User talk:Easchiff/Sandbox2

Sorry for my long break; my internet has been out all weekend, but I plan to get started working on this session this afternoon. I would like to have an introduction with a general wrapup of all the poems, then either discuss the main poems in order of publication (or maybe by importance) with a general overview of the poem and the importance to literature in general. Then, we can probably add his literary criticism at the end, showing his opinions of poetry. this may very well become a section in and of itself, but we can try to connect it to the poetry section to allow the article to flow from one topic to another. Mrathel (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I can do the promised writeup of the 8 Conversation Poems. I've just gotten the "Cambridge Companion to Coleridge" from the library; it has an essay by Magnuson on the Conversation Poems that seems very clear. Easchiff (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I have been trying to get started on Rime and Kubla Kahn; did a bit of work on Biographia Literaria, which I already put onto the page. I just got a new tv and have been too fascinated with Blu Ray to really be of much use these days, but it is on my todo list, i promise:) Mrathel (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was mesmerized by high-resolution when I got my (not very large) LCD TV, and then again by Blu Ray not long ago. STC's been waiting a while; he can wait a bit longer. I've actually been cleaning up the Wikisource versions of the conversation poems, which seemed a good prelude to writing them up. I have also been pondering some organization issues for the poetry section. My feeling is that we might want to adopt (by consensus) some categorization that captures STC's best works; this is an alternative to a comprehensive, chronological discussion of his poetry. This view is informed by the conversation poems. They were composed over about 12 years, but they are closer to each other in spirit than they are to other poems composed during the same period. What's your view? Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good approach to take. I don't think that chronological discussions of works produce easily digestible prose, and I think we could probably give a better overview if we work with categorization. In this case, I think we can be bold and compose the section with that in mind and let others tweak as they see fit.Mrathel (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)