Talk:Our Exagmination Round His Factification for Incamination of Work in Progress

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Our Exagmination Round His Factification for Incamination of Work in Progress article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Skip to table of contents

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Dixon

Vladimir Dixon's Wiki article mentions absolutely nothing about the person except for his involvement with this book. I believe that it would be simpler to move the single sentence from it that is not already in this article, to here. Fleebo 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever edited the article to say that Vladimir Dixon had personally handed in the letter hasn't provide a source for the assertion. Personally, I am surprised that Stuart Gilbert and Sylvia Beach both believed that Joyce had written Dixon's article, as it's a pretty crude pastiche of Joyce's style - he could have done a lot better if he had wanted to. On stylistic grounds I think it unlikely that Joyce wrote it. On the other hand, if he really was playing a practical joke then it's not inconceivable that he got someone else to hand it in for him. In any case, since nobody has been able to provide a citation for the Dixon-was-a-real-person story I am cutting it. Lexo (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dots in Beckett's title

The presumably careful preservation of the number of dots/periods in

Dante...Bruno. Vico..Joyce

strongly suggests a consensus that the title is considered erroneous when the number is changed. Yet the spacing in the Beckett bio (which i've copy&pasted here) is grossly different in general than that at p 15 of James Joyce A to Z, and in particular, the unique blank in the middle gap in our Beckett bio grossly differs in appearance from both p 15 and what is used in the accompanying article. Unless the editors who want the mentions not to turn into

Dante .. Bruno .. Vico .. Joyce

take pleasure in effecting that by silent but determined unexplained edits, like guerrilla editors, there should be a paragraph (possibly in a footnote) in each article that mentions it, at least summarizing the attitude and practice of non-Joycean scholars and librarians (and certainly those of Joyceans, unless they are too stubbornly trying to make a cryptic point) toward handling the cryptic and problematic title.
--Jerzy•t 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each dot refers to a century that existed between each author, so the initial way you listed it here is correct. Any changes do in fact destroy the meaning of the title and correspondingly the essay which follows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.196.2 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon's purlieus

Wasserman's article indicates that Dixon in the '20s was living not in America, as the last line of the Wikipedia article here states, but in fact in Paris, which of course makes a contribution of some sort to Shakespeare & Co. (even if only the lending of a name?) much more plausible. A graduate of MIT and Harvard with an English-speaking father, he was apparently something of a linguist. Fascinating that he died the year of Exag's publication. Perhaps his services were no longer required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.53.75 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]