From Wikisource
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Midnightdreary in topic Versions
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The summary wouldn't go on WikiSource. By the way, I'm having a real hard time getting this to format correctly. Can anyone help out?? -Midnightdreary 00:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply



I'm sort of thinking aloud here... I wonder if the two versions are different enough that they should be on separate pages? For example, one is Tamerlane and the other is Tamerlane (1845)? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Poe was noted for his rewrites. Bibliographical and Textual Notes in The Borzoi Poe (The Complete Poems and Stories of Edgar Allan Poe, intro and notes by Arthur Hobson Quinn, texts established w. biblio notes by Edward H. O'neill, Knopf, 1946, 2 vols) notes five versions of "Tamerlane":

  • Tamerlane and Other Poems, Boston, 1827
  • manuscript version, intermediate between 1827 and 1829
  • Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems, Baltimore, 1829
  • Poems, New York, 1831
  • The Raven and Other Poems, New York, 1845.

O'Neill notes that except for line 57, the versions of 1829 and 1845 are the same, but the version of 1831 has "many changes". The Borzoi Poe edition used the 1845 text although the poem itself was dated (1827) based on first publication.

The version of 1827 is linked by the entry on the 1827 book, so maybe the 1827 version is needed. The version of 1845 is believed to be the author's final preference, so there are grounds for keeping it. Comparing the two is interesting, but could be done with seperate Tamerlane (1827) and Tamerlane (1845) versions (each linking the other), but could be done with both together. Seperate would be neater but maybe inconvenient, both together is cluttered but maybe convenient.

Comparing the versions of Poe's other poems is interesting too. "A Dream Within a Dream" in Flag of Our Union for 31 Mar 1849 is supposed to be a final version of "Imitation" from Tamerlane and Other Poems (1827) but it is almost a different poem (thoughts, but no lines in common). T.O. Mabbott's Selected Poetry and Prose also lists the poems in chronology of first publication (noting use of mature text where appropriate) but does include both the 1831 "The Valley Nis" and the 1845 "The Valley of Unrest" revised version, whereas Quinn & O'Neill only include the final revised version. If significantly different versions of Poe's poems have seperate entries, it would "fluff up" the volume (the Complete Poems are only pages 15 to 91 of the Borzoi Edition). Another popular edition of Poe, the Modern Library Giant The Complete Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe Random House 1938, lists sections in no particular order of "Miscellaneous Poems" and a seperate section of "Poems Written in Youth" including "A Dream Within a Dream" in the former and "Imitation" in the latter. I suspect the Modern Library Giant sections were based on The Raven 1845 and Poems 1831, but includes poems like "Alone" that were not published in Poe's lifetime. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The "A Dream Within a Dream" vs. "Imitation" is the exact comparison I was thinking. Do you think it's worth having two pages for two versions of the same poem? I don't necessarily think that we need all versions of all of Poe's works but... --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I turned this into a versions page. I've added Tamerlane and other poems (1884), which gives the third version (the second of our 1827 editions) I also split the two versions to Tamerlane (1827) and Tamerlane (1845), but I haven't split the edit history. I think this 'versions' page should be included at the author page, in the categories, and anywhere else the version is unspecified. This would provide the same path as a user searching on "Tamerlane". There are other possibilities, such as collating information on versions and editions at the author page, but I think the way I was going is the simple solution. I'll also note that the same would need to be done for Tamerlane and other poems, which doesn't show the all the versions. Some of those lack a complete description of the provenance, which presents difficulties in showing the arrangement of the versions. Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

For a "hard hat area" (under construction) this is beginning to look pretty good. I think a disambiguation page with links to versions (with each version linking back to the disam page) is more convenient than one big page, esp. since the facsimile would be a seperate page anyway. This is appropriate for poems that were complete re-writes (rather than just revused). Should dates and category be on the disamb page, or on the individual poem pages, keeping the disamb page lean? Naaman Brown (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
There's been a little discussion of this on my talk page but I maintain that disambiguation pages are not meant to be categorized beyond Category:Disambiguation pages. Because the 1884 version, for example, is not from 1827, it would be disingenuous to put the whole disambig page into Category:1827 works. As has already been suggested, each version of "Tamerlane" should have a link back to the "Tamerlane (disambig)" page, which seems to be done already. The same is true for the Tamerlane and Other Poems versions. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The similar would go on each version, so would the year category. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
And by the way, Tamerlane (1827) is the 1884 version. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying not to be confused here. Are you saying all versions of Tamerlane should always be categorized as 1827, 1845, and 1884? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
And, also, that we have mislabeled that 1827 version? Or are you saying that there is no significant difference? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The year category would go on each version, not the {{versions}} page.
The 1827 version was transcribed from Shepherd's facsimile, via a google pdf, see User talk:Naaman Brown. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
So, you're saying that, for example, the 1827 version should be listed as both the 1827 version and the 1845 version, and the 1884 version? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
No. Listed where? Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Let's start over because I don't know what the hell you want done here. Why categorize the disambiguation page when no others are categorized? For, say, Tamerlane (1827), shouldn't it be categorized as Category:1827 works (it would still have the disambig link above)? Repeat for each version. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Once again, yes, a text should be categorised by its year. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Uh huh. So, if we are talking about the same thing, why has this taken so long? What did I do wrong in fixing the categories before? Step 2: Do we agree not to categorize disambig pages? Step 3: What other categorization/links are we disagreeing about?? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just to add to this: my frustration is coming from being criticized for doing exactly what you concluded above, "The year category would go on each version, not the {{versions}} page." --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is no criticism, this is something I tried to emphasise on your talk. I've repeated the key points as effectively as I am currently able, consider the possibility that this proposed arrangement is a viable option and its merits should be self-evident. How the work is categorised can be optimised by placing the versions page into the various poetry categories (not the year, which is version specific). So I disagree with your proposed step 2. Poe's works are mentioned in numerous documents at this site, some are listed at the author page as "works about", unless they refer to a specific version they should link to the {{versions}} page. I think this addresses your third step. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Unless you see substantial precedent for categorizing disambig pages, I cannot agree to this. The disambig page itself is not a "work" so it would be disingenuous to call it an "1827 work" or an "1884 work" through its categorization. I'll ask what I asked earlier: why are we re-inventing the wheel over little ol' "Tamerlane"? Can't we do it the way everyone else seems to do it? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply