Talk:Dover Beach/Archive 1

message: I don't know if these will help any, but here are a few passages from Arnold that speak to issues similar to those raised in the Caveat paragraph:
: ...perfectly to seize another man's meaning, as it stood in his own mind, is not easy; especially when the man is separated from us by such differences of race, training, time, and circumstances as St. Paul.  But there are degrees of nearness in getting at a man's meaning; and though we cannot arrive quite at what St. Paul had in his mind, yet we may come near it. Arnold: Culture and Anarchy, 1916, CPW, 5:182 (for CPW see the Bibliography on the Matthew Arnold page)
: …the method of historical criticism, that great and famous power in the present day … The advice to study the character of an author and the circumstances in which he has lived, in order to account to oneself for his work, is excellent.  But it is a perilous doctrine that from such a study the right understanding of this work will “spontaneously issue.” Arnold: “A French Critic on Milton,” 1877, CPW, 8:175.  (The French Critic in question is Edmond Schérer.)
: We should conceive of poetry worthily, and more highly than it has been the custom to conceive of it. We should conceive of it as capable of higher uses, and called to higher destinies, than those which in general men have assigned to it hitherto.  More and more mankind will discover that we have to turn to poetry to interpret life for us, to console us, to sustain us.  Without poetry, our science will appear incomplete; and most of what now passes with us for religion and philosophy will be replaced by poetry. Arnold: “The Study of Poetry,” 1880, CPW, 9:161-2. (This is a highly controversial passage from Arnold and taken out of context much has been made of it which may not truly reflect Arnold's beliefs.  It is not clear, for example, that he means by this that poetry should replace religion, rather it seems to mean that poetry may need to take up some of the functions that religion had once performed.  Moreover, it is, no doubt, important to understand that Arnold, as he says later, in his intro to "Byron" if I remember correctly, that here he meant poetry to stand for literature in general.)
: It is noticeable that the word curiosity, which in other languages is used in a good sense, to mean, as a high and fine quality of man's nature, just this disinterested love of a free play of the mind on all subjects, for its own sake,— it is noticeable, I say, that this word has in our language no sense of the kind, no sense but a rather bad and disparaging one.  But criticism, real criticism, is essentially the exercise of this very quality.  It obeys an instinct prompting it to try to know the best that is known and thought in the world, irrespectively of practice, politics, and everything of the kind; and to value knowledge and thought as they approach this best, without the intrusion of any other considerations whatever. Arnold: “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time,” 1864, CPW, 3:268.
While these present a somewhat different position than that currently presented in the caveat passage (the last is probably closest, but I do not read it as entirely equitable with the sentiment of the caveat passage), they do represent Arnold's feelings about literary criticism. Being a critic himself he could not come out entirely against criticism. Indeed, arguably, his life's work (at least as a prose writer) was the promotion of critical thinking.  All in all, however, I am not so sure that these comments belong in this article.  I had intended to add them eventually to the Matthew Arnold article where I think they fit better. Perhaps, and here I think may be our best compromise, we should add them to the Matthew Arnold article and then direct the reader to them from this page. Mddietz 19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives to Caveat

message: I'm looking at the comments above which are careful and deliberate.  Some I agree with, some I do not.  I suppose they are tame in their way, but constructive.  A little old.  I suspect their small debate is over and done now.  Then I look at the rather blithe act of vandalism that recently infected this page.
: You wish everything in life to be nice, structured, linear, logical and perfect; life is not like that, never has been or will be. That is the whole purpose of poetry, any good poetry, to make that point, not to explain one answer or be subject to one person's or group of persons' interpretation. 
An interesting thing to write on a page about Dover Beach which is, perhaps, at least in its sense and meaning, as non-linear a poem as Arnold ever wrote [Actually, it is not so much non-linear as it is open to varied interpretation; in this the vandal and I, I think, would agree].  Our vandal's suggestion is not amiss.  Dover Beach needs a broad interpretation that allows both for a layered reading and a sense of multiple authorial intentions.  Arnold, after all, had a habit of being more ironic and truly paradoxical than your average post-modernist.
I was the one who took out the little "prose poem" our vandal added on "Elias Howe."  I suppose it was a prose poem; I can think of no other way to describe it,-- except to say that it was rather amusing.  A shame to take it out, but sometimes we have to follow rules.  Nonetheless, I have to own that some of our vandals spleen must have been directed at me.  I can only say I wish him (I assume it is a him, if not mea cupla) no harm.
: Stop your censorship, whoever you are. You might learn a thing or two from your elders... Or have you never read Fahrenheit 451? Of what, we might query, are you afraid? Censor again, you dope, and we'll put it in the NY Times. ... Nazis found that profound lesson out, right? Or haven't you understood that about your enforced linearity, ducky?
Does following rules make one a Nazi?  Perhaps today, for some, it does.  Arnold had a habit of breaking some rules, but standing staunchly behind many another.  His comments on the Hyde Park incident, if nothing else, tell us that much.
Arnold, as we all know, was a literary critic.  In his time, some thought that his comments were a kind of vandalism, particularly his attack upon the Newman translation of Homer which were thought to be much too personal.  Arnold blithely pretended they were not and talked and talked in the hope that he would have the final word.  He did not,-- history makes certain of that. 
: ...if you cannot accept criticism in places, such as on a poem's plainly biased and unschooled, callow linear interpretation, where plainly the subject has oped itself to criticism, and instead enforce polarity, you should go away as an entity. For much of what is here generally at this website is undocumented anyway and full of lousy research and plain error driven by cloaked political and historical agendas from various special interest groups seeking to dominate--something you regularly let pass. So why not then allow at least honest criticims of that unless you are actively particpating in that agenda? 
The "undocumented" and the "agendas" are here, yes, but "much" is too strong a word.  Then, again, vandals without strong words are rather ineffectual as vandals, are they not?  Nonetheless, our vandal has raised some legitimate criticism.  But is his own criticism not, in a way, a censorious act?  The fear of being dominated by another is a common one today.  The Nazis, and others throughout history, have made it all too real a fear.  But when we raise it to a sort of inverted idolatry, we unkowingly make children of ourselves all over again.
: Stop your censorship. It is quite unbecoming any entity which aspires to anything but more of the rabble-inspiring nonsense which haunts our culture today (cf. Harry Potter book sales) to its probable and eventual grave very soon, unless checked by honorable and honest and regular higher criticism. 
But the angry tone, the threats, is this really an "honorable" and "honest" criticism?  Is this a true "higher criticsm"?  What's odd to me is that our vandal is in the tradition of Arnold, he certainly has the elitism down pat, but, uncolored by any of Arnold's sense of morality, he seems to miss the point of higher criticism altogether.  Is being non-linear an essential value, so essential that it displaces civility?  This is too common a mistake; our vandal is, I suspect, more conventional than he realizes.  I stumbled into editing here only just recently.  Where I think I may differ from our friend, and this is only speculation on my part, is in having the courage to belong.  Arnold, I am quite certain, had such courage.  I hope our friend can find the courage it takes to be a part of something.
But I shall let him have the last word, in the voice of the royal "we".
: Perpend. Learn. Got it, ducky? We mean it now: censor us again and we shall proceed with this to the NY Times to find out what is driving the engine at Wikipedia. We find ourselves regularly quite concerned about it.
Mddietz 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Very likely, but then to say that I truly understood poetry would be to say that I have come to treat it as an absolute.  Poetry is and should be a difficult thing to fully grasp.  By the way, did you know that Arnold defined poetry as a criticism of life?  I suspect you may want to dig a little deeper into Arnold.  He was himself a literary critic and would not have agreed with you on most of what you say in the next paragraph.  That does not make you wrong, but out of some respect for him as the author we may want at least to balance his thoughts on criticism in our assessment of his poems.  I am not of the current school which tends to deny the virtue of authorial intention.  I think we must, and inevitably do, take it into account. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about the "our vandal" but you don't give your name. I post under my real name: mddietz: Mark David Dietz. I don't like using a mask, too impersonal. By the way I'm not right-wing; I'm very centrist in my politics. I find both the right and the left are too extreme for me. I prefer to find the middle ground; it is harder to get to,-- the extremes are too easy; they require no real thought. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Guilty as charged. Mea culpa. Although I hope I did not post the above simply to one-up. But it was rather unfair of me, and I apologize to you, my friend. Can I replace at this late point, "our vandal" with "my friend"? I should really rather that that were the case, wouldn't you? Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still not sure I would agree with your interpretation of wikipedia. I have to say I myself have little problem with policing, but then most centrists would not,-- that does not make me a Nazi does it, just someone with a pragmatic outlook. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting. Very likely, but then to say that I truly understood poetry would be to say that I have come to treat it as an absolute. Poetry is and should be a difficult thing to fully grasp. By the way, did you know that Arnold defined poetry as a criticism of life? I suspect you may want to dig a little deeper into Arnold. He was himself a literary critic and would not have agreed with you on most of what you say in the next paragraph. That does not make you wrong, but out of some respect for him as the author we may want at least to balance his thoughts on criticism in our assessment of his poems. I am not of the current school which tends to deny the virtue of authorial intention. I think we must, and inevitably do, take it into account. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Here again I take a middle course. Like you I tend toward a hermeneutic view of literature. Essentially, I believe that intention, textual meaning and inference are all important, but none can entirely supercede the other. For my taste you place too high a value on inference. You also seem to have concluded that all analysis is subjective, I do not, I tend to regard it as always a combination of subjectivity and objectivity. But then I do not regard subjectivity and objectivity as opposites. At the same time I respect your position,-- I just disagree with it. I mean to make no points here. I don't need the points; I long ago gave up collecting intellectual bottle caps,-- there's not much you can spend them on; like money they don't buy friends or love. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, Arnold did not react the way you have suggested to criticism of his poetry. His response was much more complex than that. He actually self-censored a poem because of criticism of it, and published his own analysis of it, stating why he felt it should be censored. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No actually there are several interpretations in the analysis. All are clearly labelled and assigned to the approriate source. Some of the comments I don't fully agree with. I'd like to get more comments from established sources in here and willprobably add Riede whose commetary I am less sure I completely buy, and it is quite different from those I have already posted. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I must point out, these are not MY interpretations of the poem. They are the interpretations of noted scholars. My job here, as I understand it, low drudge that I am, is to provide the information as it comes to me, not to express my own opinion. I don't even use my own poetry as a pure vehicle for self-expression (you should look at T. S. Eliot's cirticism), why would I use an encyclopedia for something I do not use my own poetry for. (By the way, yes, I meant low drudge to be somewhat ironic, but not wholly. Did you get the Johnson allusion? Are you a Johnsonian? I like Johnson, he wrote some of the finest literary criticism.) Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay this is funny. You have a keen sense of humor. That is what I have liked about the pieces you have posted so far. But seriously, if I have not been as objective as I should be, please lets discuss that. Which comments do you think specifically are too subjective? What comments from accepted scholars would you add? I'd be happy to work with you to improve the page. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think I did this. I don't think you are immoral. No, I think you misread me. If I implied such, again, mea culpa. I did, frankly, call you "conventional." I apologize for that, too. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No condescension meant. I respect your intelligence. But have you read the requirements that wikipedia places on articles like this? I haven't them all, but I have read the basic requirements. I'm not posting my opinion here. None of the statements here are directly mine. I have no problem with analysis. You do. Good. But the analysis was here when I first arrived only a week or so ago. I shifted it from someone's open-ended, unverified analysis, to a well-researched fully cited analysis. I'm not sure what your complaint is. I have no desire to cut off the dialog. I'm enjoying this discussion with you (on the discussion page where it belongs). Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I try not to jump to such conclusions myself. Wikipedia is surely not perfect, but I can only follow my own conscience and match my efforts to my best understanding of the rules. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I should point out, I suppose, that I have read all of Arnold's poems and his literary criticism. I like reading poetry, and, if I must say so myself, I've read quite a bit of poetry. And a fair amount of poetry criticism. And I've even written some poetry. Not sure it is any good, but I have enjoyed writing it. By the way, why the passive voice? Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I liked Murphy Brown, what a great show. Did I really say "immoral"? I'm certain I did not. As for elitist, I thought you'd already owned that. By the way, touche on turning around the vandal thing, but lets get past that now. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No actually I didn't take that as an insult at all. Frankly, I thought it a pretty good joke. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You have a fertile imagination, but I'm afraid you've missed the mark: I'm not a right-winger. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Others? No one else is reading this. We're in a forgotten corner of wikipedia. No one has been here in ages. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I never reported any vandalism. They have bots that search for it. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Austro-Prussian war was not going on in 1850-53 when the poem was most likely written. So, help me understand what you are talking about. In any event it is a moot point, is it not, as the comment on the poem's "prophetic" character (which was not my comment but someone else's) is no longer on the page. Why are you arguing this? Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, moot point is it not? Prophecy is no longer on the table. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Does this mean you will not be answering my answers to you? I'm very disappointed. I had hoped you and I might work together to improve this page. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Glad you posted it in full. I had done so earlier because I liked it very much and did not want to see it get lost in the back pages of the article. Thanks. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Very good. I do like some of your writing. Very spry. My friend, please understand again I bear you no ill will. I respect your intelligence. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but that doesn't bother me, I hope it does not bother you. I wish you nothing but good will. I'm ready to work with you if you want to make this a better page. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Glad you posted it in full. I had done so earlier because I liked it very much and did not want to see it get lost in the back pages of the article. Thanks. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about the "our vandal" but you don't give your name.  I post under my real name: mddietz: Mark David Dietz.  I don't like using a mask, too impersonal.  By the way I'm not right-wing; I'm very centrist in my politics.  I find both the right and the left are too extreme for me.  I prefer to find the middle ground; it is harder to get to,-- the extremes are too easy; they require no real thought. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Guilty as charged.  Mea culpa.  Although I hope I did not post the above simply to one-up.  But it was rather unfair of me, and I apologize to you, my friend.  Can I replace at this late point, "our vandal" with "my friend"?  I should really rather that that were the case, wouldn't you? Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Very good.  I do like some of your writing.  Very spry.  My friend, please understand again I bear you no ill will.  I respect your intelligence. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but that doesn't bother me, I hope it does not bother you. I wish you nothing but good will. I'm ready to work with you if you want to make this a better page. Mddietz 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: The following was moved from the article, we don't use hidden comments to that end. Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, or use the signature buttton to do it for you. Thanks.--Alf melmac 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: ::Perhaps, Mr. Dietz, and your friend, Alf, will be so kind now as to leave our "caveat" to your cobbled together "analysis" of this short poem alone and stop censoring our limited input, being that, per your insistent demands, we have backed up our very common sense notion with a quote from--
::Voila! None other than the master, himself, Matthew Arnold. Is that good enough for you?
::Again, our sole points since the beginning of thius rather ridiculous exercise in childish insistence on censorship has been two-fold: 1) Poetry by its nature is an experience between author and reader and not meant to be "analyzed" word by word and line by line as the first analysis at this page attempted to do, and which your subsequently offered more professional analysis does. Criticism is fine. (Read Arnold's own criticism of literature and poetry, for instance for contrast.) 2) This particular poem, unlike a long narrative poem, needs little if any real commentary for it to be understood by the reader. Indeed Alf below said something to the effect that the person with enough "cells", could figure out our "caveat" without it; thus, why couldn;t that same person figure out this short poem itself without that analysis? 
::You both do see the point we hope. We don't tread on you; don't tread on us. And stop trying to own pages at this encyclopedia for either your ego or your insistence on your point of view. It is very unbecoming any rational scholarship and cheapens the experience for everyone, degrading the quality and authority of this encyclopedia generally. 
::You do not have a copyright on this space or on the public domain generally. Neither do we; hence we leave your analysis alone, unedited, uncensored at any point, including the first analysis which you removed. We leave it all because that makes for a learning experience for everyone, both that which is offered and is not so good as well as the better, as long as it is not patently false--and ideas on poetry are not subject to test for truth or falsity. They may be criticized, a process always subjective, or they may be explained with backgorund information to make the experience somewhat more interesting. But even that often serves as much to obscure the true meaning of the poem or song or what have you as it does to enlighten, for often even the artist and creator of it does not fully understand the poem. He or she may understand what it meant to the author when written, but as time moves on and as words, even contemporaneous with authorship, always are suceptible to varied interpretation, (see, e.g. Shakespeare), the meaning of the poem is also varied, always, inevitably. And that is what we mean by the inherent subjective nature of poetry. Read up on the Nine Muses of the poet or songwriter. They are quite real but only observable by the poet. 
::And we never meant to insult anyone, including the person honestly providing the first analysis. Our comments were meant to enliven the poetry corner, just injecting a little humor into otherwise, very, very dangerously dry pages of drudge. Poetry is meant for everyone to enjoy, not just drudges, yes?
::And, no sooner than we added our quotes, someone removed the caveat yet again at 4:00 a.m. eastern daylight time. Okay, Mr. Drudge. Keep it up. But we shall persist also in making sure you do not own this space to the exclusion of others. And incidentally, thanks to Mr. Dietz for his loving help in supplying those quotes below from Mr. Arnold, but we had already done our own research, thank you just the same. Even elitists can research, Mr. Dietz, without the drudge's help. You would be surprised at the quantity of research we have accumulated elsewhere online.
::Hope you enjoy the chicken salad on wheat toast
::Thank ye very muuuuuch.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.18.106 (talk • contribs).
:::Re: owning pages, I was called into this page as an administrator, what else do you expect to have happen when an adminstator sees a clear breach of what is acceptable taking place? Thank you for finally answering the question I asked twice, in that the intial opening is entirely generic and can be applied to any and all pieces of poetry/literature, it serves no purpose on this page, whereas at least the words by Arnold himself have some relaeance. As time goes on (and as views change) those comments on this work which are verifable, balanced and fit the general understanding of the subject may be added, they will likely be relevant. An original piece of work stating that trying to understand poetry through others' analysis is appaling is not relevant. If Matthew Arnold was entirely unpublished and chose to write those very words himself as an named editor or unregistered ip, we'd be scrutinising it against the policies just as much.--Alf melmac 08:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, this is better.  It probably does not belong on this page, but it does not particularely hurt the page.  Arnold's comments here are likely, I am afraid, to scare people off before they get to the poem, which is a shame.  I do love the final paragraph the caveat-writer has added: Arnold's satire on "A true allegory of the state of one's own mind."  It clearly indicates Arnold's distaste for subjectivity in poetry (although elsewhere he is more equivocal on the matter).  (I have to wonder if the caveat writer realizes he has just disproven the majority of his own argument, but that's neither here nor there.)  I hope no one will object to my trying to do what the caveat writer does so well, make an imperious statement that is so over the top its funny (this why I like him so much, he has such a wonderful sense of humor): We will not tolerate censorship!  The new caveat stays!  (Ouch, that hurt! Well, I'll not do that again.  When you inflate your ego like that it is terribly bumpy coming down...) Mddietz 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I just noticed. The caveat writer had intended that the old caveat remain in place, but someone has removed that portion.  It was not me.  I no longer touch the said caveat writers postings.  Somehow I think we may go back to square one when he realizes that the current version (which I find relatively unobjectionable) has been purchased at the expense of his Carlylean apostrophe on the blessed muse. Mddietz 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to make another attempt at a compromise.  I'm going to move the commentary on the poem to the end of the poem so that it is not so intrusive.  I think that may, at least, to some small degree, be in keeping with the sentiment that the caveat writer has expressed. I must say I do appreciate the compliment upon the professionalism of the analysis. Mddietz 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitary section break

message: Dear midnightdreary, I'm not sure what the ratings really mean, not sure if I should be happy or sad that this page is rated Start and Mid-importance.  Start, I assume, is a step above stub, and I cannot imagine that as long as it has that nasty bit of garrulous text at the front that the caveat writer added (containing those oblique quotations from Matthew himself), and which, frankly, does not seem to me to belong on this page, that it should get rated any higher.  As to Mid-importance, what if I were to stamp my feet and let my bottom lip protrude and throw a hissy fit?  Didn't work?  Okay.  Frankly, as much as I love this poem, I'm not sure but that you are right.  Arnold's page itself seems to me more important, and somehow I have doubts that that page would rank above Mid-importance, at least not from a poetry point of view (however, were it ranked from the point of view of importance in the history of literary criticism, it should be, I think, of the utmost importance; actually the Matthew Arnold page has no importance rating only a quality rating, do you know why that is?).  By the way, what are your thoughts on the initial section entitled Arnold's thoughts on the analysis of poetry?  I'm frankly thinking it might be time to move taht section to the Arnold page where I believe it belongs.  Do you think that would improve this page?  (I'm not trying to solicit a higher rating; merely trying to get a second neutral opinion before I make the move.  Given the hurly-burly this page has seen I'm thinking it best not to act too unilaterally.)  In any event, thanks for taking the time to rate the page. Mddietz 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry about this too much. The rating/importance is mostly irrelevant to anyone outside of WikiProject Poetry. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia in general. It's also incredibly informal. We're just now trying to revitalize the project and the assessment has only been in place for a couple days as a step one. It really doesn't mean much, but I went with Start class after exactly two seconds of serious consideration because it probably could use more sources. --Midnightdreary 02:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: midnightdreary, thanks, I think.  I really was looking for an answer to my question on the section entitled Arnold's thoughts on the analysis of poetry, but as you did not read the article, I understand that you cannot help me with that. Mddietz 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... the section is clearly too long and adds undue weight to the article. If the editors here want this article to be about Arnold's thoughts on the analysis of poetry, it's great. If they want this to be an article on "Dover Beach," it's terrible. :)  -Midnightdreary 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! The second opinion is much appreciated.  The individual who added it is, I believe, no longer around, however, I felt that I should have a second opinion before I did anything with it given the hulabaloo that surrounded its creation.  Thanks. Mddietz 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Ratings