Wikipedia:Peer review/Objectivist poets/archive1

Objectivist poets edit

Another Modernist poetry in English offshoot, two and a half thousand words on this 1930s poetry movement. I feel I'm growing tired on it and need any help, advice, suggestions etc you can give. Thanks in advance. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to the article, but is there a reason this isn't at Objectivism or objectivist poetry or something? Perusing list of schools of poetry, this title seems out of place. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but Objectivism is already occupied and Objectivist poetry would imply a tighter group with a single platform/manifesto. What you actually have is a group of poets who were given the Obgectivist tag because they happened to be published together twice under that name. If you really think Objectivist poetry would be better, I would not oppose the move, however. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Objectivism's only a redirect right now, that you could use if you think that's better. Dmcdevit·t 19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it has a long history, not just a single line creation. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, it's perfect, the author's prose hypnotizes and makes it impossible to miss anything. I don't think this should be puffed up in any way—is there something wrong with this kind of length? Not in my book. However [with an effort], the poetry? Actual quotes? Would that be a copyright problem? "Fair use" is a pretty generous criterion when it comes to quoting for the purpose of critical discussion, I think.

Actually, I have a minor rhetorical point: lead section structure. Even though the title is about the poets, I assume Objectivism will be a redirect, and one via which the reader will be quite likely to arrive. The lead is most specifically for the ignorant, and it seems to take rather long before the concept of Objectivism is explained. I'd like to hear what it is before being told who its practitioners were, and especially to hear as soon as possible the bit that explains why it's called Objectivism—such an off-putting name—i. e., the "to treat the poem as an object" bit. In the first sentence, if possible

Even more minor: you speak of the "condensation" of Imagist poetry. Is that a technical, or commonly used, term for it? Or just a synonym for conciseness, concentration? I got a little diverted by associating condensation with Freud and the Interpretation of Dreams and psychoanalytic lit crit: Freudian condensation is where a single dream event (or metaphor in language) refers to more than one anxiety, or chain of associations.

Or were the Imagists a bit Freudian, and therefore used condensation in the Freudian sense as part of their definition of Imagism? Like, the petals on the wet, dark bough would be at the intersection of several chains of association? ...I guess not? Sorry to not have anything more helpful; you'll have to look to Geogre. --Bishonen|talk 01:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have tweaked the lead. What do you think? I'll also add some quotes from the poetry over the next day or two: it's a mater of reminding myself of which texts exactly appeared in the Poetry special issue and the anthology. I also changed condensed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 3 sample poems from the Poetry issue, what do you think now?