Talk:Ted Hughes/Archive 1

Archive 1

One of the best poets ...

I reverted the wording 'He is considered by most to be one of the best poets of his generation' to 'He is considered by some ... ' as this seems less POV-based. Certainly his repute has generally been high, but it seems to me the 'poets of his generation' are such a numerous and varied bunch, comprising practitioners of a number of different styles, that most might not be quite accurate in this context. Perhaps 'Considered by many ' is a good compromise. Any thoughts? — Stumps 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. I had made this very change a while back and it keeps getting reverted. The use of "most" is too POV. While Hughes is a major literary figure, I personally don't consider him that good a poet (I prefer his children's literature, such as the Iron Giant). As such, the use of "some" is warranted. --Alabamaboy 14:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, wiki being a product of that most pandering of democracies, there doesn't really seem to be much of a point in arguing this further. --Quadalpha 18:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I lied - maybe "many"? --Quadalpha 18:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with "many" — I've made the change — Stumps 19:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheers :) --Quadalpha 00:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Goodness! I should read better. I didn't notice until just then that you made the suggestion in your first comment. --Quadalpha 00:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hate to be the breaker of consensus but...the opening sounds awfully weaselly. Hughes is regularly ranked as one of the best poets of his generation. We might as well say so. I've changed it. (I think he's kind of mediocre, myself, but that's neither here nor there.)69.209.223.71 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Suicide of Sylvia Plath

I was wondering if sylvia's children were placed in the room of her house when she committed suicide,or moved to the ted hughes' lover's house ,prior to her suicide I was wondering if Sylvia Plath has any living grandchildren. dinopup

Before Plath killed herself, she put her children--toddler Frieda and infant Nick--in beds in an upstairs bedroom. She left a glass of milk on a table by Frieda's bed. She left the window slightly open. Evidently she took some thought to protect them from any gas that might seep upstairs. She closed the kitchen doors and placed towels along the bottom of the doors before turning on the gas. Also, a babysitter had been scheduled to arrive shortly after this, so Plath must have thought the children would be discovered very quickly and would be safe. In fact, some biographers have suggested that Plath was merely play-acting at suicide, had thought she'd be found in time, and that a brush with death would bring Hughes back to her. However, there was a mixup in communication and the baby sitter did not arrive as scheduled. The children (unharmed) were found later, and of course Plath was dead by then. A. Alvarez has detailed Plath's suicide (and state of mind leading up to it) in The Savage God, his book about suicide. Inspite of her mental state, Plath unmistakably did what she could to protect her children. This is in contrast to the even more tragic case of Assia Wevill, Ted Hughes' mistress, who murdered both her child and herself a few years later. Younggoldchip (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

'The Iron Man' poetry entry

This isn't a poem. Skinnyweed 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

for the person who edited my editing- thank you!

(that's a non-cinicel thank you), i needed editting. as you can see i re-editted my own writing myself as well- you were very kind with me and some of the things that could have been dropped out remained. so i was harsh on myself and took them out.

thank you that was very nice

maya (jumping_maya@yahoo.com)

Sylvia Plath

Hughes' relationship with Plath is so celebrated and controversial that I think we should say more in this page. I am writing a small section on it and would appreciate comments and reviews of it when done - I don't intend to take a rigid position or "fall into the Plath or Hughes camp" as so many do, but to reflect recent more measured opinion on the subject. MarkThomas 09:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Academic site links

I am seeking to expand this article both quantitatively and qualitatively and I think this will include adding more external site links to academic and critical reaction sites studying Hughes' work. One such link was auto-reverted by an administrator earlier - can passing editors please read this and make comments when doing so if that is what you do, it is very frustrating trying to improve page content for an important author when it just gets reverted without comment or discussion. Thanks. MarkThomas 16:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ted Hughes's birthdate

I've noticed that at the beginning of the article, it says Ted Hughes was born on August 17th 1930; however, in the `Early life` section, it says he was born on August 18th 1930. Which is correct? 86.16.185.156 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The 17th is correct. I'll fix it. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death

This article states he died of a heart attack, that he had colon cancer, but that the cancer didn't cause his death. However, daughter Frieda's article states he died of cancer. What did he actually die of? If his fatal heart attack was caused by his cancer, then the cause of death on this article should be corrected to colon cancer. If his fatal heart attack was independent of his cancer, then his daughter's article should be corrected accordingly. F W Nietzsche (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Educational gap

There seems to be a fairly huge gap between being raised in a newsagents shop in Yorkshire to Pembroke College,Cambridge. Shouldn't we have just a little in-fill? Am I being picky? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.240.101 (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hughes seems to have been naturally brilliant, but what really gave his knowledge and literacy a boost was being marooned in an obscure Yorkshire hamlet for two years during his Army service with nothing to occupy himself with except a Complete Shakespeare. Younggoldchip (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"feminist wackoid!"

"This was obviously the work of some feminist wackoid! --205.188.116.14 09:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)"

--This comment is clearly in violation of a neutral point of view.

I have removed the consistent use of the word feminist thorugh out the entry because it inconspiciously violates a neutral point of view by indicating that only feminists have raised critques on Hughes. There have been more people than just feminists who have raised valid points about the negative influence Hughes may or may not have had on Plath's life. I believe the term feminist has been repeatedly used in this article to devalue the critques and to make them seem only attributable to one group of people. This is not so. Journalists, historians, academics and others have all discussed these issues and raised questions and leveled critiques on the subject.

If someone would like to go back into the article and raise the point that many, but certaintly not all, feminists have questioned the actions of Hughes towards Plath regarding her life, work, or death, then that makes sense. But it is unreasonable to preface every critique mentioned about Hughes as simply the work of feminists.

And you are?KRC58

responce:

look, i would'nt call the person who did it a feminist but as we all know there were some women who did disgusting things in the name of feminizem. the victimization of plath and the character-assaination of hgues as the source of all evel are cinicell deeds in the name of faminizem and the mithization of women as victimes for psaudo feminist agende. but a big amphesis on psuodo there.

---is that a joke?

In regard to the claims of some that Hughes suppressed Plath's most fierce and bitter poems (about him!)--it's important to remember that Hughes was the one who collected Plath's work, formed it into the book Ariel, and basically made her a poetry star.She had not been well known until then. He did not have to do any of this. And some of the poems in Ariel are clearly about him, scathing assessments of his behavior, as she saw it. He behaved more generously than many husbands would have, by including them. Younggoldchip (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am talking to you fine fellows

Hello. Do you know what rock musician recorded an album based on Ted Hughes' story? Also, would anyone happen to know the name of the aforementioned album? 165.234.180.59 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

^{== possible unreliable so _{used on this page ==}}urce

"Ted Hughes". www.kirjasto.sci.fi. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/thughes.htm.

The above website appears to not meet the requirements of being a reliable source since it is self published. There is a discussion [here]. There is also a discussion at the [plagiarism talk page] about how to handle this issue.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ==

Place of death

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/203794.stm States that he died in Devon NOT London. Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This reference also places the death in Devon http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-19496953.html Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Many news reports and media articles wrongly state his place of death as Devon. He died in the London Borough of Southwark, as the Death Index proves. Deaths have to be registered in the area in which they occur. His funeral took place in Devon. Jim Michael (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Negative influence or?

so was he the reason plath and wife two, killed themselves? whty isn't this addressed, alnog with his quote womanizing behaviour unquote? he was such a great husband his two wives felt hope for living so much as well as hope for their child's life that not only did they kill themselves the second woman killed herself and her child. was this related to how ted made the women feel or did he just go for fucked up women? from what i know of this interesting and relevant public history i truly doubt it was the latter. ~ haruki

hello

i have changed the page. you wrote false things,lies- if to be direct. which are not welcomed in encyclopidia's. or more apropriate for dark ages publishinges of the church than to knowledge in the name of freedome. no litreture critic ever claimed that ted hughes was involved in the death of sylvia plath. that is gust gossip-horrible one- spread by so-called faminist's-who took plath as a modek of a women destroyed by men. they were wrong. sylvia always blamed her mother for her life's dipression- read the diaries and see it for your self. you cannot blame a man for his wife's death becouse he was not faothfull. many men cheat. not all betraid women commit suicide.

you can argue that my e mail is jumping_maya@yahoo.com

maya benbenishty israel

free encyclopedia is for freedom of knowledge- not for writing lies as they were facts of truth.

"Sylvia always blamed her mother for her life's depression"--it's important to remember that Sylvia was mentally ill. All of her life she blamed others for her own problems, and failed to register gratitude when others had treated her generously. For example, when her mother Aurelia Plath was widowed fairly young,and left with little money, she worked steadily at a stressful secretarial job for many years so that Sylvia and her brother could enjoy a solid middle-class upbringing.Younggoldchip (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't know how grateful she may of been or who she may of blamed(which all the evidence points to it being herself), regardless she made it through life on her on efforts, getting a full scholarship to college and everything. Also, I would just like to add that not only did Ted Hughes' wife and mistress commit suicide, but his son committed suicide as well. That's an unusually high number of suicides linked to that one person. Ink Falls 19:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the fact that Plath was mentally ill inextricably linked with her "blaming other people" in your statement? Mental illness is not a character flaw; it's a disease. Plath undoubtedly had a complex relationship with her mother, but I don't think Plath was consciously aware of her illness (in the logic of the time regarding mental illness, she was "cured" after her stint in McLean); therefore she could not blame her mother for something she was not aware of. There is no doubt Aurelia Plath dedicated her life to her children; I think the vitriol that Plath exhibited toward her mother in her writing was an attempt to deal with her own inner demons, and more evidence of the tragic intensity of her illness (Perhaps the Plathian-aka-Freudian interpretation of the relationship was also colored by Plath's belief that her father, whom she perceived her mother as resenting, was suicidal as well). It's also not unthinkable that Esther Greenwood's mother's statement that she knew Esther "would decide to be all right" after the first electro-shock therapy is not totally fictionalized; this is no reflection of Aurelia's dedication as a mother, but a reflection of general society's attitude toward the mentally ill at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.40.110 (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Who did Plath blame for her sad life and death?

As I stated before, there's strong evidence in Sylvia Plath's journals, poems and her novel The Bell Jar that she blamed others for her misfortune. The ridiculous, pathetic mother in The Bell Jar is based on Sylvia's mother--right down to the way she curled her hair. But nowhere in the book does Plath acknowledge the fact that Aurore Plath made heavy sacrifices as a single mother, laboring at uncongenial jobs for years, to provide Plath and her brother with a middle-class upbringing and education. Even when Plath had essentially defamed her mother in The Bell Jar, Mrs. Plath never withdrew her support. She visited England to visit Plath and her husband Ted Hughes in their country home, sent money,unfailingly encouraged Plath, and was casually misused by her on numerous occasions as an unpaid secretary to market poems to magazines.

W.S. Merwin and his then-wife knew Ted and Sylvia Hughes very well in the early 60's. They have both said that they didn't understand how Hughes was able to tolerate Plath. They said his temperament was far more stable than hers, and that she was bitterly unjust toward him and jealous that his poetry was more eagerly received than her own.

In all of this, it's hard to see how Plath's death can be blamed on anyone except herself. Ted Hughes was clearly fascinated by and drawn to brilliant, unstable women (like Assia Wevill), but it's hard to see in what way he was responsible for their instability. He was not a nurse or the attendant at an insane asylum.He was a normally self-involved poet. I think the most that can be said is that he was not fitted to "save" these women. As for the sad death of Nicholas Hughes (Sylvia's and Ted's son) many years later, mental illness is genetic. It is not hard to find the source of Nicholas's depression. Younggoldchip (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What was 'brilliant' about Wevill? Jim Michael (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wevill knew several languages. She was a poet and gifted translater. She translated the work of Israeli poet Yehuda Amachai. The fact that she happened to be beautiful seems to have obscured her intellectual accomplishments in some minds. Younggoldchip (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Plath suffered not just from depression but was manic as well, thus bipolar. Suicide is one of the symptoms or outcomes of this terrible illness. People can blame Ted Hughes; Sylvia could blame her mother, but the fact remains that she didn't have any control over her illness, it controlled her so it is rather pointless to be blaming Ted Hughes, Mrs. Plath or anyone for what happened.OwenBrooke (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article is blaming anyone, merely outlining the responses of various groups. Are you suggesting there's POV or just making a general comment? Span (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Poets' Corner query

Hello,

I couldn't see how my recent edit you reverted on the Ted Hughes page "messed up the references". Then, I thought, perhaps it didn't, since the references currently seem a bit odd anyway. The reference to The Australian seems a slightly strange choice in the circumstances as it requires a subscription. On my machine, the one to the Halifax Courier has a faultily rendered image just a few pixels deep. I'm wondering what your issues were and whether we can improve the referencing.

FYI, my edit aimed merely to improve flow, and to conserve focus on Hughes (rather than Larkin).

Regards, --MistyMorn (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi MistyMorn. I reverted your edit because you didn't do the <ref> tags properly, so that a section of the article text ended up as a footnote. I've no problem with shortening the bit about Larkin, though. --FormerIP (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops... that escaped me. Thanks. I'll look into it and try to select some tidier references. Best,--MistyMorn (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias?

Half of the introduction should not detail Hughes's role in the death of Plath; this section should be shortened and the section beginning "In 2008 The Times ranked Hughes fourth on their list of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945"." should be expanded! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.211.245 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

While concurring with the point made by Jamesinderbyshire (talk) in his edit summary that this issue deserves some mention in the lede, the present version (as of 23 December 2011, 08.46) seems to shift the focus of the Ted Hughes lede rather strongly on to Sylvia Plath's death. IMO, one solution might be to expand the lede into four paragraphs so as to provide more material drawn from the main article on other aspects of Hughes's life and works, which currently appear underrepresented. Just my two birds, MistyMorn (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree actually; I wasn't trying to create an undue focus onto the Plath issues only, although obviously they do make up a big part of the Hughes "fame"/backstory, just felt that para stood well. I would like to see an additional para that briefly explores his famous associations (most notably with Heaney), his Northernness and the closeness of his relations with the Queen Mother and Prince Charles. Perhaps we could also touch on some aspects of the greatness of his poetry in the intro. :) Happy to co-operate in working up such a paragraph. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not well versed in the art of lede writing. However, I do think that the three sentences on his reputation could somehow be grouped (ie "...one of the best..." / Poet Laureate /The Times), though I'm not sure where. I'd also expect to find something about the characteristics/development of his poetry, and mention of major publications (other than Birthday Letters). Just my 2 ledelets, MistyMorn (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I will have a bash at a better para over the next few days - be grateful for your comments. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I'll do my best... And your "usually" is looking good! MistyMorn (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"Under a cloud of his many affairs"

I don't know of any other affairs (during his marriage to Plath) except that with Asia Wevill. Where is your source for this? (I understand there were affairs during his second marriage)

This article is written in an attempt to be balanced, but you can see that it is still influenced by the way in which rumour dominates the history of Hughes and Plath. There is the weird version of events that says he "drove Plath to suicide". How exactly do you drive someone to suicide? And how did he do so? It is never specified how. By all accounts she was very difficult, and like many marriages, theirs ran into trouble. He had an affair, and she decided to attempt suicide (as she had done at least once before she met him). Sadly she succeeded. I do not see how he can be blamed for her decision.

The "drove Plath to suicide" story is simply malicious rumour. Because it has been said so widely, even commentators trying to give a balanced view seem to feel obliged to repeat it as a point of view. Those who attack Hughes (who are 'interested' in Plath) tend to behave in an utterly hysterical manner - what they say does not count as scholarship. In Wikipedia we should stick to what we have GOOD EVIDENCE for, as a good scholar would — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.189.243 (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The accusations of the feminists that he drove Plath to suicide is referenced. I don't think the article is defending this point of view at all, it strives for NPOV. It is a major theme in the bibliographies of Hughes' and Plath's life, rightly or wrongly.Span (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the claims played a big part in his life. But as soon as you specify what they were (in an article of this kind) you are raising the question of whether they hold any validity. In an autobiographical article if you make a throwaway remark to the effect that "others claimed he was responsible for X" it is very important to qualify this with some analysis of how much evidence there is. There is a real risk of sounding as though we are giving the claims some validation. (let alone the question of how one person is 'responsible' for anothers' deliberate suicide)--92.19.191.76 (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Affairs - again

Just come across this article and Talk page. Somewhat to my surprise I see there was a debate not so long ago about Hughes and "affairs". Well, here is one referred to elsewhere on Wikipedia and detailed at some length in an autobiographical book: see Emma Tennant and Bananas (literary magazine).

And then there's this (one easily found link but there is a lot about this relationship in books and articles).

I could go on. Is this article so tilted to the 1960s that none of his later behaviour (characterised by one journalist as "compulsively unfaithful") is relevant? Testbed (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just found this newspaper article online. I suggest someone works some of the material into the article, perhaps by having a longer biographical section, rather than "1970-1998" - which is anyway now problematic as it continues to 2009.Testbed (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say that if Hughes did have multiple affairs we do not have to go into in detail. Affairs are often a matter of speculation in 'tell all biographies'. Neither above source is exactly strong. If someone has a strong biography to hand it would be worth checking if affairs are recounted as playing a large role. There are many areas of his life that are not as yet detailed. More of a glaring current omission is Hughes' life with Carol Orchard for the last 28 years of his life. She is always washed away by interest the Plath drama. The "1970-1998" section is part of the biography. The line on Nicholas' death is given as more of a postscript. The Daily Mail is not, in my opinion, a good enough source to depend on. Span (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But we're not talking about "speculation" in this case. Let me try and be clearer (I thought this page was mainly in the hands of people who knew about Hughes so I was perhaps guilty of using short cuts in previous comments):

i) The affair with Emma Tennant is detailed in a book about the affair ('Burnt Diaries'), ie the entire book is about the affair the author had with Hughes. Hard to imagine a stronger source.

ii) The affair with Jill Barber is recounted in many places, not only in the Mail On Sunday, although this account is pretty long and in the first person (the Mail is not an academic source but a quick Lexis Nexis or Google Scholar search will produce plenty which are and which cover the same material)

iii) You write "If someone has a strong biography to hand" as if you do not know the only biography of Hughes published since his death (Elaine Feinstein "The Life of a Poet"). This goes into lengthy and sourced detail about these affairs and many others.

iv) As I wrote before, I could go on - but my original point had simply been to try and redress an imbalance in an earlier discussion on this page. I agree that the 1960s events over-balance the rest of his life, and that it would be good to know more about his life with his last wife, but there is much else which dos not as yet feature.Testbed (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Clear bias in article

I find this article extraordinarily biased. The first issue I have about it is that the author only talks about Hughes many awards and successes, and how Hughes was one of the great writers of his generation, simply because so many of his contemporaries have said so. However, I'm sure Hughes had his detractors and critics, aside from the feminists, and yet, there is no mention of this. I've never heard of a great writer not being panned. Everyone, good, bad, or great, is panned. It's just the way it is. Not everyone likes your writing. Yet, this article only speaks of Hughes's accomplishments.

Also, I find it interesting that there is no mention of the famous incident in which Hughes -- apparently aggressively seeking to kiss Plath, rips off Plath's headband and earrings and she responds by biting him on the cheek. On the very first night they met, I'm not going to bother citing a source because the info can be found anywhere and by now, it is considered common knowledge. Plath describes it in her own writings,

And yet, no one seems to think it indicative of the relationship which was to follow. However, there is mention of how Hughes biographers stated that Plath wasn't up front and honest about her emotional problems when she met Hughes. The inappropriateness of Hughes behavior such as ripping off her earrings -- which would have hurt -- doesn't ever seem to strike any of the academic "intelligentsia" as strange, totally inappropriate or even worthy of commenting on. Yet, Plath biting him on the cheek has been talked about over and over again. How dare she play his little game. In short, the idea that Hughes didn't know Plath had deep emotional issues is preposterous. And the myth that has been perpetrated by the press and academia, that he was the saner of the two, is also preposterous. Sane people don't marry emotionally unstable people.

Additionally, a commentator in the talk section refers to people who feel that Hughes mistreatment of Plath through his many "alleged" affairs" is not a reason to kill yourself. It is if you're all ready suffering from mental illness. I think this is the real issue that so many feminists take issue with. And yet there seem to be a great many Hughes apologists who like to gloss over these ideas. Also, Hughes well-known and documented affairs weren't alleged. They were real. I'm totally baffled as to why there should be any question about whether his behavior and his cheating should be thought to be bad. It was unquestionably bad. Did he know it would devastate his all ready mentally ill wife? Possibly not -- but would a reasonable person think it might drive her over the edge? Yes. So, it is something a thinking person wouldn't do.

This article could have been so much better, if the author had just thought more critically about the subject. If you're going to write an article just about Hughes and his writing, then it would be easier, I grant you. However, you can't separate him from Plath. So, please be more thoughtful about why so many "feminists" , a.k.a., women, are upset about how their relationship was portrayed. Also, has it occurred to you that maybe some of the many accolades Hughes received after Plath's death, is because people who sympathized with Hughes actively sought to make him appear in a better light? Also, this article seems to gloss over the fact that Plath's mother and Hughes destroyed a great deal of her writing after her death, by saying that they did it to spare the children. I know this is what Hughes has said -- but there were valid criticisms of this by scholars and yet you chose not to write about that.

Additionally, the idea that Nicholas Hughes killed himself because he was traumatized by the death of Plath and that the blame rests on her, as someone mentioned in this forum, is not possible. Nicholas Hughes was a baby when his mother died. He wouldn't have any memory of it and he didn't witness it. However, children can be traumatized by an incident years afterwards, simply by how it is presented to them, by how the story is told to them.

KyleMacAlasDair (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)KyleMacAlasDair

Hello Kyle. If you think that "negative" comments about Hughes can be found in reliable sources you should by all means add them. But when you say "Not everyone likes your writing", who exactly are you addressing? Wikipedia articles do not have any one single editor. You also say "I'm not going to bother citing a source." Unfortunately, editors who add to the article have to cite sources, or the material is removed. Your claim that "Sane people don't marry emotionally unstable people" seems a litle too general to be of direct use in this article, and I think many editors would dispute such a claim. Wikipedia articles try to give a complete picture of an individual, not just his or her published work. But I think it should be remembered that a poet, even a Poet Laureate, is judged principally on his or her poems, rather than on the quality or honesty of his or her private life. But if you feel the article is unbalanced, please go ahead and add suitable material which helps to correct that balance. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

By "Not everyone likes your writing", I think Kyle wasn't referring to the present article, but the tricky rapport all writers have with their public. But of course it's also true many different hands have contributed to this particular Wikipedia article. MistyMorn (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. If so, then I'm sure that's a very valid, if general, point to make. But he also says "This article could have been so much better, if the author had just thought more critically about the subject." I think he might find this article of interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is certainly a work in progress, as all Wikipedia articles are. We aim for neutrality, that is to say, we are not out to write a hagiography nor deride him. We aim to omit an editorialising voice on the page. Hughes and his relationship with Plath are complex, deeply emotive subjects for many. There are any number of hugely detailed biographies and critical works written about them from all angles. You say "this article seems to gloss over the fact that Plath's mother and Hughes destroyed a great deal of her writing after her death, by saying that they did it to spare the children." What we have stated is that Hughes wrote this in a forward to a collection of Plath's poems. Here are Plath and Hughes talking about some more details of their meeting and courtship, from a sound archive held at the British Library. This article is a collective effort. I'm appreciative of how many hours of work (sourcing, research, copy editing) it represents, all given for free. Span (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Grosse Fuge

An editor added a sentence to the article on Große Fuge that Ted Hughes wrote a poem in his volume "Moortown" about the Beethoven quartet. I think the editor was confusing this with Sylvia Plath's poem "Little Fugue". Does anyone know if Hughes wrote a poem about the Grosse Fuge? thanks, Ravpapa (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Affairs - again - again

Just checked back at this - rather skewed - article. Anyone who knew Hughes - and who also thinks Wikipedia should be encyclopaedic - will be surprised at the omission of a section called (say) Personal life or some such neutral term as a way of summarising an important part of his life.

Looking back at the history of this article and at some of the comments above, one can only assume there is some bias in those who feel (contrary to Wikipedia policy) that they "control" or "own" this article. Perhaps they are trying to save the feelings of somebody/somebodys living, or there is some other explanation. I have tried in the past to go into Hughes's relentless affairs, as per umpteen other Wikipedia articles on other deceased shaggers, but this is clearly unwelcome.

If the view is that his personal life did not impact on his work, and so why mention the affairs, that could in theory be argued in relation to an article exclusively about Hughes' literary work (although there too his screwing around might be seen to be relevant) - but this article is about him (perhaps there might be two articles, one biographic, warts and all, and another more precious one exclusively about the work?) If the sources on his affairs are not acceptable (they include the woman who had an affair with him and then wrote an entire book about it) it is hard to know what would be suitable, given comparable articles elsewhere on Wikipedia and indeed the Wikirules on such matters.

I don't like censorship on Wikipedia (within Wikinorms of cousre) but would prefer others to take up this fight. To that end, here below is the material published today by The Sunday Times, hidden behind a paywall but available for any editor to use to improve the article. In any case I will formulate a WP:RFC on the issue to bring in a wider range of editors.

The Sunday Times (London), March 30, 2014

Hughes widow lays cloak over the poet's life; A biographer has been left to wonder what secrets remain after support for his book was withdrawn, says Richard Brooks

ONE of Britain's leading academics has criticised the widow of Ted Hughes for withdrawing co-operation on a biography of the poet four years after he began work on it.

Jonathan Bate, provost of Worcester College, Oxford, and professor of English literature at the university, was dismayed when Carol Hughes said he could no longer use her husband's journals, diaries and unpublished poems. She also asked him to return photocopies of documents held in an American archive.

While the book was not to be an authorised biography, Carol Hughes had given her blessing, provided that it informed her husband's literary work. The poet's widow had initially given Bate blanket permission to photocopy material from Hughes's archive, which the British Library bought from her for £500,000 in 2008.

Bate suspects that she was concerned by revelations about her late husband's private life, although he bridles at the thought that his biography would be prurient.

"It makes me wonder if there is some secret being guarded," he said. "Of course I would have to make some references to his love life, but that itself was so important to his poetry. The point is that everything he did in a remarkable life fed into his writing." Bate believes Carol Hughes has unnecessarily reneged on their deal and a pledge not to stifle an examination of her husband's work and life.

"She previously told me she was determined not to be another Valerie Eliot," said Bate, referring to the widow of TS Eliot, who spent years preventing the publication of biographies of the poet.

The professional and personal life of Ted Hughes has been the subject of several books, yet Bate has uncovered new material, particularly about his tempestuous relationship with his first wife, Sylvia Plath, a fellow poet who committed suicide in February 1963.

An unpublished poem uncovered in the British Library shows, for example, how he attempted a reconciliation over a romantic dinner in Soho shortly before Plath's death. Ted Hughes was blamed for years for Plath's suicide, but the publication in 1998 of Birthday Letters, a collection of poems revealing his love for her, changed the perceptions of many.

During his research at the British Library, Bate found a diary entry made by Hughes just before some of the poems in Birthday Letters were published by The Times. "Ted knew there would be a media furore, so he left his Devon home to spend one night with his publisher before driving to Yorkshire," said Bate.

"He writes of buying a copy of the paper at a motorway petrol station, and of how liberated he felt seeing it to have published the poems. And of how cathartic it had been."

While Bate pored over hundreds of thousands of words in journals and diaries, he found much material was missing, with whole pages ripped out. He does not know by whom or why.

Hughes married Carol Orchard in 1970, a year after his German girlfriend Assia Wevill, like Plath, took her own life.

"She [Carol] brought Ted a stability he had lacked," said Elaine Feinstein, author of an unauthorised biography of the late poet laureate published in 2001. "But there were other women during the marriage."

His mistresses included an Australian woman called Jill Barber; Brenda Heddon, a social worker from Devon; and the novelist Emma Tennant. "During the marriage, I think Carol just had a rough idea of what Ted was up to," Feinstein said.

A former employee at Faber & Faber, the publisher of Hughes's poems, agreed that he had extramarital affairs.

"He was insatiable. He'd come in the office and seek women," the employee said. "He had tremendous sexual presence, too. Carol, who is a very nice and steady person, put up with the affairs but never knew the full extent."

Bate's book was commissioned by Faber & Faber but has now been offered to a rival, HarperCollins, which hopes to publish it next year.

Although the use of archive material and quotes from letters and poems will now be even more restricted, Bate is, in part, relieved. "I will no longer have to worry about that rather artificial distinction between a biography and a literary life," he said.

He is not the first to find his plans for a book thwarted. A work about Hughes's passion for fishing also had Carol Hughes's support withdrawn.

Mark Wormald, an English don at Pembroke College, Cambridge, where Ted Hughes studied, had been granted access to his previously unseen and unpublished fishing diaries, comprising tens of thousands of words and written over 20 years, in the British Library. Wormald said: "Carol knew fishing was very important to Ted, even though this part of his life was not shared ... I was getting on with Carol, but have now found that she has withdrawn support for my book.

"I just wonder if she thought the fishing friends were telling me about other parts of his life."

Wormald, who is prevented from quoting from the fishing diaries, is considering an alternative book, which will focus on Hughes's angling friends.

This weekend Carol Hughes declined to comment. Faber& Faber confirmed that the estate of Ted Hughes had withdrawn its support and as a result it would not publish the book.

Testbed (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The pronunciation of his name

I am just wondering (like many other non-English natives) how his surname is to be pronounced correctly. Someone having reliable information on this point might insert this information (in phonetic transcription, using IPA characters) right at the beginning of the article. Saquiwej (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not competent in phonetics, but the usual pronounciation rhymes with 'news' or 'pews'.Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Plays for children inc Sean etc...

I noticed in the list of works, no mention of plays written for children. The one I know is Sean, the fool, the cat and the devil, but I believe there was at least one other. The only reference to 'Sean' that a google search revealed was a bookseller selling a first edition and a children's drama group performing a double-bill of this and another of his plays. Perhaps someone who knows more abouy this side of his work (and dates etc.) could add the plays to his output list.Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian translator?

Am having some difficulty finding any evidence that Hughes belongs to Category:Hungarian–English translators. The article says "In addition to his own poetry, Hughes wrote a number of translations of European plays, mainly classical ones. His Tales from Ovid (1997) contains a selection of free verse translations from Ovid's Metamorphoses." But this statement is not supported any any source(s). Perhaps Category:Greek–English translators would be more appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I found this: [1] "Ted Hughes first became aware of Pilinszky’s poetry in the early 1960s, just before co-founding the translation magazine Modern Poetry in Translation [MPT] in 1965. Hughes did not speak Hungarian, but read roughly-translated English versions of Pilinszky’s poems." But I'm not sure that counts as "translation". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

links to subscription sites

I went to footnote 4 but you need a subscription to see it. Is this valid for Wiki source purposes? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes you can have subscription sources though they should be tagged as such. See WP:PAYWALL. Keith D (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Partner"

small point. I find the word "partner" in the info box a bit unusual but I see on the Wiki page Partner that it can mean "A friend who shares a common interest or participates in achieving a common goal; A sexual partner; A significant other in an intimate relationship." In my experience the word implies something residential. So I tried to link to the Wiki page using the block braces around the word Partner (so that readers can see what Wiki thinks 'partner' can mean) but then the entry 'partner Assia Wevill' disappears altogether. Can someone tell me how to do this? Or is it a Wiki no-no to link a template word? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The way to do it would be to make the change in the template {{Infobox writer}}, but the change will affect every page the template is used on so I would get agreement on its talk page before making any changes. Keith D (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hughes' left testicle

I removed this:

In 1987, Hughes had his left testicle removed, about which he metaphorically wrote about in his poem "Fishgig", the rights of which he donated to the British Foundation for Testicular Cancer Survivors. He was an advocate of this group until his death in 1998.

Various Google searches turn up nothing for Fishgig or British Foundation for Testicular Cancer Survivors. Is this bunk or can someone verify this? --Minesweeper 02:50, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This was obviously the work of some feminist wackoid! --205.188.116.14 09:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

205.188.116.14 - Should you still be active here, do you have a source for such an unfriendly claim? Hoping to hear from you, Wordreader (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ted Hughes alleged bad behaviour

Many people have stated that his mistreatment of Sylvia Plath and Assia Wevill caused Plath to commit suicide and Wevill to murder her daughter and commit suicide. Many such accusers strongly hate Hughes for being very unpleasant to both women. However, the only specific accusation I have heard is that he had sex with other women. That is common, it rarely causes a woman to murder or commit suicide, and should not elicit such hatred from so many people, even militant feminists. In any case, Wevill knew from the start of their relationship that he wasn't monogamous; she knew he was married to Plath from before the start of their their affair until Plath's suicide. What is he alleged to have done that was so unbearable, and is there any evidence that he actually did it? If he was so horrible, why did Carol Orchard marry him, and put up with him for the following 28 years? F W Nietzsche (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If he is so wonderful, why did his son commit suicide as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well alternative explanations, of course, include the trauma Nicholas endured in his childhood, the fact that his mother committed suicide, and the fact that people like you wouldn't leave him and his family alone, continually asking and speculating about these events; also the strong possibility of an inherited disposition to depression or other psychological illness.

In fact, in the absence of good evidence as to why Nicholas did this means our best answer means the best answer is "We don't know". Of course the absence of evidence tends to lead people to literally invent explanations and pass them off as true. This is not scholarship. For example, by making that horrible remark about Hughes' son's death, you have as good as implied that his father was responsible for that as well. So instead of replying with the evidence that Hughes was responsible for other suicides (which we're still waiting for) you just throw more malicious gossip into the cauldron.

Some people seem to dedicate their time to discovering just how much damage they can do to other people's lives by words and implication. That's all you've done - implied something nasty about Hughes when you were asked for evidence of something else.--92.19.191.76 (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Ted Hughes wasn't very nice. It would help if some of the many people who hate him could specify what it was about him that was bad. Why are those who hate him so vague in their criticism of him? Jim Michael (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ink Falls, as I stated below, it's not difficult to find the source of Nicholas Hughes's despair. Mental illness is genetic. The younger Hughes had inherited his mother's depression. Younggoldchip (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This item might be of interest to WP's Hughes and Plath article writers: "WHY ARE WE SO UNWILLING TO TAKE SYLVIA PLATH AT HER WORD?: NEW LETTERS ALLEGING ABUSE ARE ONLY SHOCKING IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN LISTENING" - http://lithub.com/why-are-we-so-unwilling-to-take-sylvia-plath-at-her-word/

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ted Hughes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040222214810/http://www.arlindo-correia.com/080404.html to http://www.arlindo-correia.com/080404.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719182313/http://www.robinmorgan.us/robin_morgan_bookDetails.asp?ProductID=21 to http://www.robinmorgan.us/robin_morgan_bookDetails.asp?ProductID=21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150325064034/http://www.thetedhughessociety.org/janospilinsky.htm to http://www.thetedhughessociety.org/janospilinsky.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517165751/http://marbl.library.emory.edu/collection-overview/featured-collections/ted-hughes-papers-and-related-collections to http://marbl.library.emory.edu/collection-overview/featured-collections/ted-hughes-papers-and-related-collections

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ted Hughes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812051354/http://www.thetedhughessociety.org/life.htm to http://www.thetedhughessociety.org/life.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810044424/http://www.faber.co.uk/catalog/rain-charm-for-the-duchy/9780571167135 to http://www.faber.co.uk/catalog/rain-charm-for-the-duchy/9780571167135
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910205819/http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/environmentplanning/natural_environment/country_parks/stover_country_park/ted-hughes-poetrytrail.htm to http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/environmentplanning/natural_environment/country_parks/stover_country_park/ted-hughes-poetrytrail.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519170328/http://poetrysociety.org.uk/content/competitions/tedhughes/history/ to http://www.poetrysociety.org.uk/content/competitions/tedhughes/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426195827/http://www.poetrysociety.org.uk/content/competitions/tedhughes to http://www.poetrysociety.org.uk/content/competitions/tedhughes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:English astrologers

is not mentioned in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it is wholly unsupported. So I have removed it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)