This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

These are very brief notes concentrating mostly on the structure of the early sections. I suspect this will evolve considerably as the weeks go on. I've kept a note of outstanding things from the peer review and will deal with/discuss these when we get to copy-editing, if that's okay.

Intro

• Much improved. Various things, I think, need adding: all are covered by Farr.
• "The indisputable facts of her life are few." *ref>Farr (2005: 1).</ref*
• Something about extensive scholarly speculation about her sexuality. Two schools of thoughts here: first that there are homoerotic themes in her work; second that her relationship with s-i-l Susan "can be characterised as lesbian". Both covered by *ref>Farr (2005: 36–37 & 308–309).</ref*

• I agree with most of your points, and can see finding a compromise with the others, but this, specifically, I have issues with. Farr seems to be going into very shaky territory with these statements, as anything can be said and has been said in conjunction to Dickinson's poetry, and the connection with homoerotica and lesbianism is speculation, pure and simple. I would agree that addressing this speculation in a very minor form (I'm talking a sentence) may be suitable, but I would rather like to stick to the few indisputable facts about her life, and not what "scholars" garner from said life. I hope this is all right. María (habla conmigo) 03:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's absolutely correct emphasis. It was meant to follow immediately on (either as part of the same sentence or as a consecutive one) from the "few indisputable facts" quote. Farr is abundantly referenced and is quoting rather than opining. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Great, sounds good. I just wanted to make sure you weren't a card-carrying member of the group that placed the large, uncited "Sexuality" section in the old version of the article; just thinking of such a thing making its way in here again gives me nightmares. Back, back I say! María (habla conmigo) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Chill :) Such thoughts had never entered my mind. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• The garden and nature need mentioning in the intro, I think, as well as recurring health problems. Farr says: "... during her lifetime she was known more widely as a gardener, perhaps, than as a poet". *ref>Farr (2005: 3).</ref*

• I don't know where I'd stick the garden mention (any ideas?), but I'm sure we can stick her ill health in there somewhere. María (habla conmigo) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Themes. It would fit there. Don't worry about flow too much at this stage. If we get the structure right and the flow will take care of itself. (Almost.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Family background

• This needs, I feel, a punchier opening.
• The problem with this section is that it introduces too many people too quickly and the result is what the Germans call Bahnhof (railway station): the effect of different tannoy messages flying at you from different directions with varying degrees of clarity against a noisy background. Ideas?

• There was more information here, and it was fleshed out quite well, I thought, but other editors thought it was too long and detailed for an article about Emily -- I quite liked it the way it was before, though. I'm quite adamant about keeping the section, however, so I could always try to plump it back up again?

• I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about having the section. It may just have become over-written or too condensed. I'll look back and see if I can find the earlier version to compare it with. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Early childhood

• Much improved.
• I think a date range in the heading would helpful, say Early childhood (1840–1854). this is just an example: you've probably got a better handle than I on the range dates.
• It would also force us to ensure that the content fits within the range.
• Content is must easier to follow if it's in chronological order.

• I agree, I could see the dates working. María (habla conmigo) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• pulling this around will certainly affect flow. Let's deal with that as a separate section-by-section copy-editing exercise after the factual structure is fixed.
• Garden was attended by Dickinson, her mother, and Lavinia *ref>Farr (2005: 4).</ref*
• Emily had helped her mother in the garden since she was twelve *ref>Farr (2005: 4).</ref*
• Her education was "ambitiously classical for a Victorian girl"ref>Farr (2005: 1).</ref*

• Quite dramatic, isn't Farr? :) María (habla conmigo) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Farr's cool. Lovely style. I cribbed all this stuff from the extract in Google books. I'm sure the actual book will be a real goldmine. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Late childhood

• The same comments about adding a date range and getting content, in chronological order, within that range apply.
• Out of range material needs to be moved into the preceding or succeeding sections.
• "Her father built a conservatory especially for her use" *ref>Farr (2005: 4).</ref*

Maturity

• Again date ranges would help a lot.
• She had a "large bedroom overlooking Amherst's Main street" ... "There at a table under the window, she wrote most of her almost two thousand poems, ref>Farr (2005: 2).</ref*
• "writing poetry in the conservatory, built just for her, remained her favorite pastime" *ref>Farr

• I've come across the conservatory in other sources, but I hate this quote. "Favorite pastime"? How are we to know? María (habla conmigo) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's still too much detail about the Homestead and the Evergreens. The germaine bit, I suppose, is that they lived in adjacent houses as an extended family.

• True, I agree completely. I had to cut out so much already that it doesn't really make sense unless you know the entire backstory -- Samuel Dickinson losing all his money and selling his house, his son Edward not being able to buy it back until almost thirty years later, Austin threatens to move west with his new bride, etc, etc... we could really make this bare bones and the common reader wouldn't be missing much. María (habla conmigo) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(2005: 4).</ref*

Is "my Verse... alive?"

• A physical detail could be added to the description. "Yet Emily Dickinson was not tiny—probably she was about five feet four inches tall, not small for a Victorian woman. Her coffin measured five feet six, ..." *ref>Farr (2005: 61).</ref*

• I hadn't read this yet, very cool! Perhaps we can even mention that a lock of her hair (which is red) is kept in the Amherst College archives; I've been wanting to add that for a while. María (habla conmigo) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Bring the old girl to life, I say! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Seclusion

• Again date ranges would help a lot.
• About Farr places the date for ED's seclusion as 1870, writing: "after age thirty, her days were spent almost entirely on her father's 14-acre property"ref>Farr (2005: 2).</ref*

• This section was really meant to get into the beginning of her seclusion, which started in the mid 1850s after her big trip away from Amherst. After that, it's all downhill; the complete seclusion wasn't until the late 1860s when she refused to leave the house or even greet guests. María (habla conmigo) 15:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Publication and productivity

• Whatever the extent of their relationship is probably a bit too nuanced given the scholarly speculation.

• I've removed this. I originally had this because a couple biographers mused that they may have had a romantic relationship, but I didn't want to get into that. María (habla conmigo) 15:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Later life and loves & Decline and death

• Tighter chronological order?

References

• The Cambridge Companion to Emily Dickinson, Feminist Critics Read Emily Dickinson, and The Recognition of Emily Dickinson ... might be more consistently listed as Martin, Wendy (ed).; Juhasz, Suzanne (ed).; and Blake, Caesar R. (ed).

• I followed MLA referencing for all of the references, which is what I'm partial to; if these three were changed to another style (is that Chicago?), wouldn't the rest have to conform? Meep. María (habla conmigo) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you follow this route, the citations will be updating too.
• I'd also be tempted to take the journal/website reference details out of notes and add them to sources. I think it makes References look more authoritative, but maybe that's just me. See Operation Camargue or Romeo and Juliet for examples of consistency in citing.

• I agree, that would look more authoritative. I'm all for it. María (habla conmigo) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll start doing that now. I'll also change short-cite format to Author (year: page). Looks very neat.

• I don't know about this new citation format; isn't noting the year unnecessary? Is there a need to differentiate between works by the authors when each author only has one work? María (habla conmigo) 14:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Another thought about these refs, because I'm anal and seeing them formatted differently irks me: I took the format from User:Scartol's FAs, in which he uses "Author, p. #". To differentiate, he just notes the first name of the work, as in "Author, Work, p. #". I've grown rather partial to it. He hasn't run into any problems with the hard spaces, either. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not wedded to either style, though "year" is much more instantly comprehensible. A lot of the scholars already mentioned in the bibliography by the way - Juhasz, Smith, Wolff etc - are contribued to Farr's Collection of Critical Essays so author/year/page might be much more concise in the long run. I think it would be helpful as well to merge biographies and lit crit into one section as it will be easier to navigate. Which bit is causing you the analness, by the way? The year or the fact that the article is currently a hybrid? If the latter, I can make converting all refs to the same format my next job :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Too funny, I just posted to your talk page! The hybrid is what is currently causing my slight OCD tendencies to freak, but if you're willing to convert and update, that would calm the beast, as it were. :) I'm willing to give this new format a try, and I agree that the biographies and lit crit works can be merged; a lot of the bios are somewhat critical in nature, anyway. María (habla conmigo) 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless! Okay, I'll start now. Don't forget to check later for bloopers! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

MoS stuff

• Hard spaces into p. & pp. spaces, and other abbreviations
• Hyphens, en dashes, em dashes

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a horribly difficult time trying to rearrange the article to fit a set, chronological pattern. It made sense to me while writing it by subject, but now it's coming out all jumbled and odd. A lot of the sources disagree about dating, as well, and for some things the precise year is unknown. For now I'm going to attempt to put it in order, but leave the dates out of the headers, if that's all right. María (habla conmigo) 13:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I read this all through again on my way home yesterday. It really doesn't look too bad. I'll have a little think. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.