Jump to content

Talk:T. S. Eliot/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

American or British?

I see that this is an old argument, but really, the way it's written: "..American-born British poet..." makes it sound like his British parents just happened to be in the US at the time of his birth. When, as you know, he was born into a respected and established USian family, was raised and educated (Harvard for both his undergrad and PHD) in the US.

I do understand the argument that we should respect what people want to be known as, but this needs to be within reason. If I move to Thailand and get Thai citizenship at age 40, this still doesn't make me "Thai". It makes me an New England-born American who became a Thai national.

I suggest a re-wording of the article to "..American poet (etc.) who became a British citizen at age 40.." 99.75.104.46 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. The opening "American-born British poet" could be confusing to someone who doesn't know the details of Eliot's life. It seems that both English and American readers want to claim Eliot as their own. But if you write "American poet who became a British citizen," some might say you're implicitly arguing that as a poet, Eliot was really an American and that his British citizenship was merely incidental. But there are some readers who view Eliot's wholehearted embrace of all things English (including not only his British citizenship but also his conversion to the Anglican Church) as proof that his poetry was more "British" than "American." And I think that's a valid argument.
It's very interesting to look at how the split between Eliot's English and American influences seemed to do battle in the very early part of his career. But by the mid-1920's, the English influences had clearly won that battle. You can look at Eliot's plays for evidence of this. His first, unfinished play, Sweeney Agonistes, had American characters in it and was clearly influenced by American language and culture. But the remainder of his plays have all English characters and not even a hint of American cultural influence.
So whether you write "American-born British poet" or "American poet who became a British citizen," neither phrase is entirely accurate or entirely clear in explaining Eliot's place in terms of literary geography.
You can see the "Nationality in the lead" section above discusses this issue and concludes that the best terminology is to use "American-English poet" (although for some reason, this isn't what is used in the article). So if you want to change the phrase, this would probably be the most neutral phrase--though it's still rather unclear in its meaning.Jpcohen (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made a change that I've done several times before that seems to work fairly well at preventing nationality edit wars. I move Eliot's nationality(s) into a separate sentence right up front with the facts and leave out categorizing him one way or another. After a bit it usually gets moved down (see current article which I was too tired to change.) That then allows opportunity for American/British adjectives to get attached to the word "poet." WikiParker (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is laughable. He is American. He was born in America. His mother was born in America. His father was born in America. --Mikeyfaces (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nationality in the lead

A little over three years ago, after seeing constant edits changing the nationality of Eliot in the article's lead, I wrote a sentence saying where he was born, when he went to England and when he became a British subject (not a citizen.) This did well in keeping the number of nationality reversions down. Lately though the lead was expanded by mentions of many other works he wrote. Additionally, the bit about the American birth, moving to the UK and his change in nationality got expanded into a mini-biography. All these extras stretched the space between the identity of Eliot in the first sentence and his serial nationality, hiding the fact of nationality. Then nationality again began to creep in at the top. Currently Eliot is identified as an American poet (I was tempted to make him, in the same sentence, a British playwright.) I made a change to the article to get closer to my old edit that seemed to work well. I also moved his quotation about the role of nationality on his poetry down to the the Poetry section. Due to reversions Eliot is once again an American poet and his quotation shows up in two locations. Comments? WikiParker (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we respect an individual's own choice of nationality - for instance if someone self-described themselves as 'Scottish'. Eliot is a bit complex, certainly legally, in opting to become a British subject, he (at that time) lost his right to be an American. I'd say to reflect that complexity, it should be disposed of (in summary) at the top; and to say when seems reasonable. Expansion of the topic - for instance the quote - is more appropriate in the body of the article. The lead should be 2-3 paras summarising the content of the whole - so, while it's currently a bit short, it should actually have less detail in it. Kbthompson (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
He was born in America, raised in America, educated in America, wrote the first poem that made his name in America, had it first published in America, and described his poetry as emanating from America. He was in every possible sense an American poet. That doesn't change by the fact that he acquired the right to a British passport at the age of 39, just as John Lennon didn't become an American musician because he went to live in New York. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The Waste Land was edited by Pound when they were post-American. Ash Wednesday celebrated his joining the Anglican Church. Four Quartets discusses his time helping his fellow Brits during WW2. He left America after Harvard and considered himself a - MODERNIST :). Like Joyce, Pound, Auden, and some others, he had no nationality because he had multiple ones. A true cosmopolitan. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Pound was an American too, Ottava. :) And Eliot's religion surely has nothing to do with it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, Anglicanism is all about King and Country, and he joined the Anglican Church when he became a British citizen. Virginia Woolf basically said he was dead to her because of it. Important moment in his life. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The above arguments seem to me to be concentrated almost entirely on the question of which Wikipedia contributor's opinion should prevail. But surely this is a no-brainer. The answer obviously is none of them, since Wikipedia contributor's opinions are POV and/or OR. We need to talk about facts, and the fact is that literary critics and historians have never settled on one national identity for TSE. His work is included most of the respected mainstream academic anthologies of English poetry, and also in those of American poetry -- and please don't say that that doesn't prove anything: it proves that respected expert opinion, which we're supposed to follow rather than personal contributor's opinions, has classified him as both nationalities. The Columbia Encyclopedia, one of the most authoritative reference works, begins its entry on TSE with the words, "American-British poet and critic," and this I think is the best that can be done and the example we should follow. Strawberryjampot (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Britannica uses "Anglo-American poet" and "American-English poet". We can at least hope to more consistent than them. As I understand it he would still have been an "Anglo-American" had he never left America. William Avery (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking about his change in nationality now occupies almost half the lead section. Is there any reason we can't simply mention in this opening section that he was born in America, moved to the UK, and later adopted British citizenry? Does it--and the change's influence on his work--actually need to occupy half of the lead? There is already a separate section for this later. ThtrWrtr (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I just did it. Special note: I removed the "American mind, Britsh heart" quote. You would think that Google could find something this good in books or scholarly papers but it doesn't. WikiParker (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is laughable. He is American. He was born in America. His mother was born in America. His father was born in America.--Mikeyfaces (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The author has asked in the hypertext of the opening paragraph to exclude any mention of Eliot's American origin from the opening sentence. But it is a standard feature of Wikipedia biographies to give nod to the country of one's birth (see talk on the Harry Houdini biography. Inasmuch as he was not British until adulthood, I propose identifying him as American-English in the opening sentence. ````

Please, no. The lede has been crafted through many years to keep edit wars to a minimum. If you are interested in the topic at all you will see that Eliot was born in America in a few sentences. Saying American-English will lead to English-American to British-American to British to English to American and on and on. I've often thought it would be fun to say he was a British playwright and an American Poet ("But in [my poetry's] sources, in its emotional springs, it comes from America") but I've held back. You can too. WikiParker (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Eliot is clearly an American writer, despite taking British citizen late in life. It, therefore, makes better sense to describe him as an American-born, British essayist, etc. He spent the formative, first 25 years of his life in the United States. Henry James is described as an American author. I note that Samuel Beckett is not called French, despite writing in French and residing there for the last 50 years of his life.
I fail to see why this small change shouldn't be made. This is a fairly small matter of emphasis. Rwood128 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Would the following revision be acceptable? I've tried to produce a more neutral statement; an attempt avoid the ambiguity surrounding Eliot's national identity!
Thomas Stearns Eliot, OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965), was born in the United States, and lived there until he moved to England in 1914. He became a British citizen in 1927. Eliot was an essayist, publisher, playwright, literary and social critic, and "one of the twentieth century's major poets". Rwood128 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The above just states the facts. If there is no further comment I will revise the lede. Rwood128 (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I reversed the content (see edit summary). Not attached though, if there is no agreement for that move.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019

Further Reading: Norbert Nail: „Dieses ganze System von Beamten und Professoren“ – Der Dichter T.S. Eliot über Marburg und Deutschland [1] 84.138.226.224 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion this is not worth adding to the English article because so few will find it useful. WikiParker (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done I agree. Not very useful. I realise that Norbert Nail is cited at a number of articles, but he is currently not a notable author at en.viki. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Epstein

I'm removing the new section titled "Jacob Epstein." While filled with factual, cited information this is an encyclopedia article, a synopsis, and I doubt the information is even deemed important enough to be placed full biographies. And, by the way, it's Eliot, not Elliot. Perhaps the material is a better fit for the Jacob Epstein page anyway. Or Eliot.com may be able to do something with it. WikiParker (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Epstein is a very notable sculptor and I'm very surprised the article now makes no mention of him at all. I think perhaps a trim would have been justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the removal - it doesn't contribute anything to our knowledge or understanding of Eliot - the addition was mostly about the history of the sculpture which is irrelevant to Eliot's life - and the addition was stuck right in the middle of the "Life" section giving undue weight to something minor - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that all statues made of notable people are irrelevant to "our knowledge or understanding" of their lives? If so, I think you'll be busy elsewhere. WP:UNDUE can be addressed by reducing the amount of material as well as wholesale removal? But I'd have no problem with moving it from the "Life" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
If you trouble to read the main work I cited, which is newly published, it talks about the fact that the relationship is not cited in past biographies; hence my inclusion of the quote, from a noted Eliot scholar, that the bust "intimates that great scholarly insights may yet be garnered from the Eliot-Epstein connection". This is not just a signifiant artwork; it is an a significant artwork, an edition of which Eliot purchased as a gift for his own wife (and which they subsequently displayed in pride of place in their own home); it is a work by a Jewish friend of someone known for alleged anti-semitism; and it is an artwork bequeathed by Eliot's widow, in his memory, to an institution named after him. Of course it should be included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
In which case its position, in the "Life" section, seems perfectly appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree that this is somewhat significant given Eliot's relationship with his wife and given the reputation of the sculptor. This is more than trivia. Unless there's a concern I could revert in a few hours.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC))

I have not been convinced. Eliot had many friends that had significance in his life, even Jewish ones. He was the subject of many portraits both painted and photographic. He had correspondence with many contemporary writers. I'm sure that he gave many gifts to his wife. Do these all get a paragraph? I agree that the Epstein information is not trivia; it is worth being online but it does not belong in this article. WikiParker (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Who were they? And where are the enduring works of art they created, inspired by Eliot? Perhaps they deserve a mention too. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

- Suggestion - could we start a new section titled something like "In art" or "Portraits" and list the sculpture by Epstien along with the paintings by Wyndham Lewis, Patrick Heron, and other notable artists? - perhaps under the "Honours and Awards/Other honours" section - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
In theory a gallery of portraits would be nice. In practice almost all would still be under copyright protection so links would have to be given. I'm sure Wikipedia could get away with links to pages but I have doubts about links to images by themselves. Then their are museums like the National Gallery that hold many portraits of Eliot being collected together with pages that only contain one image. That might be a bit strange. I'm neither for nor against at this point; I'm just thinking aloud. WikiParker (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence

As currently written, the first sentence to this article reads as follows:

Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965), "one of the twentieth century's major poets", was also an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.

Now, I may be gravely mistaken, but I don't quite believe this makes complete grammatical sense. One cannot have an "also" without earlier having an object, right? As written, it's missing. Now, I'm more than willing to accept edits, but I'd like to propose that the sentence be changed to something like this:

Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965) was "one of the twentieth century's major poets", as well as an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.

Really, the biggest issue, for me, is that the "also" be removed. (The quotation is in a strange spot, too, but that's not a major issue.)

As a courtesy, I'm tagging Epinoia, and anyone else who wants to join. Thoughts?

Re-pinging @Epinoia: as it didn't work originally. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The sentence as is is grammatically correct as far as I know, but I have no problem with changing to another version as long as content is not changed.Littleolive oil (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the sentence as it stands, he was a major poet and also an essayist, etc. - "as well as" is pretty much synonymous with "was also" and I don't see an advantage in changing it - I would prefer to leave the sentence as it stands - the reason the way the sentence was written was to avoid edit wars over nationality; American, British, American-born, etc. - perhaps the "was" is in the wrong place, it should be before the quotation:

Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965), was "one of the twentieth century's major poets", as well as an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.

- cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Epinoia: This is also acceptable to me. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The Epinoia version is good, though the first comma should be removed and probably the second comma too, to give:

Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965) was "one of the twentieth century's major poets" as well as an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.

Ralbegen (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to piss on the collective chips here. But surely the quote, perhaps also with its context, needs to appear somewhere other than just in the first sentence? There's not supposed to be anything unique in the lead section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ralbegen: Yes, that is much better; I didn't see the first comma there (the second can stay). However, Martinevans123 raises a good point about the usage of the quotation, which might be better placed elsewhere, or otherwise given context, perhaps? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: - that quote is unsourced - I always thought it came from the Modern American Poetry site linked in ref [2], but I checked and it does not originate there, but I think it's obvious to say that Eliot was one of the twentieth century's major poets - perhaps change the first sentence of the lead to:

Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965) was a poet, essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.

and change the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead to:

One of the twentieth century's major poets, Eliot attracted widespread attention...

- I think his status should be mentioned in the lead, even if it is not in the first sentence - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


Personally, I'd agree he was "one of the twentieth century's major poets". And his status certainly needs to be included in the article somehow (notwithstanding the views of other, more modern, poets). But that claim should not go in without a source. Proposed lead sentence looks fine to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Attention T.S. Eliot wiki editors

The 1,100+ letters that Eliot wrote to his confidante Emily Hale, which were sealed for 50 years, have now been opened and are currently being scanned for publication. So you’re probably going to want to make some substantial changes to this article in the near future! - Hux (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

And you're probably going to want to help! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Um, the letters are not going to published in the near future. According to Princeton University Library "The Eliot letters are under copyright until 2035 and will not be available for access online. Researchers can access the collection on a first-come, first-served basis in Firestone Library’s Special Collections, located on C floor." BabelStone (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
But secondary sources will cover the letters, and that's what's important in any case. So it won't be immediately or in 2035; it's just a matter of waiting. Ralbegen (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
John Haffenden, who has been editing the letters of TSE, wrote on Twitter "Point of information: T. S. Eliot's letters to Emily Hale are to be published by Faber & Faber on behalf of the Estate of T. S. Eliot, almost certainly in 2021 -- so no one will need to wait until Princeton Univ publishes them online in 2035." https://twitter.com/johnhaffenden/status/1213851304918953986 WikiParker (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Rather than a huge indent I'm putting this note here. Absolutely the article needs updating ASAP. Not just because of the Hale letters at Princeton but in larger part perhaps because of the public post (on the web) of a statement from Eliot about the letters. I'm putting useful links here but don't have the time (or editing expertise) to update the main article. 1. Statement from Houghton Library, Harvard, with the original note from Eliot: http://blogs.harvard.edu/houghton/the-love-of-a-ghost-for-a-ghost-t-s-eliot-on-his-letters-to-emily-hale/ 2. A more streamlined post from the TS Eliot Foundation: https://tseliot.com/foundation/statement-by-t-s-eliot-on-the-opening-of-the-emily-hale-letters-at-princeton/ 3. A news article (one of several) about the release last week. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50975555 Happy Editing! gobears87 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

p.s. edit to add: I see now the page is semi-protected - & fwiw I think that's a good thing gobears87 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:T._S._Eliot/Archive_3&oldid=1251296910"