User talk:Xover/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Xover. 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.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

The Meter Reader; or, A Pain in the Arsis

(with apologies to George T. Wright, from whom I stole the first pun)

Hi, Xover. This started out as a note for Talk:Sonnet 25, but it stems from an anxiety I've felt for years at Wikipedia, and which goes beyond my work at the sonnets. So I decided to come here and pollute your talk page instead. So apologies to George T. Wright and to you. The inciting incident is your tagging my statement "the standard 2-syllable pronunciations also result in metrical lines" with a {{cn}}.

There are a couple of reasons I'm not sure what to do about this. I can cite Kerrigan who prints both as 2-syllable words (but even here, he doesn't state that they're 2-syllable words; no-one explicitly notes "this is to be pronounced in the usual way"; I must deduce this from the lack of "è" in his text). But even this does not really support the point I'm making, because Kerrigan does not state that either of these lines are in fact metrical; again, to a first approximation no-one does this. What is interesting to me is that, when we want to know which of alternate pronunciations were meant by the author, our best evidence is typically rime and meter; but here neither helps us because both words can rime either way, and the position of the words in the line can happily accept either syllabification while remaining quite vanilla in metrical structure (this would usually not be true in another position). Now it is not impossible that after an extensive search I could find some crabbed nerd of an editor who explicitly states something to this effect. But probably not. So should I not have written that statement? Should it now be deleted?

But -- putting aside the "furniture" (template work, etc.) -- these questions can be asked of about 80% of the content I've added to the Sonnets articles. Is all my work about to go away? I guess what I'm looking for is some perspective on what details actually require citation. I can't resist quoting this post:

I am posting this here pre-emptively in case anyone may think that the content in the scansion and analysis section regarding assessments of iambic tetrameter, syllable counts, and catalexis was original research. I assert, per WP:NOTOR and WP:SYNTHNOT, that these are facts that can be deduced/observed by any reasonable person looking at the work with a basic knowledge of poetry or access to reference works defining poetic structure. The material within the article constitutes a basic analysis and categorisation of a primary source, i.e. the poem, without extraneous interpretation. I've gone to great care not to go beyond a basic analysis, and to back up that analysis with reliable secondary sources, per WP:PSTS. Any claims that I've made about the poem in this section would be easily verifiable based on looking at the poem and comparing it to the definitions of in a glossary or dictionary of poetic terms or in any number of monographs on rhyme, meter, and poetic form.
— User:ColonelHenry 14:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

One feels that this metrical argument might have been punchier if translated into meter:

What I assert is a fact,
As is plain from the fact I assert it.
I've explained this to you with some tact,
So don't go and bloody revert it.

— User:Phil wink just now

The joke of course is that this preemptive (and peremptory) harangue from a since-disgraced Wikipedian supported a metrical reading that was almost certainly wrong (sez I). Yet it seems that something like this argument must sometimes be acceptable, especially if we wish to point out basic metrical patterns in individual lines of specific poems. Possibly I've been rendered jaded by too much reading on metrics, but I genuinely have no concept of what "any reasonable person" would think (nor am I certain they'd be correct anyway): are the Sonnets written in iambic pentameter? Burton Raffel would evidently argue that they're really 4-beat lines, and Alan Holder would tell you they're essentially in free verse. Now, they're heretics, but they're published heretics, so they have that over me. I recognize that when I do Shakespeare at Wikipedia I'm in the presence of SAQ heros, but that's not me. I can't bring myself to argue for the scholarly consensus being iambic pentameter 153 times. And it seems like you tacitly agree that some metrical facts might just be assertable, because there are probably over a dozen other possible {{cn}}s just above the one you tagged.

So as I said, I'm just looking for some perspective. Sorry for the wall. Phil wink (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Phil wink: No need to apologize for verbosity with me: not only am I frequently guilty of the same sin, I protest that cogent and coherent "walls of text" are no sin at all. Not all issues can be distilled into pithy one-liners, and those not capable of sitting still for a reasonably complete elucidation of a position have no business complaining about it. I realise I am at odds with the vast majority on this point, but I cling to my position until it is forcibly removed from my decrepit grasp.

The specific line in question may indeed have to go if we cannot find a suitably crabbed nerd to salvage it, because it crosses the line into being an interpretative statement. Not by much, and the question is arguable, but, for me, enough to merit the {{cn}}. However, if truth be told, its biggest sin is being the last clause of a sentence whose first clause is cited to a good secondary source. The preceding parts of the section do not stand out as much simply because there are no cites there.

Not everything must be cited, of course. For instance, plot summaries do not, in general, need any explicit citation: they are implicitly cited to the work itself, the work is a primary source for itself, and summarising it is an allowable use of a primary source. I would similarly argue that an actor playing a part in a movie or TV show (that includes a credits sequence, obviously) is similarly exempt from needing citations in the general case. Both, of course, subject to exceptions where there is some genuine controversy or the plot requires interpretation to summarise. One could certainly argue, to a point, that basic metrical structure falls into the same category.

However, instead of arguing over that 153 times, I think we need to find a single approach that will stand up to 153 challenges. For instance, we really don't need someone to comment on any given single, specific, sonnet for most statements about metre. We can find some suitably basic (but authorative and unlikely to be challenged) work that makes clear that some things are settled and not subject to controversy: i.e. analysing a line's metre is a mechanical exercise that does not require interpretation. We can combine this with general statements about the sonnets' structure from Duncan-Jones et al, and based on that allow ourselves to go slightly further.

At that point we may still have trouble with the clause that precipitated this discussion (or we may not), but should have covered most, if not all, of the preceding part of the section. And we can reuse it across all 153 of the buggers. The stuff that should be a problem after that should be the very stuff that scholars and critics actually do comment on, and so should be possible to find cites for.

All of that being said, I think you may give too much weight to the {{cn}} in question. It was more in the vein of a "note to self", much as the similar {{pn}} tags: I just wanted to mark them so they're easier to find when I have an opportunity to work on it. The stuff needing page numbers is a good example actually: I haven't dug up those pages mostly because I'm pondering whether, and if so how, to deal with the context for all the Fair Youth sonnets. Because I can't deal with 127 arguments about whether it is historical fact that Will and Kit were an item, was going steady with Henry, no wait it was William, no he was straight as an arrow, and it's gay not homosexual, no it's actually queer, no it was really Anne that liked to roleplay, you're all wrong it was… So, yeah, a general approach that we can replicate across the whole sequence, rather than trying to dig up some page where Duncan-Jones says straight up that he was playing for both teams (she certainly thinks so, but she's a bit diplomatic in how she puts it).

PS. Your more metrical version above may be the funniest thing I've read on Wikipedia in years. I may have to write an essay on something or other solely for the purpose of quoting it somewhere in project-space! :) --Xover (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'll quickly rattle through some reactions. S25 cn: I've updated the inciting statement to a citable and cited one; the page number is actually for the 1st (1986) edition because that's all I have to hand, but the revised (1995) is on its way, and I'll double-check eventually (I'm guessing it's the same page anyway). Doggerel: Aw shucks, thanks; happy to entertain. Context: I say link to Shakespeare's sonnets#Fair Youth and have done with it. If the discussion there is insufficient, then maybe we need to fix that too (if only I knew someone obsessed with the biographies of people associated with Shakespeare...). I'm quite skeptical that the current Context has any value, and I haven't deleted it only because I haven't had time yet. Besides, 25 must be one of the least queer of the 126; I agree with what I take to be your position, that the queer angle of the sonnets should be covered, but for this sonnet in particular, I'm not sure that's really even germane. And even a sentence about who FY was seems a bit much to me. In my view we save that for the link. Scansion: I confess I exaggerated a bit for effect on iambic pentameter; although there really are those who would deny this is the meter of the sonnets, I don't expect them to form a meaningful contingent on WP. But sweet, innocent Xover, I fear you don't appreciate how unsettled is virtually any scanion of any line of English verse (and it's the individual scansions, and any associated statements, that are my real concern). If you wish for insight into my thinking on this and you're into self-punishment you might peruse my much-hated article on Scansion; for an ultra-quick précis, I've made (I hope) some germane notes at Sonnet 30, though this by no means exhausts the problem. For the scansion of specific lines (which will often have zero available citations) a tolerable beginning position may be that Wikipedia has a recommended house style (though you will not be surprised by its author); this immediately limits the multifarious possibilities of scansion methods, and to some extent the assumptions underlying them. As you'll sense, this part of the wall really could go on to extreme heights (depths?). So I'll relinquish. Again, thanks. Phil wink (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Updates: (1) Uh-oh. Looks like you took the dare! (2) Just got Kerrigan 1995, and as expected my new citation is still valid. (3) I meant to ask earlier: are you going for GA with S25? Just curious. Phil wink (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Phil wink: (1) Yup. And, much as expected, I understood very little. A smidgen of the blame for which I'll lay at your door (I'm pretty sure all this can be communicated in a more generally accessible way), but, obviously, mostly because I'm an utter imbecile in that area. (3) Not currently planning to, no. But then I'm still mostly working to get a grip on the subject so I'll have a better foundation for approaching structure, scope, etc. My familiarity with the sonnets and poems is poor, so I have only superficial knowledge of important context. Coupled with the dunce hat with "Peot!" written on it, I'm really not certain what to do with it. My default position is that all 154 individually have GA potential; but where XXV falls relative to that remains to be seen. If my slow absorbtion of knowledge suggests it, I might decide to give it a try. You can be sure I'll beg for your help if so! --Xover (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Phil wink: Context: I do think we need to fix Shakespeare's sonnets and then summarise suitable sections of it for the context in each sonnet article. But each sonnet article should be able to stand on its own, so we do need to give the reader the necessary context. For the Fair Youth sonnets this obviously includes the queer angle, but I am deeply dissatisfied with the status quo there: activists want it to say this is definitely gay love poetry, as the opposite extreme of previous critics who have bent over backwards to try to "explain away the gay". We need to find some way, even in summary style, to provide the nuanced view on this; including reporting the historical perspectives. In any case, I think on that point you and I are in agreement on the broad outlines, with some potential disagreements on details, so I suggest we pick that discussion up on Talk:Shakespeare's sonnets when it becomes relevant. Scansion: I fear you are entirely correct in pointing out my naïveté in this regard. This may necessitate some very tough choices: if no reliable source has commented on a particular detail, for us to cover that detail would be according it undue weight. That is, something like "notability" applies at the level of details inside articles, and not just for selection of articles as a whole. I still imagine that for basic stuff we should be able to find basic sources to support; and that for points we need to go into detail on, it will be because some reliable source has gone into detail on it and can be cited. We'll certainly have things that will fall in the middle there, but I'm still hopefull the majority is solveable. --Xover (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A thank you

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Thanks very much for helping to review Mowbray—thanks to your helpful suggestions, it passed. I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to look in. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You are, quite literally, too kind. My tiny little drive-by contribution just because I happened across an issue in my area surely merits no mention. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'll definitely take the star, but that's just because I have no shame and will lap up any and all such tokens with relish. :) --Xover (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Glories, like glow worms..."! Xover, let me continue the shamelessness, by asking if you would perhaps consider looking in on another effort of mine; by which I mean, again, his representation in Shakespeare. Unlike Mowbray, this chap is in both Richard II and Henry IV; would you have any thoughts on what I could address? I've seen [1], [2], [3] and [4], for example—although won't be at a library for a bit to actually see what GBooks wont tell me!—any further pkes and prods in the right direction would be much appreciated. Not that I want my money's worth out of that barnstar of course ;) Have a good weekend anyway! Cheers, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 20:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I'll have a look once time and the infernal bug that's currently turning my head into cotton allows. An initial scan suggests he's mentioned quite often in the literature, but mostly just incidentally as part of a group. That is, he shines bright but has neither heat nor light. --Xover (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

ha! Just so :) one of the few things I've found so far is him doing a double-act with Willoughby. Classic! very sorry you have a moody head Xover—get well soon! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)