Talk:Annabel Lee

The Poem Text

                                                           -Please do not get rid of the external youtube line a good friend of mine made that video and I think it belongs here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.236.52 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 

The full text is available from WikiSource- do we need that much of it in the article itself? Morgrim 13:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually this article was quite helpful in understanding the poem. To truly comprehend a poem I believe we must know the background, I am very thankful that wikipedia has such an article.

I'm wondering if it's really necessary to have so much of the poem repeated in the article. In its current format the article just seems clunky, with half of the poem itself used as reference in the "Structure" section, and then the entire poem posted beneath that. I think much of the information used in "Structure" could be explained just as well with more original wording and use of quotations. Anyone else agree? intooblv 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly. This article is a pain to navigate. I can appreciate that people like to see the poem, but I think a link to Wikisource is just fine. Maybe quote a couple lines from each version to show the comparison, and with some good encyclopedic writing. Midnightdreary 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Different versions ?

there are two different versions for the last words of this poem and I don't know which one is correct :

"in her tomb by the side of the sea" or "in her tomb by the sounding sea"

You are correct-there exist many different versions of this poem. Both of the versions that you mentioned are correct, as the article addresses. Joshualouie711 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Themes

A major theme of the work are the obvious references to necrophilia near the end which need to be mentioned. - 24.82.19.65

No, thanks. Those who think it's implied are happy to think so; those who understand poetic language needn't wade through over-literal giggling about taboos. - DavidWBrooks 12:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I might agree, if several of my English teachers over the years hadn't repeated this story. I'm sure that the reference is often meant to keep class attention, but I wonder if it isn't common enough, and investigated enough to warrant mention in the article. I'm afraid the phrase "those who understand poetic language," sounds really pompous. Poe has a reputation for mental instability, and the fact that he married his wife when she was 13 is also suggestive of sexual issues. Especially since an "Inspiration" section is such a prominant part of the article, I would hope somebody can provide references to research on this subject. Cuvtixo 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if your English teachers are notable sources. :) I have come across few academic writings that address this particularly theme. But remember not to read everything Poe writes as autobiographical, and consider looking into the true story of his life rather than assuming his "reputation" as being mentally unstable is true. :) --Midnightdreary 19:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Massive overhaul

I made a massive edit to this page tonight. I hope it cleans it up and keeps the page useful. I maintained the great analysis that was on here before, but removed the text of the poem that was spliced into it. I also removed the original full text, merged the "see also" section into the "References in popular culture" section (which I also divided into subheaders and organized). I added "Publication history" and dicussion on the poem's "Inspiration" (with sources). I also plugged the Wikisource link right into the "Summary" section so it's readily available for people who come looking for that (based on prior comments on this talk page). Whew... I think it works well, but I'm a little biased. Thoughts are welcome!! Midnightdreary 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Information

The article was informative, but I believe more information based on the actual analysis of the poem should be added. Background information is always interesting but for one who is looking for a good analysis/interpretation of a poem such as this one, a page with more about the poem and less about the background would be great. 68.223.62.214 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So, go for it. Find some sources and add away! -Midnightdreary 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

It looks like an editor recently tried to tag this article for NPOV concerns (but messed up the tag). I didn't want to just revert because the editor may have a valid concern. If nothing else, it merits a good once-over to see if we're complying with NPOV standards. The article seems fine to me, but I'm hardly the final authority (and I am aware of a particular bias I have). Any thoughts? -Midnightdreary 04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that nothing seems to violate POV in this article. That, along with the lack of explanation given by the editor who posted the tag seems to provide enough grounds to remove it. If the editor in question returns to dispute this, he can of course indicate his grievances here- Patrolmanno9 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good -- many thanks! -Midnightdreary 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Song

There's at least 1 musical setting. Shouldn't it be mentioned, perhaps in the influence section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.142 (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean there is a musical adaptation of "Annabel Lee" or a song that is vaguely inspired by "Annabel Lee" that has very little to do with the poem? Either way, I don't see how it's too relevant to the encyclopedic entry on this poem. If it were used, it would have to include a reference from a reliable source. Maybe I could direct you to Edgar Allan Poe and music instead? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There are at least 2 settings of the words of this poem to music, by Leslie & Dilworth. Surely an article specifically about the poem ought to mention them. 11:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.235 (talk)

As long as you have sources that say that the music is actually inspired by this very poem, feel free to add it in. I'm not familiar with it myself. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR for policies on references. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: sure enough, the Dilworth version is already mentioned in Edgar Allan Poe and music. That article is supposed to be the sort of clearing house for this sort of thing. This particular article should really focus on analysis, poetic structure, etc. Musical adaptations seem sort of ancillary. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stevie Nicks recently released a song set to this poem titled "Annabel Lee" that is included on her new album "In Your Dreams". It is very beautiful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.157.211 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Analysis Part Two

One can argue that a change from elated and pleasant diction to one of bitter and resentful diction creates an obvious shift in tone throughout the poem, Annabel Lee. Poe begins his poem by incorporating fanciful diction in the first two stanzas. This can be seen with the narrator’s opening, “It was many and many a year ago, In a kingdom by the sea…”(458) . This line may parallel the cliché fairytale opening, “Once upon a time, in a land far, far away…” and this creates an atmosphere that presents the narrator’s undying passion for his maiden, Annabel Lee. The use of “maiden” and “winged seraphs” paints a pure and angelic image of the narrator’s love. Poe’s use of ballad-like style, which does not follow a fixed metrical pattern, in Annabel Lee can possibly parallel the unpredictable ways of true love. The lack of pattern in this ballad again coincides with the difficulties that often plagues relationships since there is no set model in any relationship.

Since they were to have fallen in love as children, there is a greater sense of innocence based off the beginning of the poem. As time progresses, the lovers’ innocence can still be found in the narrator’s words. In addition, the repetition of the name “Annabel Lee” may prove the narrator’s infatuation with his maiden continues through their infancy and past her early death. His devotion proves as a constant throughout the poem and is the central focus of the work.

Also, it is noted that the phrase “kingdom by the sea” is used five times within the first four stanzas thus reflecting the narrator’s positive tone. However, Poe then ends the poem with a melancholic tone by referring to the kingdom as a “tomb” in the final stanza. This may be a shift in perspective towards the “kingdom by the sea” and his attitude alters to one of sorrow and nostalgia. Thus, once the poem comes to its conclusion, the devotion to the woman is unrelenting and sorrowful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ENL3 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No personal essays. Analysis should come from credible previously-published scholars. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the "no personal essays" aspect, in fact I would go on to suggest the CURRENT analysis section is EXACTLY this, and should be removed. It clashes in tone and content with the rest of the article, and is utterly unsourced. It reads like something I would have written in first year English Literature. Before and after this section, it is said that Annabel "may be" Poe's wife Virginia. The analysis section says "it is addressed to his wife Virginia, who not coincidentally died as a young woman." Reading through again, I even retract that it reads like a first year English major paper. "Annabel Lee is a more fitting name for his idealized woman, Virginia Clemm not being an easy name to rhyme with (phlegm, hem, them, gem not really doing it for me)." --> POV. Very, very unacceptable. 99.244.230.178 (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right but I don't think the original poster was referring to this version of the section when he commented here over 5 years ago (the current analysis is newer, I think). Go ahead and remove it if you think it should be removed. Its lack of sourcing alone is enough to make it eligible for deletion. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I restored an earlier version of the analysis section which includes multiple sources. It still could be improved substantially but I hope it addressed your concerns above. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The analysis section is poorly worded and barely warrants the description 'Analysis'. Just read it!

The poem focuses on an ideal love which is unusually strong. In fact, the narrator's actions show that he not only loves Annabel Lee, but he worships her, something he can only do after her death. The narrator admits that he and Annabel Lee were children when they fell in love, but his explanation that angels murdered her is in itself childish, suggesting he has not matured much since then. His repetition of this assertion suggests he is trying to rationalize his own excessive feelings of loss.

The inclusion of sources does nothing to justify this puerile wording. This is not analysis; it's simply a personal pooh-poohing of the poem. It should be cut.

123.122.203.242 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what your concern is. How would you word this better? What about it specifically is "puerile"? Or "pooh-poohing", for that matter? Rather than cutting, could I suggest you add some analysis that you think is helpful? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Examples of what I would describe as 'puerile' aspects of the analysis:

the narrator's actions show that he not only loves Annabel Lee, but he worships her, something he can only do after her death: This makes no sense as it stands. Perhaps the cited source makes a creditable argument for this, but to state that he can only worship her after his death without any kind of supporting argument is just lame. Any teacher (of English literature) who encountered this assertion in an essay would redline it and ask for supporting evidence.

his explanation that angels murdered her is in itself childish, suggesting he has not matured much since then. I looked at the source. This is actually a marginal note (no more) arguing that the maintenance of the child's vision of reality in this poem is grotesque. "It is toward this unconscious wholeness in nature, in sleep, in death, that the distraught consciousness of the child mind strives through the simple narrative poem." To suggest 'he has not matured much since then' is a very poor takeaway from that note. The poem was written by Poe, a man in his 40s. It speaks through a particular persona, a very simple, poetic persona. Poe uses this poetic persona to arrive at his characteristic macabre ending of spending the night by the sepulchre. To expect the persona to somehow 'mature through time' is a ridiculous reading of the poem. Moreover, the suggestion that the narrator 'hasn't matured much since then' not only tells us very little about the poem, it also looks very much like a put-down of the poem as a whole.

These points particularly stand out as very poor analysis.

222.129.27.139 (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It may be a good spot to start with by associating the names with the particular analytical points. Good luck with editing it, and let me know if I can help. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

YouTube video

An unregistered editor has consistently added a YouTube link to the "External links" portion of this article. The video in question is apparently homemade and in no way notable. I have removed it several times, as has a bot. We must use discretion when added external links, lest everyone who ever uploaded a reading of "Annabel Lee" have their YouTube link added as well. This is, ultimately, of no relevance to this article. If I wasn't trying to assume good faith, I might suggest the editor is violating conflict of interest because they are the person in the video. I see no other reason why this editor - whose IP has made no other edits to any other article on Wikipedia - would be so insistent on this link to a non-notable, low quality, homemade video of some generic human being reading this poem in no particular interesting or exciting way. Can someone weigh in on this? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Registration != competence. I did not create the video. I think it captures the subtle mania of the protagonist without influencing the audience to believe any particular point of view regarding the many controversial interpretations of this poem. It's difficult to understand why we should judge the appearance of the actor or production quality. I am interested in the delivery, diction and professionalism of the reading itself. If you find a better video, by all means - post it. Do remember that the poem itself was also 'homemade'. Would you value it less if it was originally written on the back of a napkin? Finally, suggesting that an A/V interpretation of this work has no relevance to an article discussing the work is disingenuous. There are many viewers (of various experience levels) that could gain appreciation for the poem and Poe's work in general just by observing some of the subtly layered in psychological issues that Poe wrote into his work. Your repeated removals of this link do not appear to be made in good faith - but rather in an attempt to exert control on your particular vision of the article. This is Wikipedia, and we've all got a say here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.168.248 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we all have a say here - which is why I put this up for discussion, and did not remove the latest addition of the link. I didn't say that audio or video adaptations are never relevant. I'm saying that this particular video is not notable or special in any way ("I like it" is not a good response; you're always welcome to share it on Facebook or Twitter). There are thousands of adaptations of Poe's works. We do not need to feature all of them, especially amateur ones. Don't forget too that this is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of stuff related to a given topic. Seriously, I have this question: What's the big deal that you're pushing this so much? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

+1. I removed it ; as a VIDEO (homemade or not) it does not provide anything more than the already existing AUDIO link does. See WP:EL, please. And I am absolutely sure Midnightdreary -although I do not know him/her, that is- did remove the link in perfectly good faith. --210.159.191.239 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

---

I have not done anything wrong by putting a link on this page I put the link there beacause it is my friends first youtube video — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.236.52 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Answering this spliced comment by moving to the end... Actually, yes, there was a bunch of stuff wrong with adding this link. For one, admitting you put it here because you are friends with the creator is a conflict of interest. External links are not an indiscriminate collection of links. Finally, in general, we have to be discerning about YouTube links. I hope this helps. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Added a sort of Edit notice to the page concerning that issue.--182.163.42.40 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)