Talk:Howl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Carl Solomon
As far as I know Carl Solomon was never Ginsberg's lover -- only his friend. Ginsberg only liked pretty "angelic" men and Solomon wasn't pretty. I found no indications that they were ever intimate. Then again, Ginsberg didn't often shy away from convenient intimacy. If somebody else has indications otherwise, please let me know. F. Simon Grant 14:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Clicking on Carl Solomon in the references part just redirects you to the article, which really doesn't accomplish much. Thoughts? Bolt Vanderhuge 04:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Right, there is not much use for this link. I came here from Howl-article in german wikipedia because of the reference list, especially in the hope of finding some info about Solomon, but there's not more info about him than in german article. I don't have an account on en.wikipedia so I'll leave it as is... Greetings 80.129.180.169 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There should be a reference to Howl USA by Kronos Quartet --jenlight 14:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Penny Rimbaud's "How?" belongs on this article. There have been many works based on howl, why should this one be part of the article?
- Why not include these as well rather than getting rid of something that is relevant? quercus robur 18:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia reference?
Is it worth note as a pop culture/trivia reference that a parody of Howl appears in a Simpsons' episode?
I don't exactly remember the episode, although the subject was the ruin of a Thanksgiving dinner.
I believe "El" refers to the Elevated trains in Chicago.
[edit] Rhythm
The information under the heading "Rhythm" doesn't really tell us anything about the poem's rhythm at all. It doesn't even really discuss meter or the poem's prosody. It merely cites the obvious fact that the lines in the fist section are long and that the first section has anaphora, though it calls the anaphora of "who" a refrain, which it isn't. A refrain would be a repeated phrase, line, verse, or verses. In this case, anaphora is a repeated word at the beginning of a verse paragraph (which, itself, is formed into long lines that make up the run-on sentence). Anaphora is prominent in William Blake's poetry, and that might be where Ginsberg learned the poetic device. The long line has been around in American poetry since Whitman (going back to Milton's enjambment, if you want to take it back that far), though I'm not sure that Ginsberg's long line or its rhythm receives any significant treatment here. I'm also not sure that this section should exist, at least not in its present form. Somebody should either focus on Howl's rhythm, meter, and prosody--or argue that the poem has no discernable prosodic form--or delete this section entirely. Josh a brewer 16:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Obscure References?
Would anyone mind if this section was revised? Most of the terms in the glossary don't seem to be obscure at all, such as "amnesia," "boxcar," "Edgar Allan Poe," "Hebrew," "insulin," "ping pong," and "sphinx," to name just a few. Terms such as this coupled with the phrasing of the beginning sentence ("Not all things in Howl are easily understood by the common reader...") has the effect of coming off as almost snobbish, and doesn't seem to give the reader much credit for his intelligence. Most anybody who paid the slightest bit of attention in school knows what most of these terms are. To me, much of the list sounds like an excuse to give oneself a pat on the back for having some basic knowledge, and doesn't really benefit the article much at all. I suggest severely trimming the list to preserve specific references such as "Carl Solomon," "Fugazzi's," "The Vibrating Plane," etc., that most people really aren't familiar with. I'll be happy to do it myself, but I'd like some feedback first, particularly on which terms to keep if the section is to remain in any form. Intooblv 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Trim away, the section is patronising and condescending, it should probably be removed completely IMHO quercus robur 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Renamed the section to "Glossary" for the time being and for lack of a better title, removed the first (and most condescending) sentence from the intro, and reduced the terms in the list to those that I felt were most relevant. Let's see how that sits for a little while. Intooblv 13:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Other Poems
Does anybody else feel that the "Other Poems" section doesn't belong in the article? I could understand a sidenote referencing the Blake connection between "Howl" and "Sunflower Sutra," but it seems like the information presented for each poem would be more appropriately used in the development of new articles, rather than as a cling-on to this one. While interesting, most of it just isn't relevant to "Howl" as a seperate work. It's like tacking on a plot summary to "The Cask of Amontillado" in the article on "The Raven."
P.S. - The more I look at this article, the more I feel it needs an almost complete rewrite. Any takers? Intooblv 13:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you unaware that "Howl" was the name of a collection of poems and a poem within that collection? If the article was on a book called "The Raven" which contained "The Raven" and "The Cask of Amontillado" then I'd say yes! definitely you'd need to talk about both! Are you suggesting that we make separate articles about "Howl" the poem and "Howl and Other Poems"? That seems ridiculous. Understanding all of the poems in "Howl and Other Poems" is important to understanding "Howl" itslef. Plus the link is to "Howl and Other Poems" -- Not just "Howl" the poem. Creating two articles would just be confusing and entirely unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.224.220.1 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
- No, I am not unaware of that fact. However, as it stands right now, the article seems to be largely about "Howl" as a work on its own - the introduction itself states that "Howl is a poem by poet Allen Ginsberg," not "a collection of poems" and the title of the article is "Howl," not "Howl and Other Poems." Searching for "Howl and Other Poems" does not redirect to this article, but rather to a match page which lists it, and also happens to list "America," which has a very short, concise article to itself. The fact that "Howl" is anything other than a single poem by Ginsberg isn't even mentioned until section five, and in the following sections the "other poems" are promptly forgotten once again, as the subject matter seems to revert back to "Howl" by itself. My point is that it needs to be decided which is being discussed; the one poem (in which case the "other poems" should probably be removed), or the collection as a whole (in which case they seem to be getting the shaft - anyone looking for information on "Supermarket in California" or "Sunflower Sutra" would have to magically know to come to an article simply called "Howl," which gives no indication of having the information they want until midway through). As it stands right now, the article is simply inconsistent and, as I see it, not very encyclopedic. I realize the difficulty in constructing an article that will provide a reasonable grasp of a work by someone such as Ginsberg (especially this one), who was able to cram a lot of meaning into a few well-chosen words, but it seems like this one tries very hard to act as a substitute for actually reading the thing. Finally, I don't see a problem with creating separate articles for "Howl" and "Howl&OP." The article on "The Canterbury Tales" does this to good effect, with separate articles on each tale. intooblv 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well quit talking and do it. Geez.
134.224.220.1 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but just thinking about sifting through all this makes my head hurt. Besides, I thought it would be nice to get the opinions of OTHERS before making drastic changes to suit my own tastes. Geez. intooblv 04:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I'm with you in Rockland
Apparently Carl Solomon was not in interned in Rockland, AG only uses that refrain for the sake of convenience. I have that on good authority but have no verifiable evidence for it. Does anyone? Haiduc 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
