Talk:Little Gidding (poem)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Though somebody else has signed up to review this article, I thought I would open these page with a few informal comments of my own. Congratulations on an informative, interesting and well illustrated article. I learnt a lot from it. I have made a few changes already, based on the fact that sometimes I find it easier to make them than explain them! A few additional suggestions and questions, which probably mostly stem from the fact that I have read this article in isolation. I suspect that much of the background information is available in related articles, but I think a good article should be able to stand alone, no?

• Intro: I think some direct mention of WWII would be helpful to contextualize the "air raid" mention without requiring a click; I also think some more info about the 4 quartets would be helpful in the intro to give context (eek there's that word again) the date and delay mentioned.

• Background: Was Shamley Green his home? He had started the poem too soon after what? The sentence starting "This, in part".... seems to have some words missing or added. Where was he lecturing? I don't fully understand the sentence starting "Eventually...". Perhaps we need to date of when he decided to complete it? Or would "although it took him to ..." be a better conjunction?

Although I've linked the Civil War reference, a specific date for the destruction of Little Gidding community would be helpful here. There is some repetition in the themes section which might be looked at.

Since he did visit LG, I'm not sure what the reference to a lack of a biographical connection means or implies.

• Poem: there are lots of repetitions of variations of the word "discusses/discussion". A bit of variety would be good.

Can you clarify what "it starts to take on elements of Pentecost" means? Do you mean Pentecost-type imagery is used?

In the next sentences, would it be a good idea to have the poets or the ghost as the consistent subject of the sentences? The singular/plural change is a bit grating to me.

I know of Julian of Norwich (and I have linked her), but the shirt of Nessus? No doubt my ignorance is showing, and while I've linked it too, I suspect this reference could do with a bit more explanation and expansion in the article itself for us ignoramuses out there.

• Themes: Can you find another word for "taken" as in "Little Gidding ... was taken"? Do you mean captured? who by? why? I realize this isn't an article about L.Gidding but some context would be helpful.

Would the detail about who the various poets are put together be better in the earlier section than here?

I don't understand how humanity can be given the choice between the bombing of London or the H.S. I think more explanation or detail would be helpful.

• Eliot is very vague on the subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph in this section could also be clearer. I'm not sure to what the "move" change refers.

• Sources: there seems some repetition here (e.g. about terza rima and allusions to E's earlier works.
• Reception: "how he liked some of the lines within the poem" seems a bit weak somehow.

Final suggestion: how about some blue boxes with some quotes from the poem in them? Perhaps one could include the "Fire and the Rose" passage that would help clarify Forster's comment.

Anyway, a very interesting article, well researched, sourced and written. Thanks a lot and I hope these comments are helpful. --Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll address most of it tomorrow (as I just got back in tonight). On the quotes from the poem - a no go. Eliot's poetry always tends to be under high threat of lawsuit and the small bits that could be considered "fair use" would be so out of context or incoherent (as you can only get away with 4 or 5 lines) that it would only harm a reader's understanding of a poem. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First set of fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the word "move" as it was redundant. The redundancy in the sources section is minor. The re-mention of "terza rima" is an introduction to a greater reliance on Dante. The mention of earlier works in sources is about the Dante theme, which is not specified earlier in the article. "how he liked some of the lines within the poem" was changed to "his appreciation for many of the lines in "Little Gidding"." Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I see the article has been promoted, which is terrific. Congratulations. It has improved no end with the various edits made in the last week and is much easier to understand. As you will see, I've gone through and made a few tweaks of my own, mainly for flow etc. I would still like to see some of the repetition rationalized a bit.

I still think that a few lines of the actual poem, even 4-5 lines would help readers get a sense of the line, rhythm, and tone of the work. Even if it is a bit decontextualized, a well chosen section would, I believe, help the reader. --Slp1 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Main review

Thanks to Sip for the kick along with this, and apologies for the delay. The article appears neutral and stable. The only image currently used in the article appears to be in order. I have undertaken some copyedits that editors may wish to check, to ensure i have not altered the intended meaning.

Specific points:

• "the image of fire and Pentecostal fire" - two items, so should be "images" I think. Must the word fire be used twice here? For example, why not simply "the image of Pentecostal fire"? Or, if that is not the only such image, perhaps reorder the sentence:

"The poem emphasizes the need for purification and purgation, represented through images of Pentecostal fire" or similar.

• I changed it to "combined image". Pentecostal fire is not real fire. However, the image is simultaneously fire and Pentecostal fire. The poem does not emphasize purification and purgation - that is an interpretation of the image, so the image must be discussed first in the sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The work was intended to be a closing to the piece along with a summation of the views". This does not appear to make sense - i think what is meant is that "Little Gidding was intended to conclude the Four Quartets series, summarising Eliot's views expressed in this series of poems." If so, I recommend substituting my text here.

• Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The work is described as..." I am not dogmatic about avoiding the use of the passive voice, but in this particular location I thought it jarred. Would "Pinion describes the work as..." be acceptable?

• I changed it to "Critics classify" as Pinion is saying that critics are classifying it as such (and not necessarily he is doing such). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "...discusses time and winter" makes it sound like an essay. Can you elaborate slightly? I don't have the poem in front of me, so just hypothetically I mean something like "...the poem opens in a winter setting, musing on the passage of time..." or whatever.

• "it sound like an essay" More of a philosophical discussion. It is not a narrative per se. Here is a copy, although that should not exist as the work is still under copyright. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The images of snow provoke desires for a spiritual life." They do? To me, without the poem in front of me, that is a somewhat surprising connection. The obvious things that images of snow conjure up for me are things like whiteness, purity, smoothness or stillness and, when it comes to desires, either to make a snowman or to find a warm fire. Eliot has done something very different and it is going to need a sentence twice as long to explain that.

• Read the above link. The summary comes from a reliable source that summarizes it to the above effect. I don't have any sources on how Eliot's use of snow are different than standard uses of snow so it would be hard to do that. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "This transitions into an analysis of the four elements and how fire is the primary element of the four." The "and how" is clumsy and avoids the nub of the issue, which I think should be why is fire the primary element? As a lay person, a claim of primacy for one of four elements that are supposed to be in harmony is an odd claim and i would want Eliot's reasoning in the poem set out for me.

• I don't think there is a source on why fire is a primary element, as it dates back in primacy to pre-Platonic works. Plato, in talking about the elements and their levels, placed Fire at the top and as the lightest, followed by air, water, and then earth. Most critics simply accept the classical notion and don't explain it, so I have no sources that can be introduced to explain the point. Eliot doesn't give justifications on his images but merely states them as truth. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Following this is a discussion on death and destruction, things that were not accomplished, and regret for events that happened in the past". OK, you can't change Eliot's writing or engage in OR, but this sounds like such a non sequitur given what went before!

• It is a non sequitur. That is what makes it "modernist". :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The next section refers Dante and how Eliot attempts to equal Dante as a poet". Two problems. First, "The next section refers Dante...": is this a typo? Refers "to" Dante? "References Dante"? Second, "and how Eliot attempts to equal..." Again, this is written too concisely - the WP text is in too much of a hurry. I am guessing what is meant here is something like "Critics have noted how, by adopting Dante's structural devices, Eliot has attempted to [equal? emulate?] that poet's [stature? style?" I really am unsure what is being claimed here, but i think the text must refer to the third party critics here. Either that or i have seriously misunderstood the article's meaning.

• I cut the first sentence as it was unnecessary and redundant with the next. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "As the imagepoem progresses, the image merges with..." What image? The object is not clear.

• I fixed this by rewriting the beginning of the paragraph. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here the ghost represents "poets of the past", but in the lead, there is reference to past, present and future (yes, i did signficiantly edit the lead sentence, but those words were there in the original). Does the description of the poem need revision, or does the lead need revision to reflect the body text?

• I rewrote the lead section. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The ghost discusses change, art in general, and how humankind is flawed. The only way to overcome these problems,..." Change is not a "problem", "art in general" is not a "problem", so why does the next sentence refer to "these problems"? And what is meant by "art in general" anyway? It soundsalmost comically dismissive. Does the ghost discuss how the arts do not adequately represent the human condition? Or something else? Needs clarification.

• Actually, Eliot believed that change was a problem. I changed it to "overcome the problematic condition of humanity" anyway to make it more clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• What on earth is the shirt of nessus? Yes, I know there is a link, but it is not peripheral to the description - it needs a clause in the sentence explaining it. In particular, having examined the wikilinked text, I have no idea how the shirt of Nessus is relevant in this particular context. Is Eliot talking about a 'shirt of Pentacostal fire' (if i can put it that way)? Is he talking about the martyrdom of saints? And if so, why is the shirt of Nessus relevant, as it is a ssociated with misfortune (hardly the same thing as the righteousness of a martyr)? Yes, I imagine this may need significant expansion, but it is not making sense at present.

• I added a note saying that it is "a shirt that burns its wearer". And I don't know why Eliot made the Nessus connection, only that he does: "Love is the unfamiliar Name/ Behind the hands that wove / The intolerable shirt of flame / Which human power cannot remove." Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "to die into life and be reborn..." ???

• Dying into life is an old poetic image that can be traced back through Christian based poetry. Keats most famously used the phrase when he said "As hot as death’s is chill, with fierce convulse Die into life". It literally means to experience a living death, to have a death of that living death, and then to experience a true life. Think of it like a reawakening or salvation. There is no way to really explain it except through original research. 75.105.195.248 (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Themes section, the article refers to the repeated restoration of the church at the (real) Little Gidding. Yet in the summary of the poem, a place called Little Gidding, let alone a church there, is never mentioned at all. It seems remarkable then to claim that 18th and 19th century restorations can be linked to the poem. Is a change to the poem summary needed to make more explicit the place of the village in the poem?

• Little Gidding is not mentioned within the poem except in the title. Critics state that a theme of the poem is that Little Gidding's restorations serve as a justification for the restorations of human civilization and spirituality - that the raids of London would result in the same destruction of Little Gidding but allow for a spiritual recovery afterwards. There is no actual place for the village in the poem except in a title. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Also, the conflict of time within the poem..." This dos not make sense what is "the conflict of time"?

• I just changed conflict to depiction. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Each generation is seemingly united." This sentence stands in isolation - it does not seem to explain anything to the reader, and I am not sure what is meant by "united" in this context. Represented as though a single individual? United in beliefs? United in distinction to other generations?

• I changed it to "as each generation", since it deals with humanity's relationship with time in the preceding sentence. Each generation is one, meaning that there is no difference between the generations. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "In the second section, there is a dead man..." Is this the character previously referred to as a ghost? Why now is it a dead man? That is different. Also, why is it a "man"? And is not a person a singular figure, whereas the lead text refers to a compound ghost.

• I changed "dead man" to "ghost". And it is a -man- in the poem. Eliot is not gender friendly. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "...and others as described before". Where?

• Removed that phrase. I don't know why it was there. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "When he joins the poet, the narrator states ..." When the narrator joins the poet?? Is someone else meant here?

• The he refers to the ghost. I put "the ghost" to make that clear, even though it is redundant. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "the narrator states "Knowing myself yet being someone other". " The quote does not cleanly follow on from its introduction. The quote is not a sentence, and reads as though there should be words afterwards.

• The quote is a fragment of a line of poetry. The poem is not in complete sentences nor relies on anything but fragmentary lines. The full quote is: "So I assumed a double part, and cried / And heard another's voice cry: 'What! are you here?' / Although we were not. I was still the same, / Knowing myself yet being someone other— / And he a face still forming;" The source material shortens the quote to just that passage used. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "...is given a choice between the bombing of London or the Holy Spirit," Bombing the Holy Spirit??

• The Holy Spirit would only be bombed if it said "of" before "the Holy Spirit". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

<pause> I am going to pause the review here. I see too many issues with the text of the article to go through in one go. Editor(s) may wish to look at the above points and then go again through the rest of text text. This article needs more time spent on the development of the prose, and on the detail of the arguments and explanations given. Given Ottava's energy for these things, i am sure it will be sorted out. I am reluctant to make the copyedits myself in most cases because I am often not clear what the intended meaning is. Where I do think I have grasped it, I will continue to make small changes. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "the image of Guido Guicincelli in Purgatorio XXVI" Help us Phillistines out, please: who? in what?
• There is something decidedly odd about critics discussing Buddhist images when nothing beforehand has raised this. Not an issue here, but i don't think it would be OK at FAC.

I think this meets the criteria at GA. I'm still not entirely happy with the prose, or with the summarising of some themes etc, but there is sufficient clarity for it meet the GA criteria. FA would be another kettle of fish (though why anyone would have fish in a kettle, i have never understood). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have put more on the Buddhist imagery but the argument was rather fringe and undeveloped. It comes from an early review. I reworked the section with Guinicelli (or Guinizelli, I mispelled it before). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)