Talk:Delmore Schwartz

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment

(Rated C-class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

WikiProject Poetry

(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject New York City

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The expression "In Dreams Begin Responsibilities" is a favorite among literary intellectuals and shows up in unexpected places (i.e. the movie Deep Cover). I don't see the connection. Blatantly Evil 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the erroneous revert - I misread... Dysprosia 09:41, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No one has mentioned that the famous phrase was lifted by Schwartz from Yeats. Does anyone know which poem is the source. I seem to have forgotten. Ganev 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

schwartz's socialism[edit]

This is the first time I have ever seem schwartz connected to socialism and irving howe. It is entirely possible, but there is no reference to this in james atlas's biography. Also, why the final and emphatic emphasis on schwartz's influence on lou reed? Why not emphasize his specifically literary and poetic influence, i.e., on innumerable poets in the u.s., not just rock lyricist reed? I think reed may be exaggerating the connection with schwartz. Note: I am the co-editor of Schwartz's Selected Essays, 1970, U. of Chicago P. 69.182.108.234 18:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

First Paragraph[edit]

Does the title "In Dreams Begin Responsibilites" have to appear four times in the first paragraph? Isn't there a better way to phrase it? And does each iteration have to be made into a link even though they all lead to the same page? AshcroftIleum 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, methinks. I will try to offer a decent alternative.The Gnome 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Delmore effect[edit]

Use of the term "Delmore effect" in a 2000 doctoral thesis (referenced here as a draft) does not render it "a term in psychology", nor does it make it the view of "Stanford's psych department." The reference is neither authoritative nor indicative of a general view. 96.35.172.222 (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're correct: it's original research and I've removed it. I also removed the entire trivia section per WP:TRIVIA. Whatever info is in that section that is useful should be written into a paragraph. As for someone's thesis: if there's no general agreement and other published sources, it's really just one person's idea and is original research. freshacconci talktalk 15:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Scott Spencer and cultural reference[edit]

This article currently mentions Scott Spencer's novel, Endless Love. The reason for the mention is because Spencer uses a couple of lines from a poem by Schwartz as an epigraph for the novel and that the title of the novel also references a line from the same poem. Do other users think this is significant enough to warrant mentioning in an article on Schwartz? Perhaps the epigraph would be worth mentioning in an article on Spencer or in an article on his book, Endless Love, but it seems inconsequential with respect to Schwartz's life and work. I'd like to know, what do other folks think? Should this remain in the article?Jpcohen (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects then, I'm going to remove the Scott Spencer reference. But please comment if you do. Thanks.Jpcohen (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not been back to the page for a while, but I added the information and think it is relevant, so I will re-add it. 142.68.50.242 (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Acknowleding that you are the editor who originally posted the Scott Spencer section on this article, please note that I added this discussion topic to find out if other users besides you thought that a section of the article devoted to Scott Spencer's cultural reference was relevant to Schwartz's bio. Unfortunately, no one responded so I removed that section. And a month later, you have reverted that change without providing an argument for doing so (aside from the fact that you "think it is relevant"). That isn't an argument. And it also misses the larger point here. The reason that I posted this discussion point was to try to find out what the consensus was regarding the section you added and to avoid an edit war. Stating that you think it's relevant doesn't help to establish any consensus. So I will ask again: do any Wiki contributors out there (besides Contributor 142.68.50.242) have an opinion on the matter? Thanks.Jpcohen (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see where you have provided an argument for excluding the information other than that you don't think it is relevant. So it would be interesting to hear what your reasons are. Secondly, I frankly thought it was fairly obvious that the information was worth including, as it is the sort of thing that is not only in many many other Wikipedia articles, but also much like the entire "Tributes to Schwartz" section. So while Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is always good to keep in mind, There does seem to be a strong argument for its inclusion based on what is already included and things you don't seem to mind.

Let me offer a specific comparison. The "Tributes" section currently contains an item that says "Lou Reed, dedicated his song 'European Son' to Schwartz (although the lyrics themselves made no direct reference to Schwartz)." Ok. Now the song "European Son" is not a particularly famous song (as opposed to the novel Endless Love, which was nominated for the National Book Award) and there is no connection between the song and Schwartz other than a dedication. For the novel, the title does not merely "references a line" from Schwartz's poem (as you put it), it is taken directly from it. Additionally, the epigraph does not merely "use a couple of lines from a poem" (as you put it), but it consists of the entirety of the last stanza - the last 6 lines of an 18 line poem. It seems rather odd to think that the reference by Reed to Schwartz is somehow more important to include than the other.

When one artist inspires or influences another artist, it seems worth mentioning that fact when discussing either one. While I would agree with you that the item is not worth mentioning if the work referencing Schwartz was relatively insignificant in its own right, the fact that this novel is not insignificant makes the fact that Schwartz had some influence over the writer worth a mention. It certainly does not detract from the article to point out that a part of Schwartz's legacy was to influence another important writer. The entire "Tributes" section is about how other artists have been inspired by Schwartz and make reference to him and his work, so I don't see how this item is any different. 99.192.49.168 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC) (=142.68.50.242)

First, the novel Endless Love was not a tribute to Delmore Schwartz or to his work. The connection to Schwartz is that Spencer derived the title of the novel from a poem by Schwartz. Spencer's epigraph quotes that Schwartz poem to acknowledge the source for Spencer's title reference. But the substance of Spencer's book has nothing to do with Schwartz or Schwartz's work. To my mind, this information might be worth mentioning in an article on Spencer or on Spencer's book (which, incidentally, does not have a Wikipedia article).

But there was no personal or professional connection between Spencer and Schwartz, so why should Spencer be included in an article on Schwartz's bio? All of the writers in the tribute section of this article had close personal/professional relationships with Schwartz. Lou Reed studied with Schwartz at Syracuse and has publicly written and spoken about Schwartz's significant influence over his life and career. The other writers in the tribute section were Schwartz's peers. So that's why they warrant mentioning in this article.

But I won't make a federal case out of this. If multiple people found the section on Scott Spencer appropriate, then I'd leave it alone. However, it looks like Users 99.192.49.168 and 142.68.50.242 are the same individual. Is that correct?Jpcohen (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Many things to cover. (1) "It looks like Users 99.192.49.168 and 142.68.50.242 are the same individual. Is that correct?" Yes, it is. I put the "(=142.68.50.242)" after the signature tag for my previous comment to indicate that. Who knows what IP address will show up at the end of this comment, but it's still just me. 99.192.49.168 = 142.68.50.242 = TBA.

(2) "If multiple people found the section on Scott Spencer appropriate, then I'd leave it alone." I'm only guessing here, but I would not be surprised if no one else weighs in on this question. Even editors who make some change to the article might not even check in here to see if there are any active discussions going on. Since I don't think there is much chance of either of us changing our mind about this edit question, I would suggest that if in a weeks time no one else has commented on the question that we put in a request to Wikipedia:Third opinion for assistance.

(3) "First, the novel Endless Love was not a tribute to Delmore Schwartz or to his work." Which is why it is not in the "Tributes" section. That is not, however, a reason to suppose that it should not be mentioned in another section, like an "In popular culture" section (or "Cultural references" section, as you renamed it here).

(4) "But the substance of Spencer's book has nothing to do with Schwartz or Schwartz's work." Exactly the same thing is true of the song "European Son".

(5) "an article on Spencer or on Spencer's book (which, incidentally, does not have a Wikipedia article)." I realize this, but it's irrelevant. the book clearly meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, so the fact that no such page exists just means no one has bothered to do it (yet). That no such page exists has no bearing on the question here.

(6) "But there was no personal or professional connection between Spencer and Schwartz, so why should Spencer be included in an article on Schwartz's bio?" Well, in general one artist influencing another can be significant enough to mention even in the absence of any personal or professional connection. Artists who were not even born until after people like Shakespeare or Dickens or Twain were long since dead could still be significantly influenced by them. I don't see why in general people who did know Schwartz and wrote things that reference him or his work are more worth mentioning than people who didn't know him and wrote things referencing him or his work. An artist's legacy is greater than the scope of the people he actually knew.

(7) On the same point as the previous, I did a little poking about and noticed that John Berryman, who is mentioned in the "Tributes" section, has a Wikipedia page you have contributed a fair bit to. On that page there is a "In popular culture" section which mentions references to Berryman in other works, none of which are by people who knew him personally. I also notice that it appears that you have not objected to the existence of that section, yet it seems exactly parallel to the one we are discussing here. So I would be curious to know if you think that that section should also be removed, but just have not bothered to propose it or if you think there is some fundamental difference between the popular culture references there and the one here. (Incidentally, to follow up point #5 above, neither of the two songs mentioned in the Berryman "In popular culture" section have their own Wikipedia pages, and unlike Endless Love arguably are not notable enough to merit their own pages).

Anyway, like I said, I don't expect that either you or I will change our minds about this issue and I will be surprised if another editor comes along to comment, so we probably will want to use Wikipedia:Third opinion eventually. 99.192.49.168 = 142.68.50.242 = 99.192.79.245 (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that there's a fine line between pop culture references that are trivial and ones that are worth mentioning. The pop culture references in the John Berryman article that you cite, to my mind, are more substantive because John Berryman figures prominently in the works in question. For instance, the song by The Hold Steady that's mentioned is actually about John Berryman and his suicide. If Endless Love was about Delmore Schwartz or if Delmore Schwartz's work or life was featured in the substance of the novel, I would think it was worth mentioning in the Schwartz bio article.

But like I said before, it's a close call when it comes to matters like "Pop Cultural Reference" section which are very often problematic for this very reason: how does one differentiate a trivial reference from a substantive one? Also, does a section of relatively trivial pop culture references contain information that's helpful to people looking for information on a particular topic? I'm not enough of a Wikipedia expert to answer these questions with any authority.

But like I said before, this issue is not important enough to me to make a federal case out of it. And, apparently, it's not that important to other editors out there. So I'm not going to press it for the time being (though I think it would still be interesting to know what other editors think).Jpcohen (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Start of article[edit]

The "top" of the article does not mention the date of birth. In fact, there is no concrete evidence about the supposed date of birth until the age at death is given. [Please excuse my possible lack of style as a relative new editor in general and a first time contributor in biographies. I know how to subtract and how to make a minor change, but thought there might be some reason for this.] JimHill 14:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jim! Schwartz's birthdate is listed in the infobox in the upper right hand corner of the article. And it is the author's correct birthdate. If you'd like a reference, you can search The Norton Anthology of Modern Poetry or poets.org to verify. As far as I know, for very basic facts, you don't need to cite references. But if you state an opinion or a quote or information that is disputable, then you definitely must provide a reference. Hope that's helpful!Jpcohen (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Connection to Lowell[edit]

The article states that Schwartz and Lowell met at Harvard in 1946, but above had stated that Schwartz was a student there 1935-37. Is this a typo or was he there in other capacity (which should be stated if that is the case) in 1946? JimHill 14:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected the passage. It never states that the two poets first met in 1946. But the sentence to which you referred should say that the two "lived together" and that they were living in Cambridge, Mass (not Harvard). Lowell's poem "To Delmore Schwartz" and the notes to the piece in Lowell's Collected Poems should make this much clear.Jpcohen (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Rating[edit]

I've re-rated this article c-class because there is quite a bit of unsourced material throughout the article. B-class guidelines require that the article be "suitably referenced". INeverCry 01:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Search This Blog

anhduc wiki 4