# Talk:W. H. Auden

I've now moved the lengthy GAA review discussion to archive 7. (Before I revised this link I had created new archive pages, because I didn't notice that archives 1 through 6 already existed!) - Macspaunday (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The applicable policy is clearly WP:COMMONNAME (there is no WP:COMPLETENAME). "W. H. Auden" is the name used on the cover of his books, including first, and recent scholarly editions. See also C. P. Snow, T. S. Eliot, W. B. Yeats. C. S. Lewis. William Avery (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that too. Looks a bit strange? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
It's just wrong, per WP:COMMONNAME.  It's less clear cut over W. B. Yeats, but for Auden or T. S. Eliot the initial form is absolutely dominant. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Now raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Trackteur_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29
He's done it at TS Eliot and CP Snow too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that "W. H. Auden" is the proper title for this page. - Macspaunday (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree W. H. Auden is the right and proper title for the page. DuncanHill (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Strong agree W. H. Auden is a fine and upstanding title for this page. Even though it's a bit impersonal. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fowler (first edition, pp. 594-595) expresses the hope that the ‘–t’ form will prevail, but notes that the ‘–ed’ forms ‘still prevail in print’. In the current edition (ed. Butterfield) ‘learned’ is favoured on the grounds that it is common in all varieties of English, whereas ‘learnt’ is less common in some. I think Fowler was, as so often, prescient, but we aren’t there yet, according to his current reviser. Tim riley talk  08:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Learned has an alternative adjectival sense if the last e is sounded, although somewhat old-fashioned now? But I guess there's no possibility of confusion here. I think there's a similar argument over burned and burnt - does Fowler mention these? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Your point about the two pronunciations is addressed most directly in the Gowers revision, where he says (quite rightly, I think) that it would be good if the two different pronunciations were spelled (or spelt?) to match what the ear hears, so that the lesson is learnt but the teacher is learned. But so far this happy state of things has not been reached in all varieties of English, hence Butterfield's advice to go for 'learned' for both uses. The old boy did indeed comment on burnt/burned in the original 1926 edition, saying the former was standard and the latter obsolescent and would-be poetical. Time has not borne that judgment out, I'd say, as the Burchfield and now the Butterfield revisions of MEU are much less emphatic in support of burnt. Tim riley talk  11:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I would edit this article, but I'm not very learned. And I might get my fingers burnt. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 
"Learned" here looks ugly. Not as ugly as using "judgment" in a non-legal sense, but ugly nonetheless. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You're making a rather harsh judgement here, Duncan. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I much prefer "learnt" here, but we must strive to accommodate all current Englishes, and so I think we are right to follow the current Fowler and go for "learned". Not sure I agree about judg(e)ment, on which I can never make up my mind. Tempora mutantur – though some old codgers like me still use "connexion" but in truth that bus left decades ago. – Tim riley talk  19:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Is "learnt" really incomprehensible to anyone? I use "connexion" too. DuncanHill (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Some of us are still trying to get off. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 

An editor recently added to this page (and to dozens of others) an external link to the web page for the St. Louis Literary Award. I wonder if other editors who work on this page think it's suitable to add one such links when Auden received dozens of comparable awards, including many more prominent ones, that would clutter up the page if they were also added. I tend to think that this external link would be most appropriately replaced with a listing in a category "Recipients of the St. Louis Literary Award," which perhaps the editor might want to create. But I don't want to remove the new link without consensus, and would be grateful for any views. - Macspaunday (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and commented out the external link to the St. Louis Literary Award. Auden got dozens of similar awards, and none of the others are linked on the page; it has no historical significance at all, and is simply a vanity link that calls attention to the organization that gives the award. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A Birmingham Civic Society blue plaque in Harborne, Birmingham ([1]) marks the site where WHA lived "from 1919-1939" (presumably the family home). This is not mentioned in the article. Any reason it should not be? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not, I'd say. A good find. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention any other plaques, but it has a picture of one of them. Surely a picture with a suitable caption makes the most sense here? (I think there's also one at his birthplace in York, but I'm not certain of that.) - Macspaunday (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If we have the image of a "Commemorative plaque at one of Auden's homes in Brooklyn Heights, New York", I'd suggest that mention of the memorial tablet in Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford is fully justified. But the most appropriate section would be "Reputation and influence" and not just after details of his death? There is a source here, but images seem to be in short supply. There is onme at findagrave, but that isn't a very popular source. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've commented out a sentence about a memorial to Auden in his old college Christ Church because (1) it's not relevant to the "life" section where it was added (there's a reference to the far more significant memorial in Westminster Abbey elsewhere on the page); (2) it isn't a "burial site" (as it was described in the revision history; and (3) other memorials to Auden elsewhere aren't mentioned in the text because they're not significant enough for this kind of encyclopedia entry about the author. I hope this helps to keep the page focused on its subject matter. - Macspaunday (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I wrote my comment without seeing that Martinevans123 had already posted. In response: Do we really want to list all the memorial plaques, etc., in the "Reputation and influence" section? If that's the general opinion, I'll gather up the ones I know about, but I'm not sure that a listing of memorial plaques is really something that's useful in an encyclopedia entry. But, again, consensus matters more than my private opinion. - Macspaunday (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
No strong view. But many articles do indeed have a list. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'll see what I can put together. There are plaques at York, Birmingham, Manhattan (currently in storage, I think), Brooklyn, Vienna, and the one at Christ Church, Oxford. A list would certainly make more sense than a paragraph about things put up by tourist offices which have minimal relevance to reputation, etc. I'll get something together, though. - Macspaunday (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Done, for the moment anyway. I think there may be one or two more out there. - Macspaunday (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is full of detailed information about Auden's career,
his poetry, and his most famous relationships.  But it is 
strangely incomplete about his endgame. Biographies have stated that
as he grew older, he lived in incredible disorder, loneliness and lack of
support. Why? What was his state of health? How and why did he die? And
where was he when he died? There should also be at least a brief
mention of Auden's most noticeable physical characteristic: his profoundly
wrinkled face, and the disease syndrome that accounted for it.
Also, more information is needed about his relationship with Chester
Kallman, which was so important to him.
The article does well as far as it goes;  but it does not go far enough.
Younggoldchip (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a very apt comment. I've added some factual details. Auden's personal and emotional experience in his later years gets reported in different ways depending on the point of the view of the person reporting it, and the essay does not report on Auden's emotional state at any point in his life, leaving this to the sensitive reporting by biographers like Richard Davenport-Hines, who is exceptionally subtle on these details, and can't easily be summarized. But it should be possible to add details in a responsible, thoroughly-sourced way, and I'll certainly work on it. Thank you again. - Macspaunday (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Since when is this a love poem?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe only since 1994? In this source encyclopedia.com says: "The 1994 cinema hit Four Weddings and a Funeral helped bring the poem to the attention of the general public, when a character played by actor John Hannah reads an excerpt at the film’s emotional climax. As a result of overwhelming public demand for copies of the poem, Tell Me the Truth About Love: Ten Poems by W. H. Auden, a collection of Auden’s verse and cabaret songs from the 1930s including “Funeral Blues”, was rushed to press soon after the film’s release. Reviewer David Gritten noted in the Los Angeles Times that the film created “a sudden demand all over England” for Auden’s works. Americans have also shown an increased interest in the author. Filmgoers and readers responded to “Funeral Blues’” heartfelt expression of grief over the death of a loved one. The poem expresses a rhythmical, intimate portrait of the totality of love and the devastating consequences of its absence.". But I agree the wiki article for Funeral Blues makes no mention of love. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. - Macspaunday (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
So a poem about love is different from a love poem?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. A love poem is a poem addressed to someone whom the poet loves; a poem about love is a poem about the feeling and effects or nature of love. For example, Auden's 'O Tell Me the Truth about Love' is a poem about love (as the title indicates even before you read the poem itself) but it is not a love poem because it does not express love to anyone. - Macspaunday (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I was told that he once lived in a small row of cottage type houses, in Lode Lane, across from the Land Rover factory. An English teacher at Solihull college told me, I have no info on whether it is solid fact though.
Middle More Rider (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The Auden family lived on Homer Road, Solihull - a mile or two from Lode Lane. Macspaunday (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew he had lived in Homer Road, just wondered if 100% of his residence locations had been covered, as these cottages (I think a row of 4 [correction, 3 buildings, one a double and two triples, so eight homes]) are very specific and distinct from the rest of the street. Not saying he did, but unusual thing for someone to tell me if not true.
Middle More Rider (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no record of Auden or anyone in his family living anywhere but Homer Road when they were in Solihull. Carolyn Steedman made a very thorough study of the local records for her book Poetry for Historians: or, W. H. Auden and History (Manchester UP). Is your source still alive? - Macspaunday (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Very sadly he's not alive, died aged 42, I think it was.
Middle More Rider (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this Good Article omitted mention of his marriage of convenience, apart from a very summary mention in the infobox, to Erika Mann who was a distinguished writer in her own right. I have lifted detail from Mann's wikipedia article in the subsection dealing with his life in the inter-war years which gives more detail of the background.Cloptonson (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Erika Mann obviously notable. A very good addition, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: this recent edit, I wonder do you have the relevant page number from Davenport-Hines (1996), as this source says: "On April 15th, 1972 Auden left New York to take up what he thought would be permanent residence in Oxford. He intended never to return. And he never did." The NYT report, dated 7 February 1972, mentioned in that source, is this one. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this. And I mistakenly changed the date of the move to February, which is when it was reported. It actually happened in April. Fixed now. Macspaunday (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
No worries. The previous version was a bit vague. I guess transatlantic travel in 1972 wasn't as commonplace as it today. But he certainly got around.  Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Dear @Macspaunday, Auden's biographer Davenport-Hines reports a prolonged process of moving his residency from New York City to Christ Church, Oxford, with a first departure on 15 April 1972 (p. 336), and return to New York, in September 1972, "to complete his packing, and on 30 September [Auden] left the United States for the last time" (p. 337). The process started even earlier: "in January 1972, chiefly at David Luke's instigation, Christ Church offered him a tenancy of a cottage in its grounds known as the Brewhouse ... His preparations to leave New York City were immediate" (p. 335). Therefore, we suggest indicating the period of relocation from January until September 1972. Auden in Austria (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
So it seems that the claim that "He intended never to return. And he never did", in the article by Josie Holford  here, is quite wrong! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually, Davenport-Hines is right, and I was wrong. He returned to New York from 19 September through 30 September 1972 packing his books for the move to England. So the correct date is September 1972. It's clearly misleading to say that the move occurred over a longer period of time. When I bought a place to live, I moved there on one specific day; I didn't move there during the six months between making the arrangement to buy it and buying it. Auden moved his winter home in September; everything that preceded it was talking and letter-writing and negotiating; it wasn't "moving." Macspaunday (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
And @Martinevans123 - yes. and he actually planned to make a return visit in the spring of 1974 for a reading tour, but died before he could make it. Macspaunday (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks. Given the lengthy period that Auden took to organise and prepare for this move, perhaps those 13 words could be slightly expanded? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Done. In fact, Auden spent almost no time organizing for the move. There are memoirs (one in the Village Voice, another by a bookseller in his memoirs) of his arriving in New York in September and packing and discarding his books in less than two weeks, possibly in a few days. That was his  entire preparation. Once he got the offer in February he did nothing about it other than announce his impending departure to the New York Times, until he got back in September. Macspaunday (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that is certainly an improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)