Talk:Ozymandias/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems odd to me to have Smith's sonnet crammed into this article and it turns the whole thing into a compare and contrast essay when comparisons should maybe be a section of the article. It's hard to focus this article on Shelley's work (which it should) when it's distracted by Smith's, and vice versa. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this. Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think go ahead and split them out. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Structure

This poem is definitely divided into an octave, describing the colossal wreck in the barren desert, and a sestet, dwelling on the inscription and contrasting it with the view. I have also remarked on the fact that the rhyme scheme sprawls across the division between the two, which is NOT DONE except in a Spenserian sonnet. J S Ayer (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Typo in the year

In the sentence: "The reputation of the statue fragment preceded its arrival to Western Europe; after his Egyptian expedition in 1789, Napoleon Bonaparte had failed to acquire the Younger Memnon for France." in the section "Origin", should the year not rather be 1798?

Good spot:  Done. For future reference, edit requests can make suggestions like this more noticeable. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The British didn’t “aquirre” Oz. They stole it.

Change the word “aquired” to “stole.” 2601:2C1:C280:DAE0:0:0:0:7024 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

We summarise what the sources say, and they don't seem to say that it was stolen. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Desart

I certainly think it's possible that Shelley used the spelling desart in the poem. However I don't have a printed source handy that confirms this; and if it is going to be spelled in the article that way then the article should explain that it was spelled that way with a reference to explain it. That will stop people constantly switching it back. Any printed reference that specifically comments on the spelling of desart (ie. making it clear that it is not just a typo) would be very welcome. Ikuzaf (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You can see in the image at the top right that it was spelled desart as published by The Examiner. Given that this is a recognized archaic spelling (see wikt:desart), it strikes me as worse to silently "correct" it to the modern spelling than to use the spelling we have from publication. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Trovatore because MOS:SIC says keep archaic spelling when quoting. The .gif of the 1817 draft is unclear but looks to me like it might have desart. The 1818 printing in The Examiner has desart. I have seen a claim that in an 1819 edition it was changed to desert but see no backup for that -- the 1819 reprinting in Rosalind and Helen has desart. However, Ikuzaf says "the article should explain". Okay, any specific suggestion about wording? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion would be along the lines of: either a (<ref>) attached to the desart in the text, or a line in the text following the poem that says something similar to "The poem as originally printed uses the spelling desart rather than the spelling desert which is now more common. Ikuzaf (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not noticed that the posthumous 1826 edition has desert, and the article's poemquote cites the 1826 edition although it doesn't follow it exactly. So I propose to edit, quoting the 1819 edition exactly including the sometimes-odd punctuation and capitalization, and end with the note that Ikuzaf suggests. Any objections? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. (If I really thought it might just be a typo in the original, I'd be fine with following the 1826 version, perhaps with a footnote, but that doesn't seem likely to me. Admittedly this is subjective.) --Trovatore (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the revision. The reference is to the 1819 edition, not the 1876 reprint. I intended to follow it exactly but eventually decided, no, say "met" rather than "MET" and do not say "FINIS" at the end. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a long note about Shelley's spelling of desart/desert in "Shelley's Works In Verse and Prose, Volume I" edited by Harry Buxton Forman in 1880, starting on page 402. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

As a user experience designer, the use case I believe is most important is the typical, casual reader will see when they read the poem. “Desart” is archaic and completely pulls attention from the content and flow of the prose. Yes, I understand the desire to be historically accurate. I feel this can be accomplished with a citation on the word in question, or a note in a section further down the page. We are corrupting the reading experience for everyone by overweighting the desire to be historically accurate. Davecort (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I see this as an advantage rather than a detriment. It adds "flavor" as it were. You wouldn't get rid of all the -st and -eth verb endings in Shakespeare, and it isn't about historical accuracy per se; it's just better that way. --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

“it's just better that way” is a judgment. So is “advantage” and the implication that “flavor” is desired in this context (whatever you mean by that).

If you look closely at my choice of words, you will see that I avoid judgments. Instead I describe the choice made and the impact this has on the reader. It is a fact that most readers when encountering the word desart will have to shift their brain into another gear—and out of appreciation for the prose—to figure out what is going on. Regardless of other desired outcomes by keeping the wording this way, it necessarily means people will be tripped up on this word.

At least the #1 Google result chose readability, as well as the authrotative perspective of the British Library. Davecort (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You are in fact making a judgment. Your judgment is that it is better for the reader not to experience this impact. My judgment is that it is better for the reader to experience this impact. I think it will enhance rather than detract from appreciation for the poetry, which is where we differ descriptively. --Trovatore (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You know what? I agree with you Trovatore. Let's be sure the reader experiences the maximum impact when the read the prose. DESART FTW! Davecort (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

What impact? If there's an impact, it can't be inferred that it was the author's original intent for there to be one, precisely because the average reader at the time of publication would have thought nothing of the spelling at all. The nonstandard (by 21st century standards) spelling of the word is jarring to a modern reader in a way it would not have been in 1819. I also don't really understand how the (somewhat annoying but not overly so) smallcaps formatting of the word "met" is intended to impact the reader, but at least it's not confusing (well, it kind of is, because I get the sense it's supposed to indicate emphasis, yet that is very much a nonstandard way to do so in modern writing, and it's not clear that's even the case). WP Ludicer (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what edition the British Library used. I don't know what precisely Davecort is proposing. I do know that a Wikipedia guideline and prior discussion in this thread should have more weight than googling. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

My proposal is simple: use the modern spelling "desert in the main prose and explain the original spelling "desart" is a section below. Davecort (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Original typography and punctuation

There were a number of punctuation and formatting transcription errors from the original text as published in The Examiner on 11 January 1818. This edit brings the text in line with the original publication. Davecort (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

As anyone could have seen by reading my post of 26 May 2022 (above), those were not "errors", they were differences because I used the 1819 edition (while Shelley was still alive), and specifically decided to say "met" rather than "MET", which nobody objected to. This is clearly a continuation of the Desart thread so I changed to a "===" subheading title; I won't object hard if some third party changes back to "==". I do object to Davecort's edit. Does anyone else? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

On the issue of how to format the poem in the article, a common editorial principle is to use the text that best approximates the author's final intention (insofar as it's possible to determine it). In the case of "Ozymandias", this would seem to be Rosalind and Helen (1819), page 92 as that was the last opportunity Shelley had to edit the poem before his death in 1822.

However, I think the article is asking for trouble by having a picture of the 1818 text at the top and then quoting the 1819 text in the body of the article followed with the note "as originally printed". This is bound to lead to this kind of trouble when a conscientious reader notices the discrepancies. I suggest updating the article to explicitly say that it is reproducing the 1819 text from Rosalind and Helen and maybe discuss the differences if there is something interesting to say about them. I would also suggest footnoting "desart" instead of waiting to mention it below the text: a footnote is better suited to immediately satisfying a reader's curiosity. The footnote can discuss whether "desart" was an ordinary spelling variant in the early 19th century, or a deliberate archaism. (I'm inclined to think the former is the case, but I haven't looked into it very hard.)

Other poets roughly contemporary with Shelley who used the spelling "desart" include Blake ("While the desarts weep", Songs of Experience, 1794), Coleridge ("When faint and sad o'er Sorrow's desart wild", "Monody on the Death of Chatterton", 1797), Byron ("The leafless desart of the mind", The Giauor, 1813) Gdr 17:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I made the footnote change, but I'll leave it up to you two whether you want the 1818 or 1819 text in the article. If you decide to go with the 1818 text, make sure to update the reference, which currently points to the 1819 text. Gdr 17:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ikuzaf, Trovatore: Do you agree with my preference the 1819 edition, or Davecort's preference the 1818 edition? And do you approve of Gdr's footnote? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Today Vorziblix has done yet another edit. I think it mostly goes back to the 1819 text, erasing Davecort's changes but leaving Gdr's footnote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Today Davecort has done yet another edit. I think it mostly goes back to the 1818 text. Is there anyone reading this who thinks Davecort's edits are an improvement? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Who are we to impose our edits upon the original? Since the word desart is of that time and should be retained for historical purposes, so too should the punctuation. There are reasons why these choices were made. Following Chesterton's Fence, changes should not be made unless we know the author's and publisher's true intentions. Davecort (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, zero (0) editors on this talk page have supported Davecort's editing. As far as I can tell, this edit today by Shells-shells has gone back to spelling in the 1819 edition. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I copied it directly from the scan-backed version of Rosalind and Helen on Wikisource. Before my edit, the text simply did not correspond to the 1819 edition at all, even though it cited that edition as its source. I don't see any compelling reason to prefer one specific edition over another, as long as the text is verifiable. Shells-shells (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, so we've got: Peter Gulutzan said "I propose to edit, quoting the 1819 edition", Trovatore replied "That sounds good to me", Gdr said "... a common editorial principle is to use the text that best approximates the author's final intention (insofar as it's possible to determine it). In the case of "Ozymandias", this would seem to be Rosalind and Helen (1819)". Vorziblix made an edit that I thought "mostly goes back to the 1819 edition", Shells-shells made an edit that definitely goes back to the 1819 edition. I conclude that repeated edits based on another edition are against consensus, and should stop. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

External link to reading of the poem

Why is "The poem, set to music" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MlW6QDsH2U in the External links? It's a nice piece somebody did, but it hasn't gotten any attention. It is not useful to readers - you cannot make out the words. If we are to have a great reading of the poem (with strong yet subtle sound design), may I suggest "Ozymandias - As Read by Bryan Cranston: Breaking Bad" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dpghfRBHE Yes, it's a promo, and should be labelled as such, but it's the best presentation of the poem I've come across, and is quite notable as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)