Author talk:Edgar Allan Poe

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, I couldn't find a reliable source for dating Poe's works. I found [1] which has dates for all short stories. Any idea? Yann 12:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision[edit]

I'm currently undertaking a large revision of this page. Please bear with me. – Quoth 11:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've alphabetised the works, corrected the numerous dates, and added the missing texts. I've excluded adding a couple texts as their authenticity is dubious at best, but did not remove any. The "Non-fiction" section is obviously missing a lot of works, but I'll ignore that until I've added or corrected the current texts. – Quoth 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

More detailed info on versions?[edit]

i was wondering if we should itegrate some of the some details from http://www.eapoe.org/ on versions of poems and stories. since multiple printed versions existed, it seems the EAP wikisource could be 'completed' with some alot of this information.unsigned comment by AlexOvShaolin (talk) .

What exactly where you thinking? Include every different revision of the texts? Include revision notes in just the latest version? I've been slowly including the proofed works from that website, and trying to incorporate any notes of interest on the texts, but I've yet to come across a handy way of displaying different revisions (besides having a page for each, which would be overkill). Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated, this is the main reason I've done so few. – Quoth 14:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've looked at the page before (when I was adding a ton of Poe's works) and it's a bit daunting. I don't know what others think, but if this were to happen, I think the best method would be to have all the different editions on one page and then use headers to differentiate them. I'm doing something similar with Aesop's Fables: taking many different translations of each fable and incorporating them all onto one page under one title.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That is a very clever idea for different translations which can differ in word and structure, but when the difference between two revisions may be 2 out of 200 words, it's still far from ideal. Would utilising the <ref> tags be acceptable? Aesthetically pleasing? It could look fairly atrocious in the code (but then, it usually does). – Quoth 03:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah i kinda put forward the proposition from a historian point of view, it comes down to this, Poe wrote and revised each of those versions himself, it may kinda seem pointless to have two separate versions of the same work, but I pretty much like what eapoe.org did, its very COMPLETE, in a word. also i have to admit i think its irresponsible to post a version of a story/poem and not note the version when several versions exist. i think we should do something like the following:
  • Al Aaraaf:
    • (version 1)
    • (version 2)
i know the process seems very daunting, but, like i said, it pretty much is the COMPLETE and proper way to do things. even if we could arrange the lists of versions from EAPOE.org, without going through putting up every version of the text, the article would grow substantially, and eventually be complete. those are my thoughts anyways. i dont mean to rape the eapoe website, but it really is an invaluable website that should be preserved. "think the best method would be to have all the different editions on one page and then use headers to differentiate them." Yeah, doing that would keep things orderly. --AlexOvShaolin 03:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think that duplicating each story numerous times as at the website is suitable, or a good use of Wikisource. I definitely feel that all the information contained therein is worthy of preservation, but I think Wikisource should present the user with a single "definitive" version of a text (displaying revision information alongside that text), rather than needlessly confusing the user with multiple complete texts and having them look through each for the differences. This would need to be different for works where the text has changed substantially, as is the case for a couple of Poe's poems. – Quoth 03:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you have a reasonable POV, however wikisource is not meant to be a book, rather it is a compilation of printed sources, therefore having a single "definite" version is completely missing the historical preservation aspect. --AlexOvShaolin 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case, and Wikisource doesn't raise issue with the mass redundancy of including multiple revisions, then I have absolutely no problem moving in this direction. We could simply annotate the differences from the last revision on each version's page or section. If we're to annotate with the <ref> tags (which is the best idea I'm aware of) then we'd need each revision to have it's own article? Which should be fine— we could even link the revisions together with the {{header}} template. – Quoth 04:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I think annotating the differences between articles would ultimately be ideal and that would have been my proposition if i didnt think it would be excruciatingly time consuming. Shuffling around these html pages will probably time consuming enough, but if we reach a consensus, we can at least put a list of versions up, even if we only have one version of a story/poem up at first. This way, at least the version that is up can be documented appropriately. --AlexOvShaolin 07:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As the person chiefly responsible for the texts at www.eapoe.org, I should perhaps note some discomfort at the idea of stealing the actual texts posted there, even for something as worthwhile as wikipedia. (It is a considerable amount of effort to prepare these texts, and to lift them, especially without credit, seems rather unfair.) Also, these texts are in the process of being posted and corrected, so it is possible for you to take an old text and miss the later corrected text of the same version. The idea of highlighting revisions from version to version is an anticipated part of the long-term project, but first one must have the various texts in place.--Outis 07:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted. Although the site (which is fantastic, by the way) says it allows for free use of its content for educational and noncommercial purposes without permission, it does request attribution. I suggest, for the sake of fairness, that Wikisource mention when they have cut and paste from www.eapoe.org. Is that fair enough? As far as the multiple versions, I'm not necessarily in support of uploading each and every different version (a link to www.eapoe.org might suffice). We could try making annotated versions (something I recently saw on here but, admittedly, know nothing about) but generally the differences don't warrant a whole new page here (exceptions for cases like "Berenice" and "Metzengerstein" where the changes are more significant). Thoughts? --Midnightdreary 23:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Outis, I'd like to firstly reiterate that eapoe.org is an excellent resource, and I am glad you have created an account here. It is rare to find a site as good as http://www.eapoe.org/ with all of the works of one author being diligently transcribed, collated and cross referenced. We have the same objectives here, and I hope you continue to participate with our project.

As you are no doubt aware, these texts are in the public domain so please dont call it "stealing". Wikisource diligently checks all texts hosted here to ensure that they are in the public domain. Contributors use any resource that we can to do this, and the principle sources we use are Project Gutenberg and archive.org. In the case of Poe, it is natural that contributors to Wikisource are also using the comprehensive set of works on http://www.eapoe.org. I think that you should consider our Poe pages as a backup of eapoe.org. Works placed on Wikisource are very likely to remain available for a very long time because the underlying database is routinely made available for anyone to download. For example, here is the latest dump for October. If the Wikimedia Foundation ever stops paying the bills, there will be many people who have kept a copy of the database - they will put it online again.

This project also encourages recording the "digital provenance" of the texts hosted here, however this is not systematic or enforced. As an example, Lasker's Chess Magazine/Volume 1 has a link in the header titled "Information about this edition", which takes the curious reader to Talk:Lasker's Chess Magazine/Volume 1, which records the various sources that I needed to use in order to collate and verify the text and layout to build that page. I copied Maelzel's Chess-Player from eapoe.org a while ago, and have just now recorded the digital provenance in the same way. On the topic of Maelzel's Chess-Player, I suspect that this page is incorrect as it says it was published in the Southern Literary Journal, which could also refer to Southern Literary Journal and Monthly Magazine, or maybe there is another journal of this name that I havent identified. My guess is that it should say that it was published in the Southern Literary Messenger. Perhaps you could verify that using the material you have available to you? Also, please see this change to our copy of Maelzel's Chess-Player -- is that correct? If so, that is another improvement that should be made to http://www.eapoe.org/works/essays/maelzel.htm . My mentioning these two potential corrections to the eapoe.org page for Maelzel's Chess-Player strikes at the heart of how we can cooperate with eapoe.org. As our project is a wiki, anybody can come and make corrections, add new insights or just ask questions.


I am not sure of what I've wandered into but in reference to the above statements and questions; The Southern Literary Journal existed in 1838. The Southern Literary Journal and Monthly Magazine is, of course, modern. The supposition of the possibility of the text refering to the Southern Literary Messenger is an incorrect supposition. Edgar A Poe and lt. Lt. Matthew Fontaine Maury (US Navy) worked for the Southern Literary Messenger as two of its editors. I think Poe was hired around 1835 by Mr. White. The following is text that is presently being done and extrracted from a work on the Southern Literary Messenger. It provides this clarification between the Southern Literary Journal of OLD to the Southern Literary Mesenger.

[[2]]

Quote: "Mr. Poe is more friendly to "Watkins Tottle and other Sketches, by Boz," than was a former editor to the same author, who was still unknown. With a few good words for "Flora and Thalia, or Gems of Flowers and Poetry," this number closes with a rebuke to Mr. Whittaker, of the Southern Literary Journal, of Charleston, S. C., because he, instead of recognizing the [Southern Literary]Messenger as a coadjutor in the same cause, seemed "disposed to unite with the Knickerbocker and New York Mirror, in covert, and therefore unmanly, thrusts at the Messenger." Too, on the Poe website mentioned here there is an 1838 image of the Southern Literary Journal. I hope that this helps. Brother Officer (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


I have added a direct link to http://www.eapoe.org at the bottom of Author:Edgar Allan Poe, and would love to help you add the digital provenance to our pages, if you are willing to help us identify which edition of each text we currently have. John Vandenberg 02:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling it stealing is way out of line, Outis is acting like he wrote the poems himself! The information does not belong to you, you've been a good keeper of it, but let it free man! --66.158.232.100 08:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, be nice. You have to admit that there's a lot of work involved, and to just take that work and throw it on Wikisource without attributing it... well, it's not very kind. There's nothing wrong with giving credit where credit is due. --Midnightdreary 04:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

to be checked[edit]

this diff needs to be checked. John Vandenberg 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Rolled back. John Vandenberg 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Silence - a fable[edit]

Is it written in 1832, not in 1837? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can prove when it was written, but the correct date of publication is hard to pintpoint. It was first published in the annual Baltimore Book for 1838, which may have been released as early as November 1837 (just in time for Christmas shopping). The earliest review I see for it was in the December 2, 1837, issue of the Baltimore Monument. Most importantly, it was definitely not 1832. I think it's best to go with the cover date (1838). What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Let's change to 1838 and rename this text: Silence (Poe, 1832)--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we can improve (or simplify) the links for both the short story and the poem named "Silence". How about Silence (poem) and Silence (short story)? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Silence (Poe, poem) and Silence (Poe, short story)? There are several poems under this name exist: Silence (Smart), Silence (Hood), Silence (Teasdale), Silence (Dunbar)... --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... this is a tough decision! If the majority of works named "Silence" are poems, following the model, we could try Silence (Poe) for the poem and Silence (short story) for the story. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think, my suggestion is better. They are both by Poe, so title Silence (Poe) is not very clear. And what we'll do if some another shot story Silence will appear someday? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. I'll take care of it now! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Parentheses on (An Acrostic)[edit]

I have removed the parentheses from the title of (An Acrostic) as it is not usual for us to name files this way unless it is specific to the work. From my (light) research it did not seem to be that way, though I am happy to be informed otherwise if we have the evidence-base. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's because the work is not named "An Acrostic"; it is a modern title added years later. I think the original creator of the page wanted to show that somehow. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I read it the same way, denoting an editorial title and avoiding [An Acrostic]. It is a title, one used by other sources, using a bare version helps with searches. As I noted, it was first published as "From an Album" (1911) and perhaps that should be the title, but this transcript is from the MS. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I know nothing, and would think that whomever is clueful on the matter give direction or take the lead. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems the standard title in modern anthologies is "An Acrostic"; I've never seen "From an Album" in any other publication. So let's keep it this way, sans parentheses? --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)