Talk:Our Exagmination Round His Factification for Incamination of Work in Progress
| 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. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Dixon edit
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)
- 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)
The dots in Beckett's title edit
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)
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)
Dixon's purlieus edit
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)