Talk:The Raven/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about The Raven. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why is this article here: [[The Raven (Edgar Allan Poe)]] instead of here: [[The Raven (poem)]] (which redirects to this article)? Is there another poem called "The Raven"? If so, it doesn't have an article and, thus, this poem should be located where the redirect currently is. [[The Raven (poem)]] is more intuitive than the cumbersome [[The Raven (Edgar Allan Poe)]]. That would be the correct title if it needed disambiguation, but since it currently doesn't, I don't think we should use it. Anyone know the reason for this? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:49, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

NO, don't know. But I agree. --Sid 13:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why is it so strongly suggested that the personna of the poem is a student? Many a scholar or curious intellect could be pouring over volumnes of lore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.231.2 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Famous horror writer Edgar Allan Poe" is an odd appelation: can't we do better?. The phrase "and is in fact considered by many to be the best American poem ever written"— like most sentences containing the dismal signal considered by many— is uninformative: "The Raven" is a weak contender in a simplistic category. Can't the opening paragraph be snappier and more accurate than this? --Wetman 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we do not really need any special appelation for Poe other than "writer and poet" (or even just "author"). I also agree with your comment on the "considered by many": first, it really is uninformative; second, while "The Raven" is rather popular, its merit as a poem is hotly debated (Poe is often ranked a second-rate poet). Also, I don't like the introduction as it stands (30/01/6:05); if noone protests within the next few days, I'll replace it by: START "The Raven" is a poem by the American writer and poet Edgar Allan Poe. It was published for the first time on January 29, 1845 in the New York Evening Mirror. Noted for its musicality, stylized language and supernatural atmosphere, it tells of the mysterious visit of a talking raven to a distraught lover. END I think the word "macabre", though applicable to the better part of Poe's work, is not that present in "The Raven". I'm not too fond of the term "Gothic", either; "supernatural" does the trick. Last, I added "musicality": it's a distinct feature of the poem that deserves mention. Quoth-the-Raven 17:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job! ever more! --Wetman 02:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"and these negative answers are instigated by the narrator himself, by his repeatedly questioning the bird, who acts only as he has been trained to act "by some unhappy master"."

The line "by some unhappy master" is said by the narrator who is trying to say to himself that the Raven could have picked up the word "nevermore" from some unhappy man. It is said to try to make this raven who is speaking the word "nevermore" seem logical and not scary.

Also, the raven isn't just about a talking bird. it is about a man slowly going insane.

another thing. who thought it was a good idea to use "the student"?? i've never heard anyone ever use that term...

i'm going to be going through this article and fixing alot of things that are wrong. Dposse 01:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The problem of the problem is the strategy of the original article: "The Raven" is a (deliberately) vague and elusive poem when it comes to interpretation. The writer of the original article apparently decided to offer one coherent -- if at times flawed -- interpretation and shape it (rather eloquently, I think) into one section, rather than offering several of the interpretive approaches taken to the poem. This happens at the expense of a general overview and has the danger of offending anyone who has his/her own view on the poem, but on the plus side offers a certain clarity and coherence. I have never felt comfortable with the Wikipedia interpretation myself, either, but then again I was impressed by the way it was presented and, given the abundance of material on the net on "The Raven", I contended myself with the argument that an original and well-articulated interpretation is better than a patchwork of several half-hearted interpretations lacking substance. On second thought, this is an encyclopedia entry we are talking about here, so the approach taken is perhaps besides the point.

Since this is an encyclopedia, we should not have an original definite interpretation (currently it seems that we have a bad highschool student interpretation), but rather a discussion on the most important interpretations made by literary critics. bogdan 20:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, except that I think the current interpretation is well beyond high school level: it incorporates a lot of information about Poe's poetry and is pretty perceptive at times; also, it centres the interpretation on the notion of "guilt", which is an interesting approach, although certainly not a prominent one amongst critics of "The Raven". I know a wee bit about the critical reception of the poem, so I'll try and come up with an alternative suggestion.

well, it's obvious that whoever wrote this article took alot of liberties with the truth. Bogdan, how are we going to do that?

What if i started a description of the poem, and we all pitch in to create one masterpiece? Dposse 01:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; I don't know what you mean exactly by "a lot of liberties with the truth", but I'll try to help as best as I can.

let me show you some example of "liberties with the truth":

the entire thing about "guilt" being the theme.

"His reaction to the loss has been colored by mysticism ("volume of forgotten lore"), and we know he is filled with fear at receiving a visitor (perhaps Lenore herself, "the whispered word 'Lenore'"), before he even sees the mysterious raven ("from the night's plutonian shore"--Pluto being the Roman god of the Underworld - known as Hades in the Greek mythology - implying that the Raven is from Hell), with its single word of judgment, "Nevermore.""

"The torture which the bird has brought to the narrator was already in the narrator's ruminating character--the bird only brought out what was inside. The raven itself is a mechanical process: deterministic, preordained, one word being the bird's "only stock and store." The Narrator throws himself against this process in a form of masochism, and lets it destroy him and consume him ("my soul from out that shadow shall be lifted--Nevermore!")"

"Why or how Lenore was lost, we do not know, but the narrator is torn between the desire to forget and the desire to remember."

those are a couple of the big example of the liberties the authors took with the truth of the poem and Edgar Allan Poe. it needs to be fixed. Dposse 02:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The question we need to answer is: What do we want to include concerning the interpretation of the poem. Below, you suggested a paraphrase. I think the paraphrase should be part of the Overview section. Personally, I'd say your paraphrase is too lengthy for such a short poem: the reader of the article doesn't need to know every single detail of the poem. Maybe you could take a look at the very short paraphrase I offered above and add those details which you think MUST be mentioned in the overview.

Second, I don't think you can really accuse the original article of such a strong sin as "taking liberties to truth"; of course, the article is interpreting the poem, but it does so with reference to things that are really in there:

About the 1st quote: Apart from the speculation that the "volumes of forgotten lore" are about Mysticism, I think it's all in the poem: The narrator is filled with fear at receiving a visitor, visible in his doubtful self-reassurance that "It's just a visitor, nothing more!". The adjective "Plutonian" does indeed hint to Hell, only we don't know whether the raven is really from hell or whether this is just an idea that the narrator has.

About the 2nd quote: I think there is a hint of masochism in the narrator. Why else would he ask all those questions when he knows the answer? That the raven is "a mechanical process: deterministic, preordained" is a rather fancy and confusing way of saying that the raven just sits there and croaks "Nevermore" -- I guess the point is that the narrator cannot escape his destiny or something. I think we can definitely do without this.

About the 3rd quote: Again, much of this can be found in the poem. The narrator seeks "surcease of sorrow": That could either mean that he wants to be together with Lenore again -- that would end the sorrow supposedly -- or it could mean that he just wants to forget about her. That the narrator wants a "nepenthe" hints at the latter solution, whereas "balm of gilead" and the question about "Aidenn" seems to hint at the former. Whether the narrator has a "desire" to remember is doubtful, I'd say: rather, I think the narrator is haunted by his memory, demonstrated, for example, in his reaction to the cushioned wheelchair.

About the notion of guilt: One could easily mount an interpretation of the narrator having murdered Lenore. In this interpretation, you could argue that the chamber is in hell (there are various hints for this) and that the narrator experiences his inferal punishment for the murder. In this scenario, the raven as incarnation of "guilt" works very well. The writer of the original article decided to go for the "guilt" theme because of the links to other Poe stories; that's another strategy, and an interesting one in my opinion. I for one prefer to look at the poem in isolation for this article, which is my reason why I'm not happy about the current interpretation. But again: the fact is that the poem doesn't give any final indisputable clues: it is very vague.

All in all, the question is: Do we just want to offer a paraphrase of the poem in the article or do we want to interpret it as well; and if so, then which interpretation(s) should we include, and how do we present it/them. Quoth-the-Raven 14:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally Lame: The mp3 reading of the poem is preceded by a lexus commercial, completely against the spirit of wikipedia. Besides, the reading isn't particularly good.

So for a concrete suggestion as to how to re-write this article, I patched together the following (suggestions, especially when it comes to formulation, are very welcome):

_____

Overview

At midnight, the narrator, pondering weird books to rid himself of the sorrow felt for a lost love, is disturbed by a raven tapping at the window of his study. The bird, whose only utterance is the single word "Nevermore," sits down on a bust of pallas. The narrator asks the raven a series of questions about his love, each answered by "Nevermore," slowly driving the narrator to despair and into madness.

The poem is famous for its mesmeric and musical qualities (typical of Poe’s poetry), achieved . through frequent alliteration, the repetition of words and sound patterns, and the rhyme scheme that makes use of internal rhymes as well as a consistent end rhyme remembered best in the refrain, "Quoth the Raven: 'Nevermore.'" The metrical construction, trochaic octameter, was adapted from Elizabeth Barret’s poem "Lady Geraldine’s courtship." The raven is thought to have been inspired by the raven Grip in Charles Dickens' Barnaby Rudge.

Critical Reception

The first publication of "The Raven" was an instant success; it was widely reprinted and admired and has since been regarded as one of the most famous American poems ever written.

"The Raven" has won critical acclaim but also spawned criticism: Dante Gabriel Rossetti thought that "Poe had done the utmost it was possible to do with the grief of the lover on earth," whereas William Butler Yeats' depreciative comment was that"The whole thing seems to me insincere and vulgar." The poem had a very enthusiastic reception in France, leading to translations by Charles Baudelaire and Stéphan Mallarmé.

Interpretation

Notwithstanding its simple narrative, the meaning of "The Raven" is rather vague: details of the narrator's past, his motivations, desires and mental condition, and the origin and nature of the raven remain obscure.

This vagueness is in tandem with Poe’s aesthetic theory, which he partly outlined in "The Philosophy of Composition," a famous essay in which he gives a partly tongue-in-cheek account of how he composed "The Raven." Poe argues that poetry should strive for a single effect, "the elevation of the soul," achieved through "some undercurrent, however indefinite of meaning."

Despite the intended opacity of meaning, critics have attempted definite interpretations: Poe himself suggested that the raven is "emblematical of Mournful and Neverending Rememberance." Freudian critics have read the poem as a pathological case study of perverseness, guilt or madness. The raven has sometimes been identified with the devil or the spirit of the narrator's lost love, Lenore. Edward H. Davidson saw the poem as an account of Poe’s despair at his own poetic endeavors.

_____

I still have to compile the bibliographic record for the Rossetti/Yeats quotes, the "Philosophy of Composition" and the Davidson theory. I also don't know how to add the hyperlinks to other articles.

Here some arguments as to why I wrote what I wrote: (1) The overview should contain comments on both the versification and the plot. (2) The critical reception is something I'm personally very interested in, not the least because "The Raven" is very popular but has always struggled for appreciation in professional circles. (3) The interpretation part now presents several approaches briefly instead of one detailed interpretation. (4) I post this here rather than editing the article right away because I'd like to hear what you think first.

Quoth-the-Raven 12:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but that doesn't do the poem justice. where is your evidence for the "critical reception"? Also, his mental state is quite clear in the poem.

Here's something that we can start with and improve on. then we can come up with a final version to edit the article with:

Summary

The poem's setting is in the middle of december at midnight. The narrator is reading a book to try to forget his sorrow for his lost love. He nearly falls asleep, when someone gently knocks at his bedroom door. He opened up the door, but he saw no one. The narrator looked into the darkness outside his door, and everything was very still. He called out "Lenore!" to see if perhaps his love had returned, but there was nothing there. Then, the narrator heard a loud tapping coming from his window. The narrator opened the window, and a raven walked into his room. The raven flew up and perched on top of his bedroom door on his bust of Pallas. The narrator asked what the ravens name was, and the raven replied "nevermore". The narrator was very surprised that the bird could talk so clearly. He didn't understand what "nevermore" meant. It didn't hold any relevance to anything. The narrator says outloud that the raven will leave him, just as his friends have in the past. The raven says "nevermore". The narrator is startled again by hearing the the bird speak. He says that the raven probably picked up the word "nevermore" from some other unhappy man and the raven is only repeating it after hearing it from him. The narrator wheeled a cushioned chair in from on the raven and started to think about the raven and what it meant by saying "nevermore". The narrator then feels the air grow denser. He says to the raven to forget about his lost love, and the raven replies with "nevermore". The raven then calls the raven an evil Prophet, and askes the raven if there is balm in Gilead. The raven again says "nevermore". He then asks if his lose love is in paradise, and the raven says "nevermore". The narrator then upstarts and yells at the bird to leave his room, but the raven stays and says "nevermore". The raven is still sitting above his chamber door with a look of a "demon that is dreaming", and the narrators soul "shall be lifted - nevermore!".

Look, it isn't perfect. It's a basic summary. With some work, it could be good enough to replace the disapointing article that we currently have. Dposse 02:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

First, thanks for the effort, but are you suggestion that we kick all the interpretation stuff out and reduce the article to a paraphrase of what's happening in the poem? I'd prefer a more concise summary plus an overview of the reception and interpretation of the poem, like bogdan suggested.

Second, what exactly do you mean by "doing justice to the poem"? I'm a big fan of "The Raven", and I guess I could write an article about its charm and what a fantastic poem it is. But in an encyclopedic article, truth prevails and the truth is that "The Raven" is often thought a minor poem by experts > see (1).

(1) Concerning critical reception: Unlike other poems -- Shakespeare's sonnets, for example -- "The Raven" has not always been received favourably. My evidence for this -- apart from the quotes by Rossetti and Yeats -- is taken from I. M. Walker's compilation of early critical responses to "The Raven" in his "Edgar Allan Poe, The Critical Heritage": they range from 1845 to about 1850; some of them are positive, others negative. Then there are the responses of the Modernist writers, which are collected in Eric Carlson's "The Recognition of Poe": Aldous Huxley thought Poe's poetry was vulgar, T.S. Eliot and Henry James considered it somewhat immature, Yvor Winters wrote a famous essay tearing Poe's poetry apart, there's also W.H. Auden's famous introduction to Poe's collected works, where Auden writes that "The trouble with "the Raven," for example, is that the thematic interest and the prosodic interest, both of which are considerable, do not combine and are even often at odds." So "The Raven" had quite an interesting, varying reception history, something I think would make for an interesting piece of information in the article. If we ignore them, the article will be the poorer for it.

(2) All we know about his mental state is that it's somewhat deranged; and while the poem is fruitful soil for the discussion of someone gone mad, it never really yields any answers. We don't know, for example, whether the narrator wants Lenore back, whether he wants to resurrect her or whether he just wants to forget her. We don't know about the nature of his love to her: He seems to idealize her in a very strange fashion, but then he also seems to be afraid of her coming back. We don't know whether he's suicidal, we don't know what happened to those friends of his. We also don't know what exaclty it is that drives him mad: is it guilt, grief, a desire for self-destruction, over-imagination? The poem doesn't clarify these things, it leaves them open to speculation. That's what I mean when I say the mental condition of the narrator isn't clear. We also don't know whether we can believe the narrator -- whether the raven is real etc. -- or whether it is all imagination and dream and delirium. In short: the poem has many gaps of information, and as a result is rather vague. And its vagueness is a sort of Poe trademark that deserves mention in the article. Quoth-the-Raven 14:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "traces his slow descent into madness", in the introduction to the article, seems to be more for the sake of the writer's sense of the dramatic, rather than any factual truth. The protagonist is already in a state of anguish and despair when the poem starts, for one thign, and even if there is a worsening of this state during the poem, it certainly couldn't be described as a "descent", as it's far less linear than that (the character first reacts to the raven with light-hearted amusement, for example, and for a while seems to be more occupied thinking about the bird than his loss). And "madness"? Even if his final state is utter depression and despair, it's hardly madness. And, above all else... "slow"? I think you'd have a hard time arguing that that's there for the sake of anything but drama. For these reasons, I've removed the sentence and replaced it with something a little truer (I'm not sure if reads quite as well, though, so if anybody wants to change it, feel free. Justdig 20:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I offer a lengthy defence of "tracing his slow descent into madness", it's just that I'm somewhat obsessed with this poem. The gist of my argument is this: 'descent' as well as 'madness' are 'factual truths' of the poem (as far as this elusive poem allows of factual truth, that is) or, if nothing else, more relevant to the introductory paragraph than 'self-torture' and 'despair'.

• "The protagonist is already in a state of anguish and despair when the poem starts"

Reply: At the beginning of the poem, the narrator is merely "weak and weary", and while I grant that he is sad because of his loss and a bit hysterical, his initial condition is far from "a state of anguish and despair".

• "even if there is a worsening of this state during the poem, it certainly couldn't be described as a "descent", as it's far less linear than that"

Reply: As you have pointed out, the appearance of the raven is, in a way, a welcome distraction to the author. I agree with you that the narrator's development is not a straight fall; he starts off very sad, then is hysterical as he peers into the darkness, then he is slightly amused by the appearance of the raven, then he is slightly depressed by the reminiscence of his friends, then perturbed by the story of the raven, but still smiling, then taken by a rush of sorrow as he remembers Lenore, and then he starts to question the raven, becoming more and more aggressive towards the bird until, in the last stanza, the raven becomes a sort of nightmarish demon in the imagination of the narrator. Though this plot is not strictly linear, I'd still maintain that it is essentially a downward spiral. Also, the word 'descent' in a sense suggests that the narrator 'chooses' madness rather than just having madness thrust upon him; this is in tandem with the narrator's indulgence in self-torture which you want to include in the introduction. Now, to look at the narrator as some sort of masochist is an important interpretative move with which I completely agree; but I would say that it is much less relevant to the introduction than the madness aspect, and thus I suggest that we leave it to the interpretation section, where it is discussed at length by the original author of this article in terms of "perverseness".

• "And "madness"? Even if his final state is utter depression and despair, it's hardly madness."

Reply: I would defend the use of the term 'madness' in reference to the last stanza: The narrator has not just had a bad night, or a bad dream, and now it's all over; he is still -- and will remain, for all we know -- seriously disturbed, haunted and oppressed by the associations triggered by the raven; and these associations are not just grief and sorrow (or despair and depression), but more akin to a hallucinatory presence of an evil power ("a demon"). The narrator's ultimate despair is so closely linked to the imagined raven in his head (and the raven of the last stanza clearly is a product of the narrator's imagination) that it becomes a mental delusion from which he can no longer escape: and that is madness.

• "slow"? I think you'd have a hard time arguing that that's there for the sake of anything but drama.

Reply: Well, it's a long poem (108 lines, is it?) and it takes the narrator quite some time to snap (last stanza). Yes, the word is somewhat dramatic -- but then the "The Raven" is a narrative (and dramatic) poem; also, the sentence flows better with one syllable added, and the import of the adjective is not so wrong as to compromise the entire article now, is it?

I hope that helped to make the sentence "tracing his slow descent into madness" a bit more lucid. Quoth-the-Raven 19:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to translate this page into Italian for the Italian Wikipedia. Can I? answer, please --87.11.67.136 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes you can (if you know Italian). Outriggr 03:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank! I'm Italian! :)

Excellent piece you've got here, the analysis is very informative. Thankyou. I must say, this poem is indeed a classic. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.150.137 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The clean-up tag was removed from this article, but I think it's still needed. There are no references to most of what's written here - and interpretation is either original research or someone else's previously published subjective opinion. Even things like "Certainly Poe's most famous poem" in the first line needs a reference, or not such a strong tone. I would recommend, to start, finding a source that talks about the theme of guilt and another that links the poem to Charles Dickens and "Barnaby Rudge." When I get a chance, I'll dig through what I have. -Midnightdreary 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section, as not only does it only contain one (repeated) Simpsons reference, it is also made obsolete by the link to the main article of popular culture references. Desdinova 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I wanted to do this myself for some time now. I think from now on all references to popular culture or ad-like references (such as "this guy produced a video-version of the poem" etc.) should go there. In addition to your changes, I deleted the second publication history section. Quoth-the-Raven 12:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following today. If any of it is worth including in The Raven in popular culture, feel free to add it there. --Midnightdreary 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• One of the earliest known parodies of "The Raven" was written by Robert Barnabas Brough in 1853, titled "The Vulture; An Ornithological Study", published in Graham's Magazine.

• A parodic translation into Russian concludes with the narrator asking the Raven to name the cities of Chile. When the Raven answers "Nevermore!" the narrator decides to stop listening.

• Mad Magazine parodied the poem, in its usual style--printing the poem verbatim and illustrating it in its own bizarre way. The byline read "by EDGAR ALLAN POEtry" and the art credit was "by that Raven Maniac, Bill Elder." The raven flies in and perches on the bust of Pallas, chipping the "skin" off, leaving only a skull. "Lenore" is shown as an overweight cigar-smoking woman, ironing torn, flaming garments; the narrator's dog grows after the manner of Alice. In the last panel the narrator is ironing the giant dog's tail!

I know there's been a lot of talk about the meaning of the poem, but shouldn't we focus on what the poem actually is and what it has? As in, poetic style. Blahmaster 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I recently came across a good source for it, so I'll be adding it now. Sorry it took so long. Feel free to add anything else you come across. --Midnightdreary 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First, as a courteous FYI, I just wanted to give my reasoning for switching the images. The new one, by Edourd Manet is, I think, more illustrative of the "plot" of the poem. I do like the Gustave Dore one with the skeleton (who wouldn't?) but it's a little too interpretative. Feel free to disagree. Also, I think it's about time we started trying to get rid of that original research that's lowering the quality of this article. Let's try to get some sources for analysis, and get "The Raven" up to Good Article status! Who's with me? =) --Midnightdreary 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following, due to original research (it's been tagged for months): --Midnightdreary 22:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Raven", like other works by Poe such as "The Black Cat," "The Imp of the Perverse," and "The Tell-Tale Heart," is a study of guilt or "perverseness" (in Poe's own words, "The human thirst for self-torture"). Although we are told in those stories that the narrators have killed someone, in "The Raven" we are only told that the narrator (appropriate term for poetic voice) has lost his love, Lenore. (Lenore is imported from an earlier poem, "Lenore" (1831) which was itself a massive reworking of "A Pæan"; both are also about the death of a young woman).

"Guilt" should not be taken here in either the standard legal or moral senses. Poe's characters usually do not feel "guilt" because they did a "bad" thing—that is, the story is not didactic (in his essay "The Poetic Principle" Poe called didacticism the worst of "heresies"); there is no "moral to the story." Guilt, for Poe, is "perverse," and perverseness is the desire for self-destruction. It is completely indifferent to societal distinctions between right and wrong. "Guilt" is the inexplicable and inexorable desire to destroy oneself eo ipso.

"The Raven" is also an excellent example of arabesque, mental suffering, writing as well as grotesque, or physical suffering. In addition to the narrator's physical terror throughout the poem, there are a great many psychologically disturbing sequences and images described as well.

The narrator quickly learns what the bird will say in response to his questions, and he knows the answer will be a negative ("Nevermore"). However, he asks questions, repeatedly, which would optimistically have a "positive" answer, "Is there balm in Gilead? Will I meet Lenore in Aidenn?" To each question the Raven's predestined reply is "Nevermore", which only increases the narrator's anguish.

The themes of self-perpetuating anguish and self-destructive obsession over the death of a beautiful woman are in themselves the most poetic of topics, according to Poe (see his essay "The Philosophy of Composition"). The torture which the bird has brought to the narrator was already in the narrator's ruminating character—the bird only brought out what was inside. The raven itself is a mechanical process: deterministic, preordained, one word being the bird's "only stock and store." The narrator throws himself against this process in a form of masochism, and lets it destroy him and consume him ("my soul from out that shadow... shall be lifted—Nevermore!")

Why or how Lenore was lost is unknown, but the narrator is torn between the desire to forget and the desire to remember. Death without cause is standard for Poe (See "Ligeia," "Eleonora," "Morella," "Berenice," "The Fall of the House of Usher," "The Oval Portrait," "Annabel Lee," "Lenore," "A Pæan," "The Bells," and others). The female beauty dies without cause or explanation—or she dies because she was beautiful. In the end, the narrator clings to the memory, for that is all he has left. What the raven has taken from him so cruelly is his loneliness—but this cruelty he brought upon himself, for he cannot resist the urge to interrogate the raven. He is fascinated by the bird's repeated, desolate reply. The speaker repeatedly asks it questions in the hope that it will say "yes" (forevermore)—or perhaps out of a morbid desire to be again told "no" (nevermore).

Although the bird seems a hallucination, it is in fact real (this is not to say that the narrator does not hallucinate at all, however), with real black feathers and a real croaking of the single word, "Nevermore." Ravens can be taught to speak.

I'm sorry I'm not discussing most of the specific changes I'm making to this article before making them; I rarely get responses, so I'm doing this now as an afterthought. Please, please, understand that I am very interested in collaborating on this project and I'd love to hear some feedback - my way isn't necessarily the best way. Anyway, with that said, I've done quite a bit today. Here's an abbreviated version:

• Expanded "Composition" section, with references, including subsection "Inspiration"
• Reordered to (what I think is) a more logical pattern
• Expanded and clarified "Publication History"; removed redlinks for articles that are (presumed) unlikely to be created and do not have requests for articles or removed names of illustrators that are not as notable (feel free to prove otherwise)
• Created "Critical reception and impact" section - this will definitely need much more, with more coverage of negative criticism, including more modern ones, for proper neutrality (I'd love some help here)
• Changed format on "References," now that there are more than a couple

I'm thinking a section for "Analysis" or "Interpretation" is unnecessary at this point; possibly some expansion on the "Allusions" section. Also on the "to do" list is a re-write of the introduction to properly introduce what the entire article contains.

Thoughts? :) --Midnightdreary 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Even more... I swapped some images today. I think it's cute because all three basically depict the moment where the raven first enters the narrator's chamber. So, they're similar in scene but represent three very different artists (Manet, Dore, Tenniel). I think they are some of the best examples, but I'd love to hear some different opinions. For example, if people think we should diversify the scene depicted, I can understand that. --Midnightdreary 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and started a general Analysis section after all, and expanded the Allusions. I think some sources might be needed there though, if anyone has any, especially the part about the "forgotten lore" suggesting the occult. Also, how would people feel about a quick section talking about where "The Raven" was written? I know of four places that claim he wrote it there (no significant evidence exists and it's mostly just local lore so it wouldn't be easy to find a source). Is that encyclopedic or just trivia? --Midnightdreary 15:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have passed this article's GA because I believe it meets the GA criteria for being well written, broad in its coverage, factually accurate, neutral and stable. I question why the "Athena" wikilink in the intro links to a disambiguation page - perhaps it should be moved to link to Athena rather than Pallas. Good work on a well-known work, consider taking to WP:POETRY for further help in taking this to FA status if you so desire. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 18:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! I was most worried about the neutrality part but I think it worked out well. I've fixed the suggested wikilink problem. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the poem is in public domain it should be listed in full text here or failing that a link to the poem should be provided —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.126.162 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Moved this most recent comment to the bottom) Thanks for your input - there are several links to the full poem already. See the External Links section. --Midnightdreary 01:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article was put up for Featured Article Review but was not promoted. I did everything that was recommended - except for adding more information about "The Parrot Who Knew Papa" and "Lolita." There was also some suggestions to add more critical analysis. After exhausting some dozen and a half sources, I'm at a loss to find more - and this is using the library of the Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site. If anyone has further information, please add it in. I think more people just need to vote next time, rather than just making comments (and never returning once the recommended changes were made). I'm inclined to put it up for FA review again tomorrow. Thoughts? --Midnightdreary 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more time at FAC will likely garner more support. I would not cast my "mild oppose" re: analysis again. –Outriggr § 05:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused on the process for re-nominating a failed FA candidate. I don't want to mess up the archived version. Outriggr, can you (or someone else) help me out?? --Midnightdreary 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's officially been renominated. Here we go again! --Midnightdreary 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

YES! IT PASSED!!!! I'm very happy now. What's next?? ;) --Midnightdreary 02:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to change "Nevermore" to "nevermore" (small "n") in the introduction, considering it to be a mistake, and then noticed that the word is consistently capitalized through the entire article. Hmmm. Well, I still think it's a mistake. Any other opinions? --RenniePet 19:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an exact quote. All versions I've seen have capitalized it as "Nevermore." I'm okay with it as is. --Midnightdreary 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Although it's still my opinion that it's grammatically incorrect. If that raven was smart enough to speak one would expect it to either make a statement in the form of a complete sentence, "Nevermore." (capitalization and period), or else it was just quoting a single word, "nevermore" (no capitalization, no period). --RenniePet 13:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just looked at the poem (should have done that right from the start), and the first three copies I've found with Google all indicate that the raven said, "Nevermore.", with a period. Unless someone objects I'll change it tomorrow, OK? --RenniePet 13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) --RenniePet 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the quotes here do use the period so it's not too bad. But there are a couple of spots that it comes in the middle of a sentence. In those cases, I'm not sure it's necessary to quote the period (it's still an exact quote without it, isn't it?). I think it will just confuse a reader. As a side note, the raven in the poem is not smart enough to speak, just dumb enough to repeat, as Poe tells us in "The Philosophy of Composition." Remember too that there is some poetic license here, so grammar rules need not be so strict. :) --Midnightdreary 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a whitewash. I am a huge Poe and Raven fan, but this article is schlock. In particular it only provides one side of the critical reception. Poe was a literary critic and was also often on the receiving end of literary criticism. The Raven was a focal point for those critical of Poe, who viewed it as a lazy, sing-songy bit of schlock. This view is utterly unrepresented in the article as it exists. I wish this article were featured as a truly featured-article status, b ut as it is it only exists with a brief synopsis and pro-Poeist apology. We can do better. But I speak as an engineer, surely there are English majors out there editing the-pedia who can opine and improve? NTK (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There ia a little bit of negative criticism in the "Critical reception and impact" section. Only a couple lines, though. Zagalejo^^^ 09:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel the article on the whole is "schlock" based on one minor point... I worked my butt off to get this to FA status!! :) I thought it was fairly neutral: there is criticism not only on the poem but on Poe's supposed discussion of how and why he wrote it. If it was a focal point of those critical of Poe, I haven't read as much (certainly, "The Bells" was a more targeted poem). If anyone knows of additional negative criticism with a reliable source, it's welcome to be added in. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Truthfully, I have never seen such aggressive, dedicated copy editing on a single article before. I'm overwhelmed and, as one of the main "watchers" of this article, I can't keep up!! I'm wondering if any of the copy editors are interested in taking a brief look at Edgar Allan Poe for the same clean-up... preferably with fewer separate edits so that I can follow what's happening! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've been enjoying reading (and tweaking!) the article. I was a bit curious about the use of the words deprecate and depreciate in the article, but not sure enough of what was meant to change the usage.

Analysis: 'His questions, then, are purposely self-deprecating'. My understanding of 'self deprecating' is 'belittling or undervaluing oneself' (taken from Dictionary.com, but is what I understand from general usage). Are the narrator's questions really doing this? He seems to me rather to be punishing himself. Does this use of self deprecating come from the source cited?

Allusions: 'The narrator depreciates the angels' presence'. The closest meaning I can find at Dictionary.com to what seems to be meant here is 'To think or speak of as being of little worth'. That doesn't seem quite to make sense here in reference to the angel's presence. Is what is meant here something more like 'resents'?

(As an aside, that is not at all how I read the narrator's comment: "Wretch," I cried, "thy God hath lent thee -- by these angels he hath sent thee Respite -- respite and nepenthe, from thy memories of Lenore; Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe and forget this lost Lenore!" Doesn't this say that the angels have sent the narrator 'respite and nepenthe'? This is the first time I've read this poem in a long while though, and I've never studied it in depth.)

Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the latter section was an alteration from today, so I've taken the liberty of reverting to the wording from the start of the day, which seems to me a closer fit with what the poem says. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the self-deprecating questions (the term is from the cited source)... he's asking multiple questions, not just the one regarding nepenthe. I think the most obvious one for this particular assessment is when he asks, "Within the distant Aidenn it shall clasp a sainted maiden...?" knowing that the raven will say no/nevermore. Even "Is there balm in Gilead?" is asking for trouble. The argument here, which is one of the strongest and most common interpretations I've read, is that he is asking questions to which he knows the raven will answer in the negative and yet asks them anyway. Oh, and I'm not sure which is the other line you were referring to. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the other one (as noted above ;-)), to the wording from the beginning of today, which made much more sense. I realise there are multiple questions, but are they self-deprecating? Not by my understanding, but if that's the usual term used, then that's fine and I'll stop pestering you. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some minor changes to the structure and grammar of the first part of the article. Hopefully it is not considered vandalism :) I enjoy editing things, please let me know if you feel something is off and we can fix it. OSFTactical (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the most wonderful and empowering video you have here.... Very glad you put it here..... I'm looking this over and found some mistakes........ not big, just some miss spellings(2) and also I think I might add to it if that is ok,,, thank you and have a wonderufl day...... Again wonderfullllllllllll.....

Rianon Burnet 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Video? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. I was thinking the same thing. Instead, I'll just say "Thanks!" --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for all the extra edits, but I've been trying to fit the full text of the poem in without making the article too long. I think I've succeeded in doing this; however, it may need some tweaking. –Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, we've come to a consensus that we shouldn't include the full text of the poem. With that said, though, I like what you did here! I think it's worth keeping, unless others think this is overkill. Either way, thanks for the effort, Gravinos! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My position is essentially identical to Midnightdreary's: on more than one occasion I have removed the entire text of the poem from this article, placed here by well-intended visitors. However, this is an ingenious way of going about it. Let's see if it has any sticking power. — BillC ^talk 01:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the article says the narrator asks the raven if he shall see Lenore is in heaven.

“

Prophet!" said I, "thing of evil - prophet still, if bird or devil! By that Heaven that bends above us - by that God we both adore - Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn, It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore - Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.

”

Emphasis mine. The narrator doesn't ask the raven if Lenore is in Aidenn/Eden (heaven), he askes if he shall see her in heaven. I amended it accordingly. However, I was reverted and advised to come to the talk page. And so here I am. I (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing anything that implies he will "see" Lenore. What he's actually saying (literally) is: "Will my soul be able to hold onto Lenore in heaven". So, we're both wrong. But the verb "see" seems to be a more distant stretch than "is". Inspired by your interpretation, I've scoured through Silverman, Meyers, Hobson Quinn, and Sova... none use any verb relating to sight or vision. What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "see" isn't a good word. Perhaps meet? I (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's closer... hmmm... how about "be reunited"? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I like that one. I support rephrasing it with that. I (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll let you have the honors because you instigated this whole discussion. Thanks for the collaboration!!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys are much better than the guys at Sparknotes, who refused to include this poem. What makes it more amazing that it's a community of common people and scholars that do not profit from writing this article. You guys fully deserve this Featured Article status, I look forward to working with you guys in literary analysis and we can undermine Sparknotes and Cliffsnotes. --Chinese3126 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you found the article worthwhile! Not sure I was aiming to compete with Sparknotes or CliffsNotes, but whatever it takes to help people appreciate this work is fine with me. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I found this much easier to understand the poem, and very little of it is commentry, it discusses main valid points about the text.

This article has certainly worse off from its removal.

As I explained on your talk page, your literary analysis constitutes original research which cannot be included on Wikipedia. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

However not all of it is original research, and a fair proportion of it could be incorporated into the article. Perhaps you should rewrite it, rather then removing it all then in one go hey?

• I agree. Edit if necessary, but do not remove this wholesale. Outriggr 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I belive there is no place in this article for interpretation the raven has been interprated by many different crictics in many different ways, Its just option --Mdavies 965 (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Matthew Davies

So you think that we can have a full encyclopedic (featured) article on "The Raven"... without having any analysis at all? If you read this article, you'll also note that there are several interpretations included. And I always make the argument: it's hard to have too many variations, when Poe himself already told us what the entire poem meant in "The Philosophy of Composition". --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the adaption made by the Simpsons not mentioned? It's the most famous adaption of The Raven.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See The Raven in popular culture, and Treehouse of Horror, where this is discussed. — BillC ^talk 07:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said, BillC. Let's not forget, of course, that "the most famous adaptation" is pretty subjective. Either way, this article is specifically about the poem. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This kind of dispute should be more public and I think we need to look for further opinions on this. Has anyone seen a reliable, verifiable, published source that suggests that the name "Lenore" is not the real name of the narrator's lost love but is, in fact, a pseudonym? Does anyone have a specific interpretation of the line "whom the angels name Lenore; nameless here forevermore"? See User talk:Valerius Tygart#Lenore / Raven. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing more than a footnote connecting The Raven to Poe's 1831 poem, Lenore. The similarities between the two (the death of a young woman named Lenore, whom the author laments) is more than simply coincidental. And what of the line in Lenore, "And, Guy De Vere,/Hast thou no tear?/Weep now or nevermore! The Photoplayer 00:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly more than coincidental. I have my own personal opinion, as I'm sure you do too. As you probably know, those opinions are irrelevant because of our no original research policy. Have you found anything mentioned in reliable published sources? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress has scanned the entire Stéphane Mallarmé translation at high resolution, which means the full Manet illustrations are now available at much better quality than any of the previous illustrations for this article. I've restored the set and am nominating them for featured picture consideration. The new illustrations are 10-20MB, which is orders of magnitude better than what the article had previously. It's a treat to locate these in a cohesive set. Have replaced within the article; feel welcome to tweak as needed. Best regards, Durova³²⁷ 03:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So now the article is so Manet heavy that no other artists are represented at all? I'm not sure I agree with this. It looks like it should be an article on Manet's illustrations for "The Raven" rather than an article on the poem itself. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing with this more and more. Gustave Dore's illustrations are, arguably, the most famous illustratrions for "The Raven" ever created - and his work is not represented here. Further, Tenniel's work (famous in its own right) is much, much closer to the original 1845 publication of "The Raven" (and depicts the original English version, rather than a French translation). No, I don't like this change at all. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone would obtains better digitized versions of Doré's illustrations I would be glad to restore them. As things currently stand, though, half of the featured pictures have been removed from this article. It's rare to be able to obtain a top quality set of illustrations by a major artist, and the continuity of this set has been obscured from the readership. Inexplicably, priority has been given to the non-featured media. I will not edit war in the attempt to remedy that problem, but the current display is suboptimal even if one grants full credence to the reasons that were given for it. Durova³⁶⁶ 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the complete featured picture set within the article, particularly at lead position, and perhaps use the lower quality illustrations in a gallery within the publications section? The Tenniel illustration currently at lead is only 172 KB and suffers from chromatic aberration. Would gladly restore Doré and others if adequate scans become available. Please supply uncompressed TIFF files 10MB or larger. Durova³⁶⁶ 18:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why their featured status automatically gives them priority over the benefit of having variety, not to mention using other well-known illustrations (including what I think is the best known) that are actually based on the poem "The Raven," and not a derivative of it. These images didn't seem to be a problem when the article was brought up as an FAC. Again, focusing solely on a set of illustrations for a translation of this poem seems unfair and, ultimately, less appropriate. If there were an article solely on that set of illustrations for the poem on which they are based, that might be more sensible. I had nothing to do with the set becoming featured images so I can't speak to that. I don't think a gallery is a good compromise because I don't find galleries useful or helpful (other than those linked via Commons). Are there other thoughts out there so this isn't just a two-person discussion? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason the variety can't be incorporated into the publications section? It's pretty rare that we have the opportunity to feature a complete set of illustrations by a major artist on any subject. Would be good to use them all, and with respect for the argument about variety it doesn't seem to necessitate a non-featured version at lead. Regardless of the historicity and quality of the original artworks, the Manet illustrations are digitized at exceptionally high quality from an original first edition. Durova³⁶⁶ 01:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't pick up on that you were especially suggesting a lead image be one of these. I can easily acquiesce to that. Which do you think is most appropriate? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the one of the raven flying in through the window? Durova³⁶⁶ 06:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to find "raven coming in through a window" pictures but, for a little spice, how about this one? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. By the way, overnight was able to locate a very high resolution digitization of the Doré illustrations for this poem. Would be willing to restore from that, take your choice (start here and browse). The only catch is if Doré goes up for featured picture consideration, the FPC regulars might want to delist any Manets that don't appear in the article. Let's work something out. Durova³⁶⁶ 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. My favorite is this one, where the narrator is lying in the shadow. The one of the raven on the Pallas bust is much more iconic, though. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Will have a go at it. That image suffers from perspective distortion because it didn't lie flat on the scanner. Could be difficult to fully correct. Other images earlier in the volume don't have the same problem. Will tool around and see how this works out. Durova³⁶⁶ 23:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm flexible. I don't really have any eye for quality images. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. Turned out better than expected. Durova³⁶⁶ 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nudge? Durova³⁸⁰ 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nudge? Durova³⁹¹ 06:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. If you need anything from me, it's better to email from my user page as I'm not active right now. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I made no major changes. I simply fixed some awkward language. Being an FA doesn't mean it's perfect, and the wording I changed improved the article, by varying the sentence structure, and combining a couple of short, choppy sentences. Please explain why simple wording changes (as well as some kind of bot fixes) were simply reverted wholesale without any kind of explanation. That doesn't seem acceptable in any way. Lithistman (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Improvements" are subjective. Nevertheless, welcome to the Wiki-cycle; don't take it personally. One particular edit that makes a major change is removing the wording that Poe claimed to have written the poem methodically. As the article states, Poe's claims are likely not entirely true. Any reason why we should suddenly say otherwise in the lede? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to simply have been a "claim" to me, but actually what he DID. However, I would have much less problem with THAT being reverted pending discussion, than with the wholesale reversion that removed ALL of my changes, as well as the bot fixes. Lithistman (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the Wiki-cycle - reverting to start discussion. Stay with me here! Again, read the article: it says that it is likely an exaggeration. The full article on The Philosophy of Composition goes further. I don't know why you're so defensive about the bot edits... bots aren't really sacred as far as I know... --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, I can see the potential problem with the removal of the qualifier. As for the bot edits, they seemed an objective improvement of the formatting of the references. Not so much "defensive" of them, as it seemed that a full reversion to the previous version didn't take into account that there were useful edits (including the bots) that were being reverted. Lithistman (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the qualifier in the paragraph about his intentions. Hope that helps. Lithistman (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)