Talk:William McGonagall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Awfulness

• >>>He is renowned as one of the worst poets in the English language.

This a bit harsh, surely? Who's numero uno - Frieda Hughes?

Beth78 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit harsh ? Have you read any of his poetry ? It's not just bad -- it's inspired in its badness! Most of us can write bad poetry but the results are normally just boring. It takes a special talent to write poetry so bad that you can't put it down and McGonagall had that talent in spades. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest you read some Frieda Hughes. Then we can discuss McGonagall.:P

I do agree that he's quite sublime, but I've seen worse. I mean, was McGonagall totally in earnest or having a laugh? Beth78 11:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• McGonagall was COMPLETELY in earnest.

Absolutely right. He was totally in earnest and unable to see the true badness of his poetry. Which is appalling. And very funny. Darkmind1970 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• All right, but how can you quantify or even measure badness? What's a good poem and what's a bad one? Let's say I thought he was the best poet ever. How am I "wrong"? 68.91.252.41 09:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"How am I 'wrong'"? Laughably so. :-)138.163.0.42 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, calling him "one of" is the real problem, since he is very often identified as "World's worst poet". There's an article about his originals fetching large amounts on the BBC website today,[1] and several earlier links from there. --Stomme (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't someone suggest that Florence Foster Jenkins sing McGonagall's poems? Snezzy (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Worst Poet" is a trophy that shouldn't be taken away from a man who worked so very hard to deserve it. We're talking about a self-educated working class man who supported his family with his poetry in a situation that drives many, many men to madness, crime, and despair. He's really an inspiring figure if you think about it. Unlike the tenured pedants who tinker with poetry these days, this man had literally no-one in his corner. Whether he was really as naive or autistic as people say, we'll never know. He held onto dignity and his personal values in some very cruel times, when thousands of "better" men were losing them. When he says collapsing bridge disasters are a bad thing, everyone laughs, but it's oddly moving. He's sort of the flipside of Emily Dickinson - who was once considered a crazy "bad poet" as well - they turned their obsessions into immortality through sheer will. (And McGonagal always remembered to rhyme.) He kept his family from starvation with just a pen and ink and when faced with insult he fought back. He never doffed his cap. No-one could make him shut his trap. Not even with a cat. Or a dog, or a log, or by flushing it down the bog. George Orwell wrote about good/bad books and poems; he never wrote about McGonagall specifically (to my knowledge, kind of surprising) but he says the litmus test for good art is that it outlasts trendy bullshit and crosses generations. People still enjoy his stuff and I say one man's worst poet is another man's best comedian. 76.115.63.153 (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Lightning

About 25 years ago, if memory serves, Milligan reported that McGonagall walked 56 miles to Balmoral in his unsuccessful attempt to see the queen, and that on the way he was struck by lightning. Any scholars out there able to confirm this? Man with two legs 14:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not actually struck with lightning, but at the Spittal o' Glenshee on his "far-famed Balmoral journey" , walking from Dundee, he was caught in "a dreadful thunderstorm" in which "the vivid flashes of the forked lightning were dreadful to behold" and "was drenched to the skin" (quotes from his 'Brief Autobiography' in Poetic Gems). He gives a slightly fuller account in 'The Autobiography' in More Poetic Gems and breaks into typical McGonagallese verse:

On the Spittal of Glenshee

Which is most dismal to see,

…

--Jmc 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but how I wish it had been true! Man with two legs 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. I checked the sources given in the article, and while most mention his full name, all use "William McGonagall". Clearly, both names are commonly used, but it appears that "William McGonagall" is slightly more common. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

William Topaz McGonagall → William McGonagall — middle name is not necessary in article title as he is better known without it Jw6aa 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Support per nom. -- Beardo 04:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Regardless of whether or not sources give his middle name, "William McGonagall" is how he's usually known. --Blisco 17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per gtests below. Patstuart^talk|edits 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support I have only ever seen him referred to as William McGonagall. Darkmind1970 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose -- This is movement for the sake of it. He's best known without both of his first names not just the second one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose -- I have seen him referred to by all three names or by his surname alone but never to my recollection by just William McGonagall (perhaps because William Topaz McGonagall is memorable and evokative of his eccentric role). Sources given with the article use "William Topaz McGonagall " and they are not junk sources that trace back to Wikipedia. House of Scandal 11:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: There are currently two McGonagalls in Wikipedia so there is a disambiguation page there. I didn't propose the move for the sake of it, I think middle names shouldn't be included in the article title for the sake of it. Sometimes the inclusion of a middle name is appropriate, but I don't think this is the case here (we don't move Rupert Brooke to Rupert Chawner Brooke for example). I suspect the article name was changed due to this article William McGonagle but the names have different spellings. (unsigned by Jw6aa)

I have no doubt that your reasons for suggesting this move were as you stated. However that neither changes nor invalidates my opinion that this is an unnecessary move. The article has been named "William Topaz McGonagall" since it was first created in September 2001, well before any articles on other McGonagalls were created, so its title is not a matter of disambiguation. He is generally referred to as "McGonagall", less often as "William Topaz McGonagall", and less often still as "William McGonagall". -- Derek Ross | Talk

"less often still as "William McGonagall""? Jw6aa 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Derek Ross - I've always known of him as plain William McGonagall. Many sources use his middle name at first mention, as indeed this article does and should, but go on to omit it. (Compare William Jefferson Clinton, a name which is widely known but little used in writing.) A Google for William McGonagall, without quotes, yields a majority of results that don't mention Topaz. --Blisco 17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment According to some amateur Google tests, "William McGonagall" is more common than "William Topaz McGonagall" on the Internet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This has been sitting around for ages. We have 4-2 (including nom), and while it's not a vote, we probably aren't gonna get any close to consensus. Patstuart^talk|edits 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• The Google test is invalid here. You are getting unrelated people with the same name. House of Scandal 18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Topaz

Just a footnote to the above discussion, Topaz was not the poet's middle name. It was an (bogus) honourific title applied when he became an (equally bogus) Grand Knight of the Holy Order of the White Elephant. More details at http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/life/autobiography7

Reference missing

Reference 6 is missing from the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.79.210 (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

POV?

This is a terribly opinionated article - evidently written by a fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.99.19 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Birth year

There seems to be considerable doubt whether he was born in 1825 or 1830. Google turns up plenty of references for either - and both.

• McGonagall (1825-1902) The Guardian - BBC programme review
• Born in about 1830 University of Toronto
• McGonagall (1825 or 1830-1902) Poetry By John R. Strachan, Richard G. Terry

--Cavrdg (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

who was he?

Isn't there some doubt whether he really existed, or was invented as a joke? I note that none of the citations in the main article are earlier than 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.5.196 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no doubt. Go look in the census records, or contemporary issues of Scottish newspapers if you don't believe me. Both can be found reproduced at http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/life (the original documents are available online elsewhere, but you'd have to pay to view them) Chuntuk (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No-one seriously doubts that McG was a real person. The Poetic Gems were originally published (in two parts, by David Winter & Sons, Dundee) in 1890, and there are numerous contemporary accounts (see preceding comment) of his appearances and doings. -- Jmc (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Performance artist?

Was McGonagall really a performance artist, as his description claims? There seems to be some dispute regarding whether or not he knew he was awful, so making such a claim seems a bit precarious. JackHeslop91 (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of "performance artists" who were terrible yet were somehow convinced otherwise. Quality isn't a defining feature of performance art. McGonagall was basically a music hall-type entertainer who kept working class laughing during some very dark times. So he did perform, he was an artist, but he wasn't a "performance artist". 76.115.63.153 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Performance art is a very modern phenomenon, so to projected it backwards like this is an idea that needs a solid source. As this idea is only cited to a defunct geocites website and the phrase "Performance art" does not appear in any of the versions in the internet archive that I checked, I'm removing it from the article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Autistic?

Here's a new theory which makes a little sense - see here. Malick78 (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Shoehorning of the worst sort. It is fashionable to speculate on everyone as being mildly autistic right now, but lets keep articles confined to actual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.119.112 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Family?

His wife. is mentioned in passing, but not named. I believe they had at least one child. Any family history? Valetude (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)