being informed of these kinds of problems and discrepancies. --Midnightdreary 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing discussion

Feel free to ignore what I wrote earlier today. Based on suggestions from the anonymous IP above, I've gone back to my original sources and confirmed them all to be true. I've also compared the additions from the anonymous editor and, I believe, came to a solid compromise. Any changes to the originally sourced materials have not been restored. New information, however, especially info relating to Chivers's defense of Poe, has been restored - but labeled as in need of citations. My assumption is that confirming this information with in-line citations will not be difficult, and I will do some searching myself. It seems to me the discussion was based on only three things: 1) New information could not be spliced into information already sourced as it dishonestly presents that information as being from those sources. 2.) New information should not be added without citations - though, with that said, the information is too important and should stay as is until sources are added ex post facto. 3.) The real discussion is based on one word: "enemy." That word and the assertion behind it are not supported in the current version of the article which includes the restored information mentioned above. As such, the word "enemy" is completely inappropriate in the introduction. I leave it at the discretion of the anonymous editor to make an appropriate change here or I'll restore his previous wording within a day or two.

Ultimately, it's worth saying "thank you" for the discussion brought to this article, one which clearly is not often supported by Wikipedians. Collaboration is key here, and I apologize for reacting perhaps a bit too rashly. --Midnightdreary 00:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not want to get rid of your footnotes, but if you could please adjust what you have written so that my first note on the "abuse" you mention could be integrated into the text, it would be a mercy. According to Watts, Chivers' offer of a worry-free life in the South was repeated twice between 1847 and 1848. I'll confirm that with the letters once I find them in my files.

And yes, I have to say, that though Kennedy and the others may say what they say, that absolutely does not mean that they are correct. The sticky, one-fits-all word "abuse," with its implication that Chivers could perhaps have been a wife-beater, etc., is simply unfair to pin on this person without absolute proof, and, as I said, unless some new letters or documents have been uncovered recently, none of the surviving material indicates any of this. So to level the word abuse, or even alleged abuse at Chivers is to engage not in scholarship but rumor mongering. A comparison between Melville--who did abuse his wife--and Chivers is in order. Recent Melville scholarship did uncover letters sent between Melville's in-laws and the family preacher, which set forth plans for an intervention in the household during Melville's "mad" period between the writing of Moby Dick and Pierre. To the best of my knowledge nothing of that kind exists for Chivers, and even family stories do not hint at this.

I have also modified the Chivers intro. to more clearly reflect what Chivers became for Poe's legacy.

None of these comments have been made in anything less than an assumed Good Faith. It does bother me, however, that Chivers should be subjected to such a one-off handling on Wikipedia, because clearly, he and his work deserves better. And oh yes, the business about Chivers being preoccupied with shrouds and death in most of his poetry is also a cheap and easy distortion based on what past critics said about "The Lost Pleiad" and can be dispelled simply by reading the other poetry. If Kennedy et. al. say this, they are simply showing that they have not taken the time to read the work.

Thank you for starting this page, and good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.171.25.109 (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done, and thank you for the collaboration. Keep in mind the sources I am using are Poe sources and it's only natural that they compare Chivers to Poe - that means emphasis on graves and coffins. I'm sure it's not the full story but it's all I had. I started the article with the hopes that people (like yourself) would fill in the gaps. By the way, the line about "abuse" is meant to suggest domestic abuse - the source that is linked there seems to make that implication. Of all the sources listed, however, this is probably the least reputable and I can certainly believe it's not entirely true if not completely false (it's not Silverman, Kennedy, Meyers, or Moss, all of whom I'd strongly stand behind). I would not oppose its removal. Again, thank you! I am inspired to do some further Chivers studies. --Midnightdreary 00:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Another interesting Poe-related article! Thank you! I have a few suggestions for improvement. I think the article can be better structured and there are a few places that need clarification and expansion:

  • Question about structure: I'm not quite sure why the information about Chivers's relationship with Poe is not integrated into his life. It is odd to have Chivers die and then to read about his relationship with Poe. Cannot the "relationship with Poe" section be a subsection of the "Life"?
Yes, it can! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: This has been done; at least, I think I nailed your concern. It seems to work well this way, but further advice is welcome. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Chivers the writer: There are a few books and articles on Chivers himself. I'm curious why Watts is not used at all for this article, for example. I also checked out Chivers on the MLA database and found a few more articles. It seems it would be possible to write a little section on his poetry from these sources. For the article to broadly cover Chivers, I think it needs to address to his career as poet in a little more depth, not just his relationship with Poe.
The only thing stopping me is access to the books. They are relatively rare finds and, as of now, I don't have access to any particularly scholarly libraries. I hope to get my hands on them soon. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding some info as I find time based on Lombard's book. Hopefully, I'll be able to grab one of the other books as well but it won't be any time soon, I'm afraid! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is improved and I'm sure even more can be added to it. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The two soon separated due to alleged meddling by Frances Chivers Albert, the wife of the poet's uncle, prior to the birth of their daughter in 1828 - What kind of meddling?
Ah, the typical nebulous inconclusive type of description infamous from this period. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If this is from a quotation, it might be best to include that quotation, then. That would reassure readers, I think. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It has also been suggested their separation was due to abuse - What kind of abuse?
More of the same. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I was able to find a good clarification on this from Lombard! I think it may also explain the meddling better. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
So, we don't really know what kind of rumored abuse? Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Though Chivers contributed to various newspapers and magazines, he was turned down by the Southern Literary Messenger in March 1835, which suggested he return to medicine and the "lancet and pill-box". - What was turned down, exactly? A story? Was he turned down for a position?
Sorry, I assumed it was clear. I'm referring to a poem here, as he was a poet. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Moreover, as attested to in an 1848 pamphlet titled "Search After Truth," (New York: Scholar's Facsimiles & Reprints, 1976) - There seems to be a mixing of citation styles. There are other examples of Harvard in the article - pick one style and stick with it.
Sorry, I didn't do extensive work standardizing the references added by others. An easy fix. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I still see one in the "After Poe's death" section. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Some pieces of information are repeated twice, such as the Poe quote about Chivers being the "best and worst poet". Since the article is so short, I don't think this kind of repetition is necessary.
I only noticed that for the first time today. I don't think I intended the repetition; will fix. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This site makes me just the littlest bit nervous. They say that their pieces are fact-checked and written by qualified people, but then they don't publish the name of the author so that can be verified. If the information available from this source is available from a more reliable source, I would use the more reliable source. If it is not available anywhere else, I would be skeptical of it.
Those enotes refs were added by another editor; I tried to replace whenever I could with more legitimate sources. I can keep looking as we go along. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No enotes references exist in the current version! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put this article on hold. If the editors need help obtaining sources, I can certainly help with that. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking a look! I'm in the middle of a 300-mile move and currently living out of boxes so I may be inactive until I settle into the new job. I'll do what I can! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: I have been able to acquire one of the Chivers biographies. I'm waiting to get my hands on it now. I'll be able to add lots of info from this book, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Awadewit, considering my lack of speed in addressing your concerns/comments fully, feel free to fail (I promise not to take it personally) and I'll take the time to further improve before submitting again. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Midnightdreary, I don't really care about the "seven day" deadline. Don't sweat it. Just keep improving the article and let me know when to rereview it. I don't want you to have to resubmit it! Wikipedia has no deadlines! Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Midnightdreary, I have been extraordinarily pleased to watch this page grow from the few sentences I wrote a year or so ago into the excellent article it is today, thanks mostly to your work. If there is anything that I may do to assist this article in receiving its nomination, please let me know. Algabal (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Algabal! Gotta leave these (relatively) obscure figures! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Review ready Awadewit, if you are still watching this page, I think it's ready for your final review. I have followed your suggestions as best I could: I replaced the enotes references, combined the discussion on his relationship with Poe into the main biography, expanded information on his published works and writing style (I've also added more examples to his Wikisource page), and was able to expand the overall article just a bit. I hope to get a hold of some other sources as I continue to build and improve this article but I think it's ready for GA standards. I leave it in your capable hands. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best to get to it today! Awadewit (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article meets the GA standards. I look forward to reading is expanded version! Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)