Talk:Ode on Indolence

 Background Of The Ode:

 This ode was written in spring of 1819 (between mid-March and early June) during his most productive years, being one in his great sequence of odes.  Tom Keats died in December 1818, just before it was written, following John’s move to Hampstead.  In 1819, agitation for social reform grew. The government's response to the agitation was repression, and in 1819 at Peterloo, near Manchester, protests were answered by armed force, resulting in several dead and hundreds injured.  In the letter to George and Georgiana (written on 19th March, 1819), Keats described his indolence: 'This is the only happiness; and is a rare instance of advantage in the body overpowering the Mind.'  On 9th June, he told Miss Jeffrey that 'the thing I have most enjoyed this year has been writing an ode to Indolence'.  The ode was first published in 1848.

Reworking the Article

I have recently begun to change a few things about this article since so much of the information used in the ode on a grecian urn page was relevent here. I hope I have not angered anyone by not asking permission. If anyone would like to help with, change, or moan about anything I have done so far, pleaes feel free. I know that I have only touched the surface, but I plan to work on each of the 5 odes as I get time. I would like to see

• a lot more sources on the information I have already provided
• an analysis of the text
• deeper analysis of the structure and background
• moreCritical analysis of the poem
• and whatever else you feel like adding.

Thanks, Mrathel (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I am going to be spending tomorrow in the library looking for more sources to use for the Poem section of the article. Does anyone have anything they would like for me to look for while I am there? I can take requests on just about any subject, even if not related to KeatsMrathel (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ode on Indolence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: /

Issues:

Lead

1. Lead is a bit too short for this article. I think expanding the second paragraph would be sufficient.
2. "The five odes were not precisely dated but were written around the same time." <-- This doesn't sound right to me. I can suggest changing precisely to specifically, which may work better as it defines that the official dates are uncertain. Right now it sounds like the average or estimated year.
3. "Ode on Indolence, <-- Something look missing?
4. by the British poet John Keats, is one of his "Spring Odes of 1819" along with Ode on a Grecian Urn, Ode on Melancholy, Ode to a Nightingale,and Ode to Psyche. <-- "written by"
5. Ode on Melancholy, Ode to a Nightingale,and Ode to Psyche <-- spacing of comma
6. Ode on Indolence remained in obscurity <--- Obscurity seems a bit too professional, but I don't mind it staying.
7. twenty-seven years after Keats’s death <--- gotta write "27" (I agree personally with Twenty-Seven)
8. despite the fact that Keats wrote of it on July 9, 1819, that its composition had brought him more pleasure than any of the other odes. <--Split sentences at the date. The end is conveying something else.
9. After re-reading the lead, I still believe it is too short.

Section 1

1. Keats was not a professional writer and had to live by a small income that he earned from working as a surgeon for Guy's Hospital, in Southwark, London. <-- I would condense this by rewording it as "Keats was not a professional writer, living on a small income..."
2. However, during the beginning of 1819,. <-- I would replace beginning with either a month or season.
3. Keats left the hospital and lost his source of income <-- Keats left the hospital, losing his only source of income.
4. Previously, Keats relied in part on his brother, George, for financial support, but George left England to settle in Illinois. <-- Nothing wrong grammatically, but this should be before the previous sentence.
5. George wrote to Keats requesting financial support himself, Keats fell into despair and guilt, and he wished to give up the time he devoted to writing poetry in order to provide the aid that his brother needed. <--- This is stating three different statements in 1 sentence, but it could be described in 2.
6. He resolved to give up writing poetry but only after a few more months of allowing himself time to write. It was in this mindset that Keats, giving up on poetry, began to write his Ode on Indolence. <-- What happened to George? Also, "who was giving up on poetry".
7. Keats was not satisfied with the poem, and it was not printed alongside any of the other odes that he wrote in 1819. <-- Nothing wrong here, but 1819 should be "that year".
8. Instead, the poem lay unpublished until 1848. <-- "Instead, the poem lay unpublished for almost another three decades."
9. However, he did enjoy the process of writing the poem, as he admitted in a letter to his friend Sarah Jeffrey: "the thing I have most enjoyed this year has been writing an ode to Indolence". <--- "admitting in a letter,"
10. The actual date when Keats wrote the ode, along with Ode on a Grecian Urn, Ode on Melancholy and Ode to a Nightingale, is unknown because he only dated the poems as being written during May 1819. However, he worked on the four poems together and they are united in both their stanza forms and their themes. While Keats was writing Ode on a Grecian Urn and the other poems, his friend Charles Brown was busy transcribing copies and submitting them to Richard Woodhouse. <--- What happened to July 9, 1819? Replaced "United" with "Similar", who is Richard Woodhouse?
11. The exact order of the poems is uncertain, but they are argued to form a sequence within their structures, even though the actual order of the poems within the sequence is unnecessary to actually determine. <-- Do we need to know more about the other poems though? Its losing focus on this one.
12. Douglas Bush claims that Ode on Indolence was probably written after Ode to a Nightengale, Ode on a Grecian Urn, and Ode on Melancholy. <-- Who is Douglas Bush?
13. In The Consecreated Urn, Blackstone admits that Ode on Indolence has been considered by various critics to have been the first, the second, and the last of the five odes to be written. <-- Who is Blackstone?

Section 2

1. Section 2.1 <---- This can't exist unless you have another subheader - see the MOS.
2. The ode begins with an epigraph from Matthew 6:28. <-- I would move this, the second sentence makes a better introduction.
3. The poem itself consists of six stanzas of ten lines each, exhibiting a complex rhyme scheme common to many Romantic odes. <-- Ok, this beginning on the sentence should introduce the subject in a stronger form.
4. Keats’s style of using iambic pentameter and an ABAB rhyme scheme for the first four lines of each stanza shows an adherence to Classical poem structure. <--- Keats' is the correct format, but I think it should go "Keats wrote using iambic pentameter and an A-B-A-B rhyme scheme for the first four lines of each stanza. This style of writing shows an adherence to the <wikilink>Classical poem structure</wikilink>.
5. However, the ode breaks from the classical formation with a series of asymmetrical 6-line endings to each stanza referred to by Gittings as a "Miltonic-based sestet" <--- Who is Gittings?

Section 2.1

1. The first four lines of each stanza: ABAB <-- A-B-A-B (looks more professional, and is easier to read for the common man)
2. The last six lines of stanzas 1 and 4: CDECDE <-- C-D-E-C-D-E, 1 and 4 should be written out.
3. The last six lines of stanza 5: CDEDCE <-- C-D-E-D-C-E, 5 should be written out.
4. The last six lines of stanza 6:CDECED <-- Missed a space, C-D-E-C-E-D, 6 should be written out.
5. The heading of "Meter" should either be removed or turned into a section 2.2.
6. The scansion of the first line of the poem shows Keats's adherence to iambic pentameter, which continues throughout the duration of the poem: <-- May want a prose key here

Section 3

1. The epitaph taken from Matthew 6:28 provides an abbreviated version of Jesus Christ's longer description of the lilies of the field which states: "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin". <-- Again we're starting with Matthew 6:28 when it should introduce the poem before going into its structure.
2. Keats emphasizes the inaction of the lilies to open his poem on Indolence. <-- Reason why? Also this could be merged into another sentence or expanded. (Note: I see more info, it just hasn't been expressed in this sentence)
3. The narrative begins with a brief presentation of the setting, a morning when three figures arise out of a scene the narrator fails to describe until line 15 when he refers to it as one of his "idle days." <-- This should be closer to the beginning.
4. The figures are not described as being on a vase, as they are in Ode on a Grecian Urn, rather they are compared to images on an urn in line 10. <-- where did the vase come from?
5. The poet uses the word Phidian in line 10 to describe the images on the urn, which ties their existence to Phidias, a Grecian artist thought to have overseen the creation of the Elgin Marbles. <-- I think Keats would be better than "the poet" here, because I am noticing a common use of "The X" (X replaced by whichever word is used). Its making it 1) Too choppy, and 2) Redundant.
6. The reference there, #10, should be after the period.
7. This provides the poems first and only direct reference to Classical culture. <--- This could be described better. It has value, and is interesting, but its vague at the moment.
8. The rest of the opening stanza, while used to describe the three figures, derives its action from the "I" in line 8, leading Harold Bloom to assert that the poem's emphasis is not poetry but the poet. <-- Should be "The rest of the opening stanza, used to describe the three figures, derives its action from the I in the eighth line, whichh led Harold Broom to assert that the poem's emphasis is not poetry, but the poet himself".
9. Reference 11 is before the period, it should be after.
10. In the second stanza, the reemergence of the / in line 11 draws the attention back to the narrator and away from the three characters. <-- "In the second stanza, the reemergence of iambic / in line 11 draws the attention back to the narrator instead of the three characters."
11. The poet's reflection on the images becomes more internal. <-- This seems a bit chopped off and vague, would be more interesting if described more.
12. The opening question creates an atmosphere that Stuart M. Sperry describes as a "nourishing immersion in the rush of pure sensation and its flow of stirring shadows and "dim dreams". <-- Stuart M. Sperry has what occupation? Need a second end quote.
13. as the poet attempts to discern the origins of the figures who interrupt his indolence: <-- describe a little better for the layman to understand.
14. (lines 10-12) <-- If the last one had line 10 - wouldn't this be lines 11-13?
15. The names of the figures on the urn appear unknown to the poet in the second stanza, leading Sarah W. R. Smith to suggest that the poet laments his ignorance as to their names when he says they leave him "without a task". <-- Occupation for Sarah W.R. Smith? This sounds off, the latter half should be reworded to make sense.
16. Reference 13 after the period, <joke>or I will have to claim that the period is unsourced.</joke>
17. If the previous stanza has line 13, this should be lines 14 - 18
18. In John Keats, Smith suggests that only in retrospect does the poet understand the nature of the intrustion upon his indolence, leading him to ask the figures whey they did not melt in line 14, which shows that he later dislikes the corruption of his indolence <-- John Keats is what? (I figure a book), intrusion is spelled wrong. Should split this sentence at indolence.
19. (Lines 13-20) <-- Now the numbering makes no sense. Wouldn't this be 19-20?
20. "In his letter written between February 14 and May 3 1819, Keats describes in detail the images he discusses in the second stanza and whose image reappears for a third time in the third:" <-- missing commas for those dates. Probably should put the citation a second time in this sentence.
21. The poet describes this intrusion in the third stanza, but he speaks of the figures rather than to them as he does in Ode on a Grecian Urn: <-- You have a colon here, and this seems like an unnecessary split. Also a citation please?
22. As for the fourth stanza expands the themes presented in the third, it names the three figures Love, Ambition, and Poesy, which Vendler suggests are the themes of the poem even as Bloom refers to them as the "three fates".
23. Now where is the thing detailing Lines 21 - 30? Its inconsistent there.
24. The poet refers to Poesy as his demon as it he claims is followed by what Vendler suggests is its motive, Ambition, and its subject: Love <-- There is no ned puncuation, and why is Ambition and Love in italics?
25. Add the Lines 31-40 thing for the stanza.
26. In John Keats: The Principle of Beauty, Lord Gorell describes the fifth stanza as, "lacking the magic of what the world agrees are the great Odes, even though the language he describes as "Delicate, charming even". <-- Where is the Stanza Six description.
27. Reference 16 after period.
28. The Lines 41 - 60 thing for these two stanzas?

Section 4

1. In The Odes of John Keats, Helen Vendler suggests that Ode on Indolence is a "seminal" poem constructed with themes and images that appeared more influential in other poems by Keats. <-- This does not make a good introduction sentence, and what is "The Odes of John Keats" (it should say book), author Helen Vendler.
2. Many of the same thematic elements that appear in the ode also appear in Keat's other works, and the poem shares structural elements with both Ode on a Grecian Urn and Ode on Melancholy. <--- Keats' other works.
3. The ode presents many of the Classical themes found in Ode on a Grecian Urn, “On Seeing the Elgin Marbles”, and other works by Keats. In March of 1817, the Elgin Marbles were brought to the British Gallery for display. After visiting the display, Keats became interested in the art of Ancient Greece and stated that he wished to learn the language. <-- Again why are we describing the other two odes?
4. The Classical influence upon the Romantic Poets affected other writers including Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Wordsworth, but Keats’s odes contain a higher degree of Classical references than most of the poets of his time. <--- "Keats' odes". "A majority of poets".
5. While Keats devoted much of his odes to Classical themes, his background in myth came from reading various mythographies while studying at Enfield. While there, he studied three English works on mythology, Tooke's Pantheon, Lempriere's Classical Dictionary and Spence's Polymetis, and translated Virgil's Aeneid as part of his curriculum. <--"Mythographies" is not a word.
6. What does the second paragraph and the quote have to do with the poem?
7. In an unfinished letter to his brother George and his sister-in-law Georgiana <--- In an incomplete letter...
8. Keats describes the concept of indolence upon which he based his poem: “This is the only happiness; and is a rare instance of advantage in the body overpowering the Mind” <-- Mind should be decapitalized because we have no offical person called Mind to refer it to.
9. While critics have suggested that Keats’s description of indolence may have arisen from the use of opium <-- Keats' again.
10. There are two commas at the end of that piece.
11. others such as Willard Spiegelman have suggested that the indolence of the poem arises from the narrator’s reluctance to partake in the labor associated with poetic creation. <-- Others, such as

Section 5

1. Responses in the heder should be lowercase.
2. Ode on Indolence was never seen as a great poem compared to the other odes written by Keats in 1819, and, as Walter Evert summarises it, "It is unlikely that the 'Ode on Indolence' has ever been anyone's favorite poem, and it is certain that it was not Keats's. <-- I see a bit of POV in this sentence, and as (no comma), summarizes is spelled wrong, Keats' again
3. However, the poem does have some importance, as Walter Jackson Bate points out, "its value is primarily biographical" and not poetic. <-- End quote in wrong place. I see POV here as well.
4. Also, many critics rely on the poem as a point of comparison. An early review of the poem by Charles Wentworth Dilke, in Life, Letters, and Literary Remains of John Keats, saidthat while while Indolence can be read as a supplemental text to assist the study of Ode on a Grecian Urn, it remains a much "Inferior" poem. <-- Many critics (remove the Also,) missing a space in "said that".
5. Ode on Indolence failed to achieve the same reception as the other odes Keats wrote in 1819, and criticism on the poem appears less than on Keats's other odes. <-- Keats' again
6. McFarland's response that Ode on Indolence "hardly bears mention" alongside Ode on a Grecian Urn shows an attitude common among those critics who fail to discuss the ode in essays and books written on the other works. <-- Was that Ode on Indolence.
7. Doublas Bush describes the work as being ranked far below the others and suggests that it lacks many of the qualities that make the other odes great. <-- Douglas Bush - not Doublas Bush.
8. Harold Bloom's approach in The Visionary Company: A Reading of English Romantic Poetry contains less criticism of the ode's merrit than McFarland's, and he points to the differences in style rather than importance. <--Occupation for Harold Bloom, his book "The Visionary Company".
9. Bloom explains that while "Ode on a Grecian Urn" begins with an interrogation of the urn, Ode on Indolence begins with allegory and then compares the poet's observations to figures seen on an urn. <-- then starts to compare the poet's observation.
10. Bloom's description of the poem provides insight on the importance of Love, Indolence, and Poesy as he attempts to put these themes into a context that is separate from those presented in Keats's other odes, and compares them to themes in a poem by Shelley instead: <-- Shelley is who? - Keats' again

See also, References and Sources

1. Smith, Sarah W. R. John KeatsG.K Hall: Boston, 1981. <-- Check spacing
2. The last source could use a Citation template.

Overall thoughts

Wow, this is the largest review I have ever done. There are a majority of issues here, reaching over 80. I will put this on hold, but its closer to a Quick Fail. Its only good in stability, use of citations and images, which is a problem. I will give you 10 days instead of the normal 7, being this a large amount of problems, so for now. 'On Hold.Mitch/HC32 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote most of the page top to bottom. I need to know what sections now need clarification/expansion, and I can find some more stuff for the criticism section (there should be something else). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

thoughts

Not sure how I am supposed to do this, but I have a few questions about the issues that I would like to discuss before making the proper changes, as I think more experienced editors might understand better than I:

• 3.4The "vase" appears in the text in line 10 below the text which attempts to provide a summary of that stanza. I am not sure if there is really enough contextual evidence to assert that the vase appears in a physical sense in the stanza, so I am not sure that I can say where it comes from, but I may just be a bit rusty on the poem.
• 3.5 I do shy away from using "the poet" and "Keats" interchangably in an attempt to keep from confusing author and narrator. Perhaps we can add "speaker" instead, but I hate the way it implies speech for written text. I am not sure if confusing Keats and the poet is problem in this particular case, so an outside look might be better since I probably wrote this:)
• 4.3 I understand the need to keep the article on subject, but I personally find it tough to discuss one without mentioning the overlapping themes shared by works also arising from the same inspiration. Will leave that to people who know better.
• 4.6 Is it necessary to discuss more clearly the connection between the Greek characters in the poem and Keats' study of Greek mythology at the time of its composition? Perhaps there is a way to connect this section with the critical analysis of the poem in the previous section to explain why it is a theme. Mrathel (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was meaning to talk to you about some of the above. I would prefer narrator instead of poet or speaker. Anyway, we will talk. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

F&f's critique of Section 2, paragraph 1

• (Sentence 1) "The ode begins with an epigraph from Matthew 6:28: 'They toil not, neither do they spin.'"
  • The sentence is ambiguous: does it mean that the beginning of the ode is an epigraph in Matthew 6:28 or that the ode's epigraph is taken from Matthew 6:28? "Epigraph," in any case, as its own page informs us, is a quote preceding the text; it is therefore redundant when you use "begins." Please say, "The ode begins with a quote from Matthew 6:28" or "The ode has as (its) epigraph a quote from Matthew 6:28"

• (Sentence 2) "The following text consists of six stanzas of ten lines each, exhibiting a complex rhyme scheme common to many Romantic odes."
  • Do you mean, "the text that follows," or "the ensuing text," or "the subsequent text," or "the text proper?" "The following text" is ambiguous, since it can mean the text that is to follow (say, as an example in the article itself).
  • The participial phrase, "exhibiting a complex rhyme scheme ..." is vague; it needs clearly to refer back to a subject. Either bring it forward at the head of the sentence, if you are applying it to the text, or say, "... stanzas of ten lines each, all exhibiting ..." if you are applying it to the stanzas. Or you could do away with the participial phrase altogether and employ an adjective clause, "The text proper, which consists of six stanzas of ten lines each, exhibits a complex rhyme scheme ..."

• (Sentence 3) "Keats’s style of using iambic pentameter and an ABAB rhyme scheme for the first four lines of each stanza shows an adherence to Classical poem structure."
  • The prepositions and articles are missing or incorrect. You mean "Keats's use of both the iambic pentameter and the ABAB rhyme scheme in the first four lines of each stanza shows an adherence to a/the Classical poem structure." ("Classical," moreover, especially when you capitalize it, needs to be linked to something.)

• (Sentence 4) "However, the ode breaks from the classical formation with a series of asymmetrical 6-line endings to each stanza referred to by Gittings as a "Miltonic-based sestet". This is an extremely shabby sentence!
  • What is a "classical formation?" Do you mean "classical form?" "Classical formation" means something else. Or perhaps you mean, "classical tradition," especially when you are using "breaks from?"
  • "a series of" is redundant when you say "each stanza."
  • What is the point of "referred to by Gittings as a 'Miltonic-based sestet'" Is it really that informative? Wouldn't it be better if you simply laid out the forms of the asymmetrical lines? This seems to be: ABC,ABC in the first two stanzas and in stanzas 4 and 5; ABC,CAB in stanza three, and ABC, ACB in stanza 6. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor citation issues

I marked two problems in the source with "??" comments:

• 'Douglas Bush insists it was written after "Nightingale", "Grecian Urn", and "Melancholy".<ref name="Bate p. 528">[[#Bate1963|Bate 1963]] p. 528</ref>' Surely that citation should be to Bush, not to Bate.
• Two works are listed in References but are never cited. Shouldn't they be removed? They are Wu 1995 and Yoon 1998.

Eubulides (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

They were previous cited but apparently removed. I'll make fixes shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that. But thanks for the update. 202.180.111.63 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)