Talk:Stephen Crane/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misc. comments

While it seems like a good article, maybe someone should translate it into English

---

This article's length as it stands right now is an insult to the English wikipedia. Somebody write something, dammit. Have we already forgotten him?

---

It should be moved to the Spanish wikipedia.

But first, what's the copyright situation? The same poster's similar contribution to Babrak Karmal implies that he's the webmaster of the site the articles were taken from (Stephen Crane, Babrak Karmal). However, the Stephen Crane article there lists as its source an encyclopedia (Enciclopedia Universal Sopena). It's not clear whether this means the article was taken directly from that encyclopedia (under copyright?), or simply whether facts form that encyclopedia were being used... ---Brion VIBBER

---

Well, I translated it as best I could, considering that I do not speak Spanish. Thank goodness for Internet translating programs, dictionaries, and a little common sense. As for the copyright issues, I do not know. I would like to assume that it was not plagiiarized, and hope that the translation is sufficiently different so as not to be considered plagiarism. If it is not, I will continue changing the article so it is. He was an important writer and deserves something to be said about him. Danny

---

Wow- this page needs major cleanup. --Uggh1134 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, I'm going to add an introduction and try to divide this into sections. ---Abigali 12 August 2006

---

The following 2 sentences need work. I can't work out what they're trying to say:

• While supporting himself through his Flagrant flying skills, he observed the poor in the Bowery slums
• Crane had to print the book at his own expense with money derived from the sale of his mother's house and of inherited mine stock to his brother William

JackofOz 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what "Flagrant flying skills" are, either an egregious typo or a bit of drive-by vandalism, but the second sentence is fairly obvious, if not well-written: in addition to selling his mother's home to finance the book, Crane also sold some stock (in a mining company) he had inherited... --Haruo 19:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remove...

Please remove the comments under "See Also".

Stolen Stuff?

The bio seems to be C+P'ed in from here: http://www.online-literature.com/crane/ --PokeOnic 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Open Boat

I redirected "The Open Boat and Other Tales" here as that page was a book-report style description of the plot of The Open Boat. As a short story I'm not sure it even justifies an article of its own. Tocharianne 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is on separate articles, but 'The Open Boat' and 'The Red Badge of Courage' deserve separate sections in a Stephen Crane wikipedia biography.

Wow

I don't usually edit Wikipedia but this article is basically the worst one I've ever read. I don't know if it's being vandalized or what, but something weird is going on. I'm going to fix what I can, but the article needs some serious work.

Major revision

I made a major revision. My apologies over its inadequacies. There should be another sentence on the literary influence of Crane's poetry, for example. Haberstr 19:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Information about the White novel should be limited as I have tried to limit it, in this _Crane_ entry. The name of the bordello is already mentioned earlier in the bio. Haberstr 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert for following reasons, in brief: 1., opening paragraph should not refer to a relatively minor detail (that Crane was a foreign correspondent) that rightfully is in the text main body. 2., publish date of Maggie is all that's needed, not the excess words. 3., "_Now_ a well-paid..." time transitions from previous paragraph, enhancing coherence and efficiently adding useful information for the reader; "While ..." doesn't do that. 4., people enjoy the "In popular culture" section and it defies common sense to eliminate it; Why? 5., John Berryman is an important reference. In conclusion and anyway... the poetry section still needs a sentence. Haberstr 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, I forgot: the fraternities Crane belonged to for a few months is of abismally minor importance, so eliminated. Haberstr 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with several of your points, your revert largely goes against style guidelines. As per WP:LEAD, the lead section is meant to be a summary of the entire article, which is why I had added the information about Crane's war correspondence -- more information is necessary to flesh out the section, but it was intended as an initial step. Second, as WP:DATE states, individual years are not to be linked, only full dates; that is why I had removed the interwiki links. Third, WP:TRIVIA states that trivia sections, like the Popular culture section, should be integrated into the rest of the article if the information is pertinent; this information is not. Whether or not people "enjoy" the information it is unencyclopedic and trivial and therefore does not belong in the article. Lastly, the John Berryman reference, if important, should be correctly cited as per WP:CITE and perhaps integrated into an inline citation. I will not make any changes (aside from restoring the {{reflist}} that was omitted by your edits) until I hear further. Thoughts? María (críticame) 21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think all introductory summaries should be equal, especially when the body of an entry is relatively small. So perhaps we can interpret 'summaries' flexibly. Here are wiki introductions of two U.S. literary figures roughly comparable to Crane: "William Dean Howells (March 1, 1837 – May 11, 1920) was an American realist author and literary critic." "Theodore Herman Albert Dreiser (August 27, 1871 – December 28, 1945) was an American author of the naturalist school, known for dealing with the gritty reality of life." Mine of Crane was similar. If it were expanded it should, I think, reference the spectacular stylistic 'newness' that Wells noted, his naturalism, and perhaps his 'scandal' ridden life. I don't think you disagreed with my "2." or "3." except perhaps I did some improper linking? "4." just makes me sad, it misunderstands how such "in popular culture" sections can draw 'regular people' in and start to generate interest in these dead writer guys. 71.201.189.93 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Haberstr 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're the same user that commented above? Either way, lead sections are clearly explained to be used as a summation of the article as a whole; that some similarly classed articles do not utilize this feature does not mean that we should fall into step with others. However, because this article in particular is skimpy on detail at the moment, it could stay as it is now (with a little copy-editing; novels should *always* be in italics). As I explained before, trivia is discouraged and should either be integrated or culled. When I work at length on this article in the near future, hopefully bringing it to GA status, I plan to take care of a lot of these issues. I'm just waiting for some books to come in and begin research. María (críticame) 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was. Haberstr 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiresome Vandalism

There's a great deal of obvious and lame vandalism going on to this one little article. Is this what happens to all wikipedia stuff? Thanks to all of you good editors for corrections, but this is getting real tiresome and I'm sure you have better things to do with your time. Can't something be done to ban the turkeys who come here to change 'black' to 'hunky' and similar? Haberstr (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Research and under construction

Over the holiday break I will begin a major revision of this article, so I've placed an {{underconstruction}} template on the page for now -- I'll probably be switching between that and {{inuse}} while editing. I will be completely rewriting the article using a few definitive biographies, and other books devoted to Crane, so that hopefully it will can taken to GA and maybe even FA in the near future. If there are any concerns, I would appreciate it if they were discussed here first so that there are no mix-ups in edit conflicts. There should not be many major concerns, however, because I plan to closely follow the MOS. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 13:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everything you are doing to expand the Crane article, and I'm writing just to clarify that my 'picky' edits/reversions are [NOT (added later)] a criticism of your big and worthy project. However, for example and in reference to the intro paragraph, I think Crane's prose is famous more for its striking originality than for its 'vividness' (that word leans strongly toward classifying him simply under literary naturalism, whereas I think people like Wells and modern critics consider him so much more than that). Also, calling him 'one of the most innovative writers to emerge in 1890s U.S.' is too much like calling Shakespeare one of the best playwrights to emerge in 1590s England. Haberstr (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of what you or I think, but of what the references say. A reference is a reliable source. Without that, your added sentence may be construed as WP:POV or WP:OR. I have no wish to edit war, but the addition does not belong. The word "vivid" was used in the reference that is cited, but I won't push that point. There will be a third paragraph in the lead that discusses Crane's literary technique/style/importance, but I haven't gotten that far in the body of the article yet. For now let's not introduce uncited/contested information. María (habla conmigo) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the sentence modified and with an established source. Still am uncomfortable with describing him damning-with-faint-praise style as 'one of the most innovative writers to emerge in 1890s U.S.' but will leave that as you have it for now. Haberstr (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For now? There is a source provided for that statement, and I can provide several others, so it is more than verified. You did not format the reference correctly nor is the source as scholarly as I would like; it's a textbook, after all. The statement will likely be altered or completely removed once I expand the lead, as I stated above. I know what I'm doing. ;) María (habla conmigo) 13:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a summative description that should begin the Stephen Crane entry. As I indicated, I'm sure it's true just as describing Shakespeare as one of England's most innovative playwrights of the 1590s is true. Crane is a major figure because of his 'first of a new age' (see Wells' description) innovative style. The 'why is this guy a big deal' summation of him in the entry's second sentence should reflect that. The Heath Anthology is authoritative on such a general and obvious matter, but go ahead and find something better.Haberstr (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(out dent) As per WP:LEAD, which I believe I explained to you above, the lead section should be a summation of the entire article. Because the article will eventually explain Crane's legacy and importance in American literature, it is proper that this statement remain in the lead. The third paragraph in the lead will properly explore his literary technique and style, but again, that part of the article has not been written yet, which is why I had left it out. There's still a lot for me to write from scratch.

On a side note, it would be helpful if you indented your replies properly on the talk page for easier reading. María (habla conmigo) 16:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

Yellowsubmarine, the only weakness I see in your Crane life story is the missing subtext of tuberculosis, which Crane appears to have contracted in his early or mid-teens. This lends motivation to why his parents discouraged him from a military career, to descriptions of unconventional 'handsomeness' and deep set eyes, and most importantly to his 'man in a great big hurry to experience everything' approach to life.Haberstr (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come across a definitive time of when Crane contracted TB which is why I haven't added it. He was ill from a very young age, after all, and there can be other explanations for the reasons you list; for example, his parents did not discourage him from a military career because of his health; it's explained in the article, I believe. If you have a reliable source to back up your hypothesis I'd love to know of it. María (habla conmigo) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember several pages in Davis's biography discuss a doctor's examination of Crane in his early 20s (when Crane was staying with his brother), and how the doctor's diagnosis indicated the longstanding nature of Crane's tuberculosis. On that basis I think she surmises he contracted the disease sometime in his early or mid-teens. I think most biographies note the furious pace at which Crane lived, and at least in Davis the 'looming death sentence of tuberculosis' is not an unstated motive.Haberstr (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks. María (habla conmigo) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete list of works?

Should there be a more complete list of his works on here somewhere? I don't see any mention of The Whilomville stories, "The Open Boat," or some others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.71.162 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping that I could get some feedback on this particular issue. There was previously a "Works" section, which I intended to list the most notable collections and, of course, the novels. Other users began adding titles of individual short stories and poems, however, so I removed it as I thought it would become trivial and bloated. Is this kind of section truly needed in the long run? Most of them are mentioned in the body of the paragraph, or will be, after all, and there's a link to his complete works at Gutenberg in the external links section. Thoughts? María (habla conmigo) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Open Boat deserves a separate entry in the list of major works. It is more or less the pinnacle of his career. Blue Hotel is also very important. Both are widely considered much greater works than Maggie, for example. But hey, it's hard work, anyone can go for it and write up an entry.Haberstr (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to expand The Open Boat. I don't think it requires a separate section in this article, although it (and its genesis, i.e. the shipwreck) will undoubtedly be mentioned. María (habla conmigo) 12:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen Crane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Great job on this article; it's great to see another 19th century American literary figure getting some attention. I made a few edits myself; feel free to disagree on my changes. I hope you don't mind if I further nit-pick a tad...

Under "Early years", the sentence about Crane's first surviving poem seems a bit awkward, particularly how it is about "wanting a dog". I wonder if I could suggest arranging as: In December 1879, Crane wrote a poem about wanting a dog for Christmas. The poem, entitled "I'd Rather Have -" is his first surviving poem. I might be overthinking this one so feel free to ignore. Later on in the same subsection, the phrase "Townley was a newspaperman" may be ambiguous to people: is he an editor? a newspaper owner? See if you can clarify.

Please, feel free to overthink! :) I quite like your suggestion about Crane's first poem, but I altered it slightly to reduce the redundancy of "the poem... the poem": "In December 1879, Crane wrote a poem about wanting a dog for Christmas. Entitled "I'd Rather Have -", it is his first surviving poem." Better? Townley was a jack of all trades in the newspaper world, so I've reworded it to: "Townley was a professional journalist; he headed the Long Branch department of both the New York Tribune and the Associated Press and also served as editor of the Asbury Park Shore Press."

In the "Post-education" subsection, who is Willis Fletcher Johnson? Would the word "editor" before his name help?

Added "editor and author". What a shame there's no article for him!

Under "Life in New York", it might be worth throwing in a footnote to support that Crane though The Red Badge of Courage would make him famous.

Eek, I can't find the ref at the moment. I've removed that bit of the sentence for now until I can verify it.

Under "Cora Crane..." subsection, why use "seven hundred dollars"? Elsewhere, I see $300 and other dollar amounts following the same format. Also, there's a term "as the water gained..." Is gained a typical expression? I'm oblivious to it. Further down in that section, "Crane emerged from the ordeal with his reputation enhanced, if not restored, after the battering he received from the press during the Dora Clark affair." I'd suggest a footnote (or even two) as the concept of his reputation being enhanced is a likely candidate to challenge.

Changed to $700 (probably just an oversight on my part). I believe "gained" was the word used in the source, but it does sound too poetic, I agree; changed to "as the ship took on more water". As for the footnote(s), I tried to explain it better in the prose with: "Portrayed favorably and heroically by the press, Crane emerged from the ordeal with his reputation enhanced, if not restored, after the battering he received during the Dora Clark affair" Does that help?

"English and Spanish-American War" has a great quote from his friendship with Conrad. Who should we assume made that quote?

Isn't it lovely? Crane said it, so now it reads: "Crane also met the Polish-born novelist Joseph Conrad in October 1897, with whom he would have what Crane called a 'warm and endless friendship'."

A couple notes overall relating to the MoS (which you might be able to confirm for me). I'm not sure if there is a specific policy advocating a single space after a full stop, but I've seen it more often on Wiki than the two spaces method used in this article. Also, I seem to remember a policy on dates saying that there should always be a comma after the year in full dates (i.e. On July 28, 2008, something happened). I wonder if the policy on autoformatting dates (i.e. July 28; some of the dates in the "Death" section follow this format) is the same as I remember it. Not sure if it's significant until the FAC stage, at which point I'm sure it would be descended upon by the hungry wolves who know better than I do. I'd also suggest being a bit more generous with internal links; I added a few myself.

Like serial commas, the single vs. double spacing after a full stop and commas after dates are both optional as per the MOS. I like french spacing and extra commas, but that's just me. :) As for autoformatting, this is something that's changed rather recently; it's actually discouraged now (don't ask why, I have no idea), so I'll probably end up deleting all linked full dates before I get slammed at FAC. Thanks for reminding me! I'll also go through and add internal links to all of those magazines and publishing houses...

Really, though, great job. I'm putting this on hold, presuming it will take no time at all for you to respond to my notes above. Overall, this is a well-written, well-sourced article – and I definitely learned a thing or two reading it. I'm sure you intend to prepare it for FA review soon! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Midnightdreary! I truly appreciate your helpful copyediting and great suggestions. FAC is indeed my ultimate goal, so hopefully there will be one more 19th century American writer at WP:FA in the foreseeable future. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

These were easy fixes, as the article was quite solid. I believe that this article meets and exceeds the good article criteria. Congratulations, and thank you! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My recent edit of Crane

Maria, The Wells quote is from the 'obituary' he wrote shortly after Crane's death. You can find it if you go back about a year and look at an old Crane wikipedia article, in the 'Literary reception, influence and legacy' section. As a quote from a great and discerning author, it is preferable to yours. Your quote may also give a misleading, 'patriotic' impression of Red Badge.

Otherwise, I have only changed the introduction, into something resembling the typical size and focus of nearly all Wikipedia literary intros (see Hemingway, Joyce, Fitzgerald, and so on). None are the size of yours, and the one I found that was similar in size, on Steinbeck, focused on things of great importance and the legacy, and not on minor autobiographical matters. Frankly, I understand anyone's defensiveness about his or her own prose, so perhaps others will look at the two intros and make a more objective judgment on which one is better.

But you've reverted everything back to your edition. I hope you weaken your tight grip over the article. Otherwise, it will be extraordinary that the Stephen Crane entry basically doesn't recognize his greatness as a short-story writer, his 'painterly' (color imagist) prose, and, perhaps his most salient feature, what H.G. Wells said about him, that he was the harbinger of a new world in writing. The latter was another thing you edited out of the old Crane article.Haberstr (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(This comment was also copied to Haberstr's talk page) Every article is different; F. Scott Fitzgerald is only B-class, Ernest Hemingway barely is a GA, and James Joyce was written a few years ago when the MOS looked quite different than it does now. For high quality literary bios with extensive leads, see Mary Shelley, Emily Dickinson and Edgar Allan Poe. I think most of your points have been incorporated into the text to some degree; for example, similarities between Crane's style and Impressionism paintings is mentioned in "literary genre". What else do you think should be mentioned about Crane's short stories? As for the Wells quote, are you referring to the one from Stephen Crane from an English Standpoint? If so, part of the original quote that was in the article is currently in the "Legacy" section. It reads: "His work was described by Wells as 'the first expression of the opening mind of a new period, or, at least, the early emphatic phase of a new initiative.'" I want to make it clear that I am willing to work with you... María (habla conmigo) 17:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise? The "Fiction and poetry" section is still a little skimpy for my tastes, but Wells' quote from Red Badge would do well to express Crane's artistry. I've added this to the "Genre" section: "H. G. Wells remarked upon "the great influence of the studio" on Crane's work, quoting a passage from The Red Badge of Courage as an example: 'At nightfall the column broke into regimental pieces, and the fragments went into the fields to camp. Tents sprang up like strange plants. Camp fires, like red, peculiar blossoms, dotted the night.... From this little distance the many fires, with the black forms of men passing to and fro before the crimson rays, made weird and satanic effects.'" María (habla conmigo) 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise would be choosing something different than the two competing quotes. Wells states he found his 'almost at random' so it is not hard to find something brilliant to feature, but the quote you've chosen is just not representative of Crane at a high level. Why not just use the opening two sentences of the novel? The cold passed reluctantly from the earth, and the retiring fogs revealed an army stretched out on the hills, resting. As the landscape changed from brown to green, the army awakened, and began to tremble with eagerness at the noise of rumors. I repeatedly read that Crane's "Open Boat" is perhaps the best short story ever written by an American, and "Blue Hotel" is not far behind. There's little if no sense of this in the article. I'm happy if you find good sourcing for the previous (in any American short story anthology?) but as I've said elsewhere it is not your job to do everything for the Crane entry. When I have time in about a month, I'll try to find well-sourced material and add some coherent evaluation that places Crane high as a short-story writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure if the first couple lines of Red Badge is a good idea since the first couple lines of "The Open Boat" is already featured in a blue quotebox. My compromise was that both quotes be featured in the article, which they now are. I still don't see the problem with the current Red Badge quote in the quotebox, but I'll look for a replacement nonetheless. I can add more information about "The Open Boat" in the legacy section, and I'll also look for testaments regarding his impact on the short story genre. If you have time (sooner rather than later), perhaps you can include your thoughts at the peer review page. I was hoping to nominate the article for FAC before the end of this month, but if it's not ready, it's not ready. I want to see what other users have to say about it first.María (habla conmigo) 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you have access, but Britannica online calls "The Open Boat "one of the world's great short stories." Look in its Stephen Crane biography. If you want to re-organize the 'literary style & legacy' section, you might want to do so with the understanding that, (from what I've read) Crane's reputation essentially rests on Red Badge and four short stories ('Open Boat', 'Blue Hotel', 'Bride Comes to Yellow Sky' and 'The Monster'). His poetry was stunningly new and an inspiration for the Imagists, but not considered nearly as 'great' as his prose writing. Also, look closely at Wells' assessment. As Richard Weatherford (in Stephen Crane, The Critical Heritage, 1997) writes, "Wells was one of the first critics to discuss seriously Crane's debt to painting, to discount the direct influence of certain other writers on his best work, to praise 'The Open Boat' as more disciplined and controlled than The Red Badge of Courage, to argue that Crane's 'vigor of imagination was not in a state of steady decline after The Red Badge. And, most important, Wells recognized that Crane was not a born writer but instead knew contemporary literature, its sources and traditional formulas, and carefully avoided them all: 'In style, in method and in all that is distinctively not in his books, he is sharply defined, the expression in literary art of certain enormous repudiations.'" In the Weatherford book, someone else, I believe it is Wells, writes (on p. 271) that 'The Open Boat' is "the crown of all his work." I'm just looking at the Google Books version.Haberstr (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For the Red Badge quotebox, how about: "As he gazed around him the youth felt a flash of astonishment at the blue, pure sky and the sun gleaming on the trees and fields. It was surprising that Nature had gone tranquilly on with her golden process in the midst of so much devilment." That's on page 63 in the sourced copy. María (habla conmigo) 21:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What you chose is fairly well-known and fine, but perhaps too light for the novel's typical mood. Here are two other suggestions: (1) the following is from a famous scene where Henry while escaping from battle confronts a corpse: "He was being looked at by a dead man who was seated with his back against a columnlike tree. The corpse was dressed in a uniform that had once been blue, but was now faded to a melancholy shade of green. The eyes, staring at the youth, had changed to the dull hue to be seen on the side of a dead fish."; (2) the novel's fourth, and very famous, sentence: "A river, amber-tinted in the shadow of its banks, purled at the army's feet; and at night, when the stream had become of a sorrowful blackness, one could see across it the red, eyelike gleam of hostile camp-fires set in the low brows of distant hills." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I fear the first quote may be a little too ghastly for our poor students who may come here to find info for their term papers. :) I quite like your second example, however, and I think it's fairly representative of the novel. I've added it to the quotebox, see what you think. María (habla conmigo) 12:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's great, magnetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Red Badge of Courage (1974) (TV)

The first paragraph of the lead is very well written and engaging. On a different note, I remember this topic only through The Red Badge of Courage (1974) (TV)[1], which starred Richard Thomas who was "John-Boy" on the CBS television series The Waltons. You might want to create The Red Badge of Courage (1974) and mention the TV movie in the Stephen Crane article. Suntag (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Suntag! I made some changes to your version of the lead, I hope you don't mind; putting some of the more engaging material at the very beginning makes perfect sense, but I moved a few of the "technical" details after the bio so as not to bore readers right off the bat. :) I think the lead should also end on Crane's contribution to the literary world, so I tried to add a little bit more to further drive that home. Great idea about starting an article for the 1974 adaptation. Whereas I have seen the 1951 Huston film, I know nothing about this one. Maybe someone else can offer their assistance? María (habla conmigo) 13:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm much better at the glue that binds the flowery prose than flowery prose itself. Please feel free to change what ever I post. In fact, I like it as it helps me learn better ways to approach a writing snag. Good luck with the article. Suntag (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Taylor, Crane continuation

Thinking some more about Cora Crane's many names, in the middle of the night I changed my mind about my fairly thumping insistence on "Taylor" throughout. I think "Taylor" works fine until we reach the chronological point in the tale where she takes his name, Crane, and refers to herself as "Mrs. Crane". That would be here in the text: "Referring to themselves as Mr. and Mrs. Crane, the couple lived openly in England." I'll be happy to go through the lower part again and revert to "Cora" or "Cora Crane", whichever seems to make most sense in context, if it's OK with you. I think "Taylor" works well above that point and makes sense but is odd and confusing below that point. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Something similar is used at Nancy Reagan and I think it flows well enough. If you're willing to go back through the article, feel free. :) I also typically dislike the marginalization that occurs when women are referred to by their first names whereas their husbands are referred to by their surnames, but Cora does present a unique problem with her various married and adopted names. What a headache. María (habla conmigo) 17:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The opening section

It's now 410 words, and Crane's life though interesting _was_ very short. Phrases like the following should be discarded or moved into the main body: "completing his first short story at the age of 14." And there are many others. In general, I humbly suggest you simply discard your lead and use the one I wrote a few days ago as a base.Haberstr (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The opening section is now 442 words. As I wrote elsewhere: "Restricting ourselves to GA or former featured articles on modern US/British literary figures, here are the word counts I found after looking at (I think) all the very famous British/American authors: Emily Dickinson (319), Nathaniel Hawthorne (270), Ernest Hemingway (113), Henry James (275), James Joyce (179), Edgar Allan Poe (352), George Bernard Shaw (304), J.D. Salinger (284), Mary Shelley (506), Walt Whitman (250). My revision [266 words] does not violate any rules and is in the middle of good article norms."Haberstr (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked Finetooth, who did a masterful copy-edit of the article and also made a few helpful suggestions at the peer review, about their opinion on the lead and this was their response at my talk page: "I think the lead is fine. The lead should summarize the main points in the article, should not omit any main points, and should not include information not mentioned in the main text. Your lead meets these tests." I have to say I agree with them, but I will ask a few other users who are well versed in writing articles about literary figures about what we should do. For now I'll remove the "completing his first story" mention, as it is not that pertinent, I agree. María (habla conmigo) 14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the lead could be expanded! As with most literary biographies, the biography tends to overtake the literature in this lead. It's inevitable, I think. The same thing happened with Mary Shelley. We tacked on a paragraph listing her works. In the end, it was the best we could do because she had such an eventful life and that life is so important to her works. However, is that the case here? Much more detail is offered about Crane's life than about his works in this lead. Even though the article is a biography article, there is more information in it about his works than the lead leads us to believe. This is a hard problem to fix, however, and I myself have rarely come up with a solution. Rather than worrying about cutting out biographical bits, why not just add literary bits? Would everyone be happy then? (You can have four paragraphs, right?) I always remind myself that thousands of readers only read the lead. It has to be very good. (No pressure.) :) Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not asked to come here (I stumbled across this on Awadewit's talk page), but I agree that the current lead is not too long and that some more information about his literary works (why he is notable in the first place) could be added. I was a bit surprised that the fact that he wrote so well about the Civil War without ever having served in the military or (at that point) having seen or been in combat was not in the lead, for example. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The non-experience of war was in the lead I wrote, and I added that this was one motivation, stated by Crane, for him wanting to be a war correspondent. In contrast, the present lead is misleading and speculative on why he wanted to cover the war in Cuba. Also, in my lead there was a fairly large and coherent discussion of Crane's literary importance and innovations. The main thing to be reduced is the over-specification (especially of minor details) of biographical facts, which naturally shouldn't be in a lead.Haberstr (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It cannot be known exactly for certain why Crane wanted to go to Cuba, but I think it's fair to say that he had multiple reasons; part of it had to do with wanting to escape the eye of the media, as the lead states, and certainly part of it was that he wished to experience war firsthand. I've tried to make that clearer just now. What exactly do you mean by minor details, Haberstr? The Dora Clark case? This is certainly important and something that the article discusses at length, so I believe it warrants mention in the lead. One of the reasons why I did not approve of your version was that not only did it not have a "fairly large and coherent discussion" of Crane's literary importance (I see only one sentence, maybe two), but it introduced material that either cannot be verified (that Crane interviewed soldiers for research while writing Red Badge; it is highly speculated, but it cannot be proven) or simply does not appear in the body of the article. "Praised both for its evocative, impressionistic language and for its psychological realism" sounds great, but it appears nowhere. The lead should be a summary of how the article currently is, but a majority of your changes were clearly new. I also would like to remind you that enotes is certainly not a reliable source. I agree with other people's opinions so far in that the lead needs to be expanded, not culled. I still hold to the fact that the biographical details are pertinent in order to proper summarize the article. Although it is true that Crane lived a very short life, his life was anything but uneventful. ;) María (habla conmigo) 12:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Crane stated he wanted to see real war, so that's well established motivation, yours is speculative. When my lead stated 'accounts of veterans' I was of course referring to the written accounts of veterans Crane had read. As for minor details, do you still have the 'he wrote his first short story when he was 14' in the lead? The Dora Clark affair and other scandals could be referred to without over-specification, but I have nothing against referring to it directly. His life was important because of his writing, not the Clark or other 'scandals', and what from his life that seemed to have the largest impact on his writing was that he was perpetually broke. Again, it's irritating that you can't recognize a wide consensus that 'The Open Boat' is one of the greatest short stories written by an American. I've shown you britannica.com and enotes.com, but other sources are numerous. For example, I just googled "greatest short stories" and "open boat" and got 1,350 hits. And, assuming anything like "Praised both for its evocative, impressionistic language and for its psychological realism" _doesn't_ appear anywhere in the rest of the article, don't you think it should be recognized that Red Badge was emphatically and widely praised for those things? As I've said, the final 3 'evaluative/legacy' sections need to be improved.Haberstr (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

At no time did I reject "The Open Boat"'s importance. In fact, I added this very line to the "Legacy" section the other day, with a ref to Weatherford, which you referred me to (thanks, by the way): "Crane's short fiction has also left an impression on American literature; 'The Open Boat', 'The Blue Hotel', 'The Monster' and 'The Bride Comes to Yellow Sky' are generally considered by critics to be examples of Crane's best work." Red Badge is widely considered Crane's best work, and it's certainly his most popular, but I certainly don't want to exclude critical analysis and praise for his shorter fiction. More will undoubtedly be added in time, but I must emphasize the need for authoritative sources on such an opinion. We can do much better than enotes and Britannica and I already have a wide variety of sources at my fingertips. María (habla conmigo) 19:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but "left an impression on American literature" doesn't say a great deal. I think critical consensus is divided on whether 'Red Badge' or 'Open Boat' is his best work, but I think it generally leans toward 'The Open Boat'. Red Badge certainly had a far greater impact on publication, but that's a different matter.Haberstr (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to prove that a majority of critics believe "The Open Boat" to be Crane's best work? From everything I have encountered in my research, it is largely accepted that The Red Badge is not only his most popular work, but his most successful, well studied and critically discussed one. Google searches aside, the number of books dedicated to The Red Badge on any library shelf as compared to "The Open Boat" would prove this. His short stories have left an impression on American literature, but they're not what he is recognized for today. That's what the article states clearly, I think. María (habla conmigo) 18:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your conclusion was that "Red Badge is widely considered Crane's best work," and I hope you'll agree that's a shaky contention, especially noting the phrase 'widely considered.' As I said, my impression ('I think' is how I put it) is that from H.G. Wells forward most major critics have found "The Open Boat" to be his best and most mature work. Also, as I said, I'm talking about quality not popularity and impact. I mention this only because a wikipedia article should reflect critical consensus. By the way, I found your reaction to my edit of the September 1895 and so on paragraph(s) possessive and therefore unfortunate; your reaction to fairly minor moving around of words makes it hard to help.Haberstr (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There were too many mistakes in your previous edit for me not to correct them. "September 1895" should not have a comma after "September"; "effocative" is not a word; you left a dangling ref in the middle of a paragraph; Conrad does not "write", he "wrote", past tense; etc. Some of your changes were understandable and they remain, but unless you are more careful in your editing, of course I'm going to make the necessary corrections. There is nothing possessive about ensuring this article retains a professional standard. María (habla conmigo) 13:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope the non-response means you've retreated on the Red Badge vs. Open Boat issue. On your comments on your reversion of my edit: the word 'effocative' was not in the edit. If you had added the comma after September and changed 'write' to 'wrote' (either tense is permissible, but whatever), fine. But instead you basically reverted to your original copy. You apparently didn't see the purpose of my edit, which was to mark out smoothly for readers -- in the transitions and paragraphing -- the chronology of major events for Crane in the critical year of 1895. That's why, of course, the paragraph begins with 'in september 1895.'

I'm taking Awadewit's advice in regards to the treatment of Crane's so-called most noteworthy work; further research will ultimately be the deciding factor. This is my final reply as to my corrections of your previous edit as my time is better spent finishing this article: the word "effocative" most certainly appeared in your edit, past tense is assuredly the only grammatically correct tense to convey Conrad's opinion since he wrote about it in the past, and beginning the paragraph with "In September, 1895, and in sharp contrast to the reception for Crane's poetry" is sloppy. Without the "in sharp contrast", etc. part it would read fine, but otherwise it is an overly long and awkward intro. As for establishing chronology, the first paragraph in the section already does so by beginning: "At the end of January 1895". Like I said, several of your changes remain, but obvious errors will of course be corrected, either by me or by someone else. I just happen to be quick on the draw. María (habla conmigo) 19:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think the current lead is good. While there's nothing really wrong with the one written by Haberstr, I concur that bios of literary people should have a discussion of the literary qualities in the lead. It's important to provide a quick summary of why the author's work has stood the test of time. (I actually like the formula: 1-2 ¶s on bio, 1 ¶ on style, 1 ¶ on themes.)

I would point out that there is a problem with the sentence beginning: Prolific throughout his short life, Crane's work includes novels... The first phrase is a faulty modifier – it presumes "Crane" is the subject of the sentence, when in fact it is currently "Crane's work". I propose: "Prolific throughout his short life, Crane published novels..."

Good luck with this important article! – Scartol • Tok 15:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(Doh! Thanks, Scartol, I've fixed the goof.) María (habla conmigo) 16:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead is comprehensive and engaging, as it should be, particularly if it's going to FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not wish this article to stay a GA. It will hopefully one day become an FA, and seeing as how recently promoted literature-related biographies tend to have comprehensive leads (as Awadewit stated above, most people do not get any further), I think it important that the lead be expanded -- but not on biographical details, rest assured; I think we're pretty much covered there. :) While you think some of the biographical details are superfluous, I disagree. I don't know if we can reach a compromise on this, but the consensus from experienced, impartial editors seems to be that what is currently mentioned in the lead is satisfactory. There are also no other concerns with wordcount. I have, however, removed several items per your suggestions, including the "he wrote his first short story when he was 14". I also removed any explicit reason for why he accepted his first war correspondent assignment since it will always be subjective (he was broke, he was unhappy, he was restless, etc). Oh, and taking Ruhrfisch's point into account, I added the fact that Red Badge was written without any battle experience. Any other suggestions? María (habla conmigo) 20:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Words like Naturalism, Realism, and so on shouldn't be capitalized. I may also just make some other minor corrections on the usual take it or leave it basis. For example, I'll 'repair' the paragraphing and sentence structuring when the bio reaches the intro of the Red Badge.Haberstr (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, artistic movements should be capitalized because they are proper nouns like Middle Ages or the Renaissance. María (habla conmigo) 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Google them and you'll see that lower-case is the common practice (except in titles, of course).Haberstr (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong (and so is common practice, it would seem). They are proper nouns and should therefore remain capitalized. You would not write that Keats was a "romantic poet" -- he was a "Romantic poet". The same goes for other literary movements. María (habla conmigo) 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Common practice can't be 'wrong'. You're being bullheaded on this matter, rowing against common practice; the common practice got that way because your way creates excessive capitalization, which as you can see just looks bad.Haberstr (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not being "bullheaded". Ask any English professor and I'm sure they will tell you I am correct. Again, please do not make major edits to the lead that introduce new information and which go against consensus; let's discuss your concerns first. María (habla conmigo) 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest taking a brief break from the lead? I often find the lead to be the most difficult section to write. Working on it intermittently during article development and then in a big spurt at the "end" tends to work for me. This might help solve the problem of what Crane works are most noteworthy, for example. After more research has been done, this question won't need any debate. It will be obvious. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving towards FAC

Due to some very helpful comments at the ongoing peer review, I thought it would be helpful to make a to-do list of sorts. These points (from top to low priority) should be completed or at least addressed before nominating this article at WP:FAC, which will hopefully be possible before the end of the month:

• Develop separate "Novels" and "Short stories" subsections under "Fiction and poetry".
• Expand on Crane's style and technique.
• Read through to check for redundancies, MOS intricacies.
• Search for additional free images other than portraits (book covers, important places, friends/family, etc).

• Added three additional photos, all from the Commons; image showing The Bowery circa 1896, a portrait of The Commodore, and a pic of Crane's tombstone. María (habla conmigo) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

More to come as I run across them. Will strike and comment as they are completed... María (habla conmigo) 15:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Realism?

The opening paragraph asserts that "The Red Badge of Courage" (published in 1895) is an early example of Realism. Realism had been one of the, if not the, dominant forms of fiction for many years at that point. Does the author mean "Naturalism", or is there a citation for this particular claim that might explain this seemingly erroneous statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.31.223 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That was unclear, sorry about that; American literary Realism is what was meant. Red Badge is often thought of as a Realistic text as opposed to Naturalistic, and although Realism was quite big in Europe for years before its publication, I'm positive that several critics have deemed it an "early" example from the American period. That said, the line ("...and an early example of Realism") is somewhat redundant since as much is said in the previous paragraph, so I've removed it. Better? María (habla conmigo) 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. Actually, I was talking specifically about American literary realism as well. "The Red Badge of Courage" was published 15-20 years after much of the foundational work of realism was laid down by the likes of Twain, Howells, and James. I suppose if you want to take the long view of realism as a steady, if evolving, school of American fiction (seen in the works of say Hemingway or even later in Carver and Updike) then I guess you could say that yeah Crane is "early". However, within the more specific field of what is typically called American literary realism, I don't know that you could call him early; one might even call him a late realist as he straddles the boundary between realism and naturalism (in his work in general, and in that novel in particular). I'd be happy to see any sources you have for this claim. I'd like to be disabused if I am wrong about this, especially as I will soon be teaching some Crane. At any rate, I suppose it doesn't matter, as you've removed the line and it is a good edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.31.223 (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking through my sources, I'm not exactly sure where I came by that statement. I don't think I miswrote (perhaps it was just one outdated biographer, like Beer or Berryman, who said as much), but just in case I did, I'm glad the statement is now gone. :) The consensus is that Red Badge is an important example of Realism, and that's what the article should explain once it has been fleshed out more. You're definitely correct that Crane "straddles" (good word) both Realism and Naturalism, and critics often attribute the same characteristics to both literary movements, but strictly speaking Crane wasn't exactly an innovator. One critic (I believe it was Davis) wrote that Crane improved upon what other writers had done before him, and I have to agree. If you have any other thoughts/corrections, don't hesitate to speak up! María (habla conmigo) 13:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

H.G. Wells and pretty much everyone else upon reading Red Badge of Courage in the 1890s disagrees with the notion that Crane was not particularly innovative. In every literary expert's eyes there was no precedent to its style. He was in fact _the_ innovative writer in the English-speaking world of the 1890s. Crane was "one of the first American exponents of the naturalistic style of writing," and his two volumes of poetry "are important early examples of experimental free verse" (from Stephen Crane entry, MSN Encarta). Whatever its quality, his verse (so innovative it was 'lines' and not 'verse') was not an incremental improvement on someone else's style. Or see Bernardo in booknotes: "Stephen Crane has been called the first modern American writer, and there is good reason for that claim." Or Spiller in The Literary History of the United States and its statement that "modern American fiction was born" upon the republication of Maggie in 1896. That's three spectacular innovations: the free verse, the graphic, unsentimentalized naturalism of Maggie, and the dense, imagery and irony filled style of all his best work (after Maggie), introduced to the world by Red Badge. Haberstr (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article already addresses this claim (and has for some time), so no worries. "Today, Crane is considered one of the most innovative American writers of the 1890s." Lead section, first paragraph, with source. It's also reiterated in the "Legacy" section. I would like to point out, however, that I personally would not say that Crane was distinctly innovative. He did not invent free verse, or even popularize it; he may have even been inspired by Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson, both of whom predate him. I think that "innovation" entails change, meaning that in order to be innovative, an author must have significantly changed and/or influenced literature as a whole. Although Crane was somewhat influential to several authors, he didn't spearhead a specific movement, nor did he change American literature for better or worse; his work is considered by most to be uniquely his, which is what I meant by my comment above. This is all personal musings from my reading on the subject, though. It won't show up in the article, I promise. María (habla conmigo) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it was influential is a different matter, but I can't really see how 'Maggie' could be more innovative in the American context. It was the first work of American naturalism. And the best writers in the English-speaking world were floored by Red Badge and its complete stylistic newness. As you can read in the 'eulogy' by H.G. Wells. His poetry's inelegant rhythmlessness made Crane not even a 'poet' in a 19th century sense; Whitman and Dickinson contrast completely with Crane on this. Haberstr (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article seeks to show not only contemporary opinion regarding Crane's work, but current critical opinion, as well; things have changed since Wells wrote his eulogy, and the notable critics of today have the gift of hindsight. Regardless, the article covers most bases, so I'm not sure what we can possibly gain by debating established points. Can we get back to the article? María (habla conmigo) 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead, take two

I didn't agree with a majority of Haberstr's changes to the lead, so I did a premature mass revert. I apologize for my rashness which, I admit, gets the best of me sometimes. While some of the changes helped summarize the article, and are therefore greatly helpful, some of the information introduced is new to the article, is unsubstantiated, or borders on POV in how it was written. This is the version with which I tried to consolidate the two leads, and more could perhaps be done, but I do object to several specific changes:

• "Surrounded by writers in his own family" is awkward, and I don't believe it's needed. That his brother had connections from his newspaper work was important to Crane's start in the business, but that takes too much explanation for the lead for it to make sense. "Writers" makes it sound like he had novelists or poets in the family, which he didn't.
• "None of them knew the color of the sky" is a great line, but TMI for the lead, I feel. Besides, "The Open Boat" already gets an explanation regarding the Commodore, etc.
• http://www.poetryfoundation.org is not my idea of a reliable, reputable source. This page in particular does not cite its sources or who wrote the blurb.
• What does the addition of "adventuresome" accomplish in the first paragraph? Better it be implied than stated.
• Is Crane truly "inimitable"? We've already established that he was innovative, but the two are not synonymous.

So, let's discuss these points and anything else of concern. I'm guessing length is no longer an issue? :) María (habla conmigo) 22:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, another revert. I hate to push back again and again, but there are serious issues caused by recent edits. I mentioned weasel words in my edit summary, but I should have also mentioned WP:PEACOCK. "Adventuresome" would be an example of a peacock word, and so might "inimitable" if it cannot be substantiated, as I asked for above. Innovative =/ inimitable. Is there a reliable source to back this up? Also, what is wrong with the Benfey ref and/or the statement? It is used several times in the article and is from a reliable, reputable source, and has been repeated by several others, so I believe it should remain in the lead. Please, can we discuss before changes are made? María (habla conmigo) 17:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you see how this solves 'first realist' and 'one of best' 1890s innovator problems? Haberstr, it would be ideal if we could discuss any problems here on the talk page rather than through edit summaries. That is what this page is for, after all. I'm not sure what "first Realist" and "one of the best" refers to, since the lead does not state either of these. What it does state is that Crane is considered one of the most innovative writers, etc, which is different than saying that he was an innovator "of several literary fronts", which is confusing, I think. With the Benfey citation, that Crane is considered innovative by critics and writers cannot be disputed because it doesn't try to be too inclusive. This is the lead, after all. I must say that I like detailing Crane's body of work and different mediums; "Crane published novels, short stories and poems as well as non-fiction articles, dispatches and letters". Is it that this is too long, repetitive, what? We can discuss it, reword it, nix it, whatever; I'd just rather have a discussion about it first before it's "fixed" before I know what's wrong with it. Otherwise I don't think there is anything wrong with it and then we just have an edit war. Sigh. María (habla conmigo) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Surrounded by writers in his own family" is not awkward. Here's awkward: "His fiction is heralded as early examples of..." My phrase is a seven-word summary of a probably vital aspect of his immediate environment while growing up. But I'm not committed to it, take it or leave it. Oh, and 'writers in his family' doesn't 'make it seem' he had novelists in his family. That's nonsensical.

• I don't think it is. "Writers" is a vague term, and readers may have variously different interpretations of what it denotes; novelists? poets? Hart Crane? Unless we're going to explicitly define the term in order to give it universally understood context, I don't think it should be included. I think we can agree on this one, though.

• What does the addition of "adventuresome" accomplish: In one word it accurately informs readers of a central aspect of Crane's life. "Adventurous" is also okay.

• Again, I think it falls under WP:PEACOCK. It is less encyclopedic to tell the reader that Crane led an adventurous life when it's obvious from the descriptive biography.

• http://www.poetryfoundation.org is not my idea of a reliable, reputable source. Well, you're simply wrong. Here's their 'about' info: "The Poetry Foundation, publisher of Poetry magazine["Founded in Chicago by Harriet Monroe in 1912, Poetry is the oldest monthly devoted to verse in the English-speaking world."], is an independent literary organization committed to a vigorous presence for poetry in our culture. . . . the Poetry Foundation was established in 2003, evolving from the Modern Poetry Association, which was founded in 1941. The Poetry Foundation is one of the largest literary foundations in the world."

• I was mainly referring, of course, to the page on Crane that you linked to as a ref. Who was the essay written by? What makes them notable in the field? Just because it's hosted on the Foundation's website does not make it exempt from guidelines that govern reliable sources.

• Is Crane truly "inimitable"? Yes, he is, but I now think 'distinctive' is a better word. Innovative can't be used because it will be used very soon afterwards.

• Distinctive = peacock word. We should describe how he was distinctive, which I think the last paragraph in the lead currently does, rather than just say it. No fluff, just substance.

• I'm guessing length is no longer an issue? Length continues to be an issue but I'm compromising with you on that problem.
• "Crane published novels, short stories and poems as well as non-fiction articles, dispatches and letters": This is already in the first sentence, if (of course) you allow Crane to be described as a short story writer (one of the greatest short story writers in American literature) in addition 'novelist, poet and reporter'. It's nothing short of amazing that you cut out the phrase "short story writer" in the lead sentence.

• I cut it the first time, but it's currently in the lead.

• Someone else in the discussion section already pointed out to you that Crane was not an 'early' realist in any reasonable sense. I already argued with you that 'one of the most innovative writers of the 1890s' is damning Crane with faint praise. You bring up your single reference but I can cite H.G. Wells saying Crane was _the_ precursor of the modern era in writing. The point is to move past this problematic sentence. In my edit on those matters, I'm attempting to _avoid_ and _eliminate_ those conflicts between you and other editors.Haberstr (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find reliance on Wells and "contemporary" critics to be troubling mainly because, like Beer and Berryman, it's so very dated. Later critics, of course, have the gift of hindsight and can truly see Crane's impact on the literary world, rather than guess at it. So let's rely on more current sources for "proof". I understand the need to correct understatements, but your wording continues to bother me. Call me a picky English major if you must, but "While an innovator on several literary fronts" (direct quote), is awkward and vague. I prefer Benfey's assessment, which is something that other critics have echoed, and still fail to see what's problematic about it.
• As for the "early American Realism", you have a point, as did the anonymous user. Can we agree on (slight rewording of your original): "Crane wrote notable works in the Realist tradition as well as early examples of American Naturalism and Impressionism"?

By the way, it's also irritating (why do you avoid copying and pasting quoted material?) that you repeatedly misquote me. Latest example: I wrote "an innovator on several literary fronts" and you misquoted that as "an innovator _of_ several literary fronts."Haberstr (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the one letter mistake on my part. I will endeavor to c&p more in the future. María (habla conmigo) 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)