Talk:The Raven/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Which way is up?

Does anyone have a third party source which comments upon the orientation of the final image for Manet's illustration? An editor has removed the featured version, citing this as a source. The existing featured picture retains the orientation from the version that appears in the Library of Congress rare book collection, which is a full book scan from the 1875 first edition.[1][2] Durova⁴¹² 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is good fun, not good faith. Apologies if that is not the case, but the onus is on you to prove it and that that printing error is notable. cygnis insignis 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As explained in this edit summary,[3] Midnightdreary and I have been reverting to the consensus per the image's featured picture candidacy. Durova⁴¹² 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cygnis, I think a good faith assumption would have made it understood that help was sought, regardless of burden of proof (isn't that the point of collaboration?). Durova, at this point, I think it's best to just use whatever featured image makes the most sense to you (I'm not keen enough on them). If the one illustration is upset down, be it by Manet's wishes or otherwise, it would be sensible to make sure the text of the article (not the caption) explains this with reliable sources, if that's the one used. Otherwise, maybe it's best to use a different Manet? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that bundles this discussion with the unresolved thread above. Since this is a featured picture set the featured picture participants would prefer that all images be used. Durova⁴¹² 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Headed over to Google Books to see what the sources over there have to say. The 1875 printing was a limited run of 240 copies[4][5] that is “universally praised as brilliant examples of lithography”.[6]

The preparation and publication of the volume was a complex storey. For Mallarmé and Manet, it was a labor of love whose public impact fell far short of the collaborators’ expectations. The large format and the startlingly bold illustrations in an ‘unrealistic’ oriental brush technique ran counter to all the norms of the day, and only a few very enlightened observers were able to appreciate its qualities. As in many other of Mallarmé’s publishing ventures, this work, which now commands universal respect and admiration, was a resounding commercial failure.”[7]

The image we're discussing is counted as either the fourth or the fifth illustration in these sources, depending upon whether the reviewer counts the bookplate as the first of the series. Although this search was unable to locate a specific discussion of the intended orientation of this image, they do discuss the unconventionality of these illustrations and universal respect and praise for the publishing.

It is possible to double check the orientation of Wikipedia's featured picture against the orientation of surrounding pages on the Library of Congress copy:[8] click "prev image" and "next image" to confirm that the spine orientation on this page corresponds properly. Durova⁴¹² 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I never realized that the FP precedent leans towards the use of all pictures from a set like this. Perhaps a gallery is in order? But, definitely, add more article text to support their inclusion. The "upside-down or not" question is beyond me, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is is analogous to writing [sic] within quoted text: when in doubt, reproduce the source faithfully and make a notation. Durova⁴¹² 01:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is another scan of the same edition with the image oriented "right way up". Hesperian 12:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you guys have already seen it. So we have one scan of a book with an upside-down plate, one scan of a book with a right-way-up plate, and no reliable sources making any comment whatsoever on the unusual orientation of a plate in at least one, but apparently not all, copies. I must say this doesn't look like a very difficult problem: the existence of at least one book in which the plate is not upside-down tips the scales in favour of the "the binder screwed up" rationale. And the absence of any reliable sources noting unusual plate orientations prevents us from noting it. Where is the difficulty? Hesperian 13:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The unusual orientation comes from a direct scan of the rare first edition, which is very highly regarded by art historians. No source that Wikipedians have been able to locate states that the original printer made any error; if this were an error it would be a major one. There is an inherent ambiguity to the orientation of this illustration since the subject is a shadow on a floor, and a plausible possibility that a reversed position signature could have been intentional. I have contacted a professor of art history who is intrigued by the dilemma and has agreed to research it. It may take a few days. Durova⁴¹² 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm copying some of my comments here, from common's talk pages. This is an excerpt from Le Corbeau [emphasis added]:

And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting—still is sitting On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door; And his eyes have all the seeming of a Demon's that is dreaming, And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor; And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor Shall be lifted—nevermore! alt text=this is

"[...] There is no reason to read anything more into this, it was an insignificant and not uncommon error unless sources state otherwise. ... [to which I then added, shortly after] Here is a source produced by searching on the title Le Corbeau and Manet Manet's silence and the poetics of bouquets. There is an example of a description of significant elements, at page 145, and the author identifies the same line I emphasized in the poem; so you [could] add this to caption if you edit the article again. The possibility remains that a book hunter has noted any printing errors, that might be notable in an article about the book itself - in fact that is a good idea for an article! "

• Point 2. The question remains unanswered, why was the other Manet image in his article rotated by the user and this one not! cygnis insignis 19:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has fragmented across three different pages on two WMF projects. For clarity, the other locations are here and here. The source cygnis insignis cites does not address the relevant discrepancy and the other images's orientation is easily documented via third party sources and not disputed. Let's consolidate discussion here. We have a professor of art history researching the matter. Durova⁴¹² 20:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• "In the fourth plate, shadow has itself taken on life, becoming the most prominent form. At its bottom it resembles that cast by the bird perched upon the bust, but then in much freer strokes it becomes a dense vapour rising and trailing into oblivion." [emphasis added!]
• I didn't cherry-pick this ref above, it was the first link I clicked in a search. If there is a citation that contradicts this direct quote from the link above, show it, no ref supports this original position and all others, primary, secondary, third party and facsimile sources, contradict it. What citation accounts for the discrepancy in plate 2? This reflects my general dismay with the community, main-space becomes locked with these farcical debates, evasion of direct questions, and pseudo-scholarship, just keep it simple and everyone can enjoy sharing knowledge. Being accused of edit-warring really sucks as a first step to discussion. Enough was enough in this case, and the refs were more than enough to justify the removal of disputed content in a FA. The Professor, no matter his prestige, will have to publish his view to be cited here, so nothing is changing soon. cygnis insignis 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This has yet to address the problem that led to the initial discussion: What is our obligation to these FA images and how do we fulfill that? --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus at featured picture candidacy was to retain the orientation as it appears in the Library of Congress copy, with annotation. The art historian has promised to check both the LoC hosting and his copy of the Manet catalogue raisonné. The likely result of his research would confirm cygnis's interpretation and we'll reorient the image. There's also an outside chance that this discrepancy has gone undocumented, in which case it would be a notable find because it comes from a very rare first edition. It isn't unheard-of for Wikipedia's historic featured pictures to turn up information that had been overlooked by experts (one such instance made minor news last year). We handle that on a case by case basis if it arises. The professor said to expect an answer by the middle of next week. So let's wait a few days and see what happens. Durova⁴¹² 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarify something for me. Is not the gallica scan also of the "very rare first edition"? Hesperian 23:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that it is. Durova⁴¹² 23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I now see that there is a difference in the links. You have linked to a set of illustrations on gallica. I have linked to a the complete book scan on gallica. The title page of the book scan is here. It is dated 1875. Is this evidence? Hesperian 00:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) It is and it isn't. Yes, the Gallica copy is from the 1875 edition. Gallica has edited its scan for Web display, though. Only LoC posts every page including blank pages and the spine is clearly visible on each page so it is possible with LoC (but not Gallica) to cross-compare neighboring pages and confirm that each has its original printed orientation. Note the difference on one of the other illustrations: LoC, Gallica. If you want I could dig up a third party reference which confirms that the printer did do a 90 degree rotation on that other image: it appears in its original orientation on LoC but not on Gallica. Durova⁴¹² 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Hesperian 00:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of restoration when one does not turn a work right side up? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Raven actually said "Lenore" the first time it spoke?

Suppose the narrator doubts his own insistence that the raven can only say "Nevermore" because he knows that the first thing the Raven said was "Lenore" (when he thought it was a humanish visitor even perhaps the lost Lenore). He subsequently convinces himself that this was not said by the raven yet rightfully doubts this event that came before answering the door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.194.35 (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Per some discussion on WT:FPC...

I've tweaked the images here. Why use the weakest of the Manet images, particularly when we have a Doré illustration of the same exact lines which is far stronger? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose "far stronger" is subjective. I actually liked the bust of Pallas as it shows the allusion more literally. The images are less diverse now because they are all illustrations. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe, but it's a little original research-y for my tastes. The various artists' illustrations all directly connect to the poem (of course), but the bust of Pallas is one connection distant.

As for far stronger: I was referring to the following.

• 
  Doré image of the ending. Strong & striking
• 
  Manet image of the ending: Not horrible, but weaker than the Doré, and not as detailed as Manet's other work. Works well in context of the other Manet images, but not on its own so much.

We may as well use the Manet images that illustrate parts of the poem we haven't illustrated with other artists; I don't see any good reason to use the E2 (see filename) Manet in preference to any of the others. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Raven Opera

A new opera based on The Raven was composed by Matt Rogers for the Grimeborn Festival in August 2010. The opera is for baritone, clarinet, and dancer. It is half an hour long. There are thirteen movements, each based on a fragment of text from the poem. There are two clarinet solos, each accompanying a dance. The dancer plays the part of The Raven; the singer plays The Man. The clarinet represents the passage of time, and moves around the circular playing area during the performance, imitating the hands of a clock.

Details of performances can be found here: www.thekingsheadtheatre.org.

November 2010 performances are on 21st, 22nd, 23rd at 10pm.

Thanks for the advertisement. This page, however, is not meant to be all-inclusive; or, better said, it's meant to be exclusive. Unless you have a reliable source that suggests this particular interpretation is notable among the myriad other interpretations of "The Raven", it should not be on this page. Perhaps you could try The Raven in popular culture but, again, just because it exists, does not meant it must be included. Is the composer notable, for example, or the festival itself? The best test for this might be to see if either has a Wikipedia page. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Genesis Raven

Um, I'm no Bble scholar, but I do own a Bible and I have read the account as found in Genesis. In all the versions of the Hebrew Bible, there is never any mention made of a white raven being released and turned black for not returning. It's true, two ravens were released before the famouse dove was, however, the entire episode mentions nothing of any transformation of any kind. 96.225.220.222 (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)RalisII

It's not from the Bible. It's Hebraic folklore, just like the article states. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, until I read this. I thought the Hebraic folklore was in explanation of the sentence immediately prior, "The raven also gets a reputation as a bird of ill omen in the book of Genesis." Since they are actually two separate ideas, then the first sentence is missing an explanation-- I don't see the raven as an ill omen in Genesis. A source is cited, but without an explanation in the article, it would be better without that sentence. Slim (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I swapped out "book of Genesis" with "story of Genesis". I'm not sure if this is more or less misleading. Let me know what you think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The "dread" theme is not new to poetry. Consider the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, written many years earlier by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Still, Poe did write what was clearly a classic. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Pike

How about a mention of Ingram's (1885) comparison to Albert Pike's Isadore. cygnis insignis 20:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Poem version

Can someone tell me which version of the poem is used? It doesn't correspond to any of the ones in the link's. I would opt for the Full text of the final authorized printing, from the Richmond Semi-Weekly Examiner, 1849, linked at the bottom of the page.--151.16.111.65 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The full text of the poem is given in the article as a courtesy, not specifically required by Wiki policy or the guidelines of Wikiproject Poetry. That said, we might as well get it right. A recent attempt to that end was recently reverted. Can we discuss this here? I recommend citing sources for whatever version we suggest (and ultimately decide on). --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, after 4 months no comments, I'm putting back the Full text of the final authorized printing. The current version is a mix between the first and final version, which makes no sense... Turgonml 15:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turgonml (talk • contribs)

Hmm... not a single comment, eh? Not even the one I left above? Like I said, whatever you decide, let's have a source for it, and not just take anyone's word for it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I should cite the link at the bottom of the poem right? What's the best way to do this? I'm still new here. BTW: wikisource only had the first version, i just added the Full text of the final authorized printing. 151.42.182.141 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to leave you hanging. Yeah, I think either a cite tag at the very end of the poem (after the last "nevermore") is good. I'm wondering if it would be even better right after the title "The Raven". A good source is probably the Poe Society (eapoe.org); they keep an accurate list of publications and full transcriptions. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Vincent Price

Vincent's video is now here: http://www.tomsoni.com/scrapbooks/the-raven.php Enjoliveur (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Octameter

I have no expertise in meter, so don't wish to call into question the analysis given here and in many sources, but rather to satisfy my own curiosity I wonder if someone could explain to me on what basis this poem is analysed as being in trochaic octameter. It strikes me as an artificial and arbitrary choice to say that each line is an octameter with a great deal of internal rhyming, rather than analyse these as two lines, each a tetrameter, with a more conventional rhyme. Certainly the sense does little to suggest that these should be interpreted as longer lines. Is it simply that Poe wrote lines of eight feet? Or is there a more concrete explanation that can be given? Thank you. Che Gannarelli (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Each line is, um, only one line, and each line happens to be in eight feet. Poe himself refers to it as octameter in his essay and even had to ask for the typical two-column page arranged as a single column for the lines to fit in print. I've never seen any scholar dispute this. Not sure where this is confusing... why would you arbitrarily break a line in half? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be interested to read the essay you mention. I'm not interested in disputing anything, and fully acknowledge that there appears to be no controversy whatsoever on this matter. I suppose I don't fully understand what makes a line an objectively identifiable unit beyond the author's choice. If it is simply a matter of the author's choice, then I'm fully satisfied with that explanation. If not, then the question stands, as one could declare any poem with a thoroughly convetional meter and rhyme scheme to have an unconventional meter with internal rhyme, simply by changing what one chooses to analyse as a line. I don't pretend to have knowledge of the conventions of verse analysis, or to raise controversy where none exists. I'm just curious. Again, I suppose the question simply reduces to, 'What makes a line a line?' --Che Gannarelli (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what's so confusing about the definition of "line" - it's the spot where you hit the "return" button on the typewriter. No one is breaking anything off arbitrarily and the reader should never have to analyze or, really, do any work at all to determine where a line begins or ends; the poem was designed with these breaks (i.e. the first "line" of "The Raven" is "Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary"). Poe's essay, by the way, is "The Philosophy of Composition". --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand this, and do not quite feel that I deserve to be patronized. I will gladly accept the definition that a line is a line because it's written on a line, and that it is entirely a matter of where the author elects to begin a new line, but that simply struck me as having little to do with rhythm and structure, and everything to do with textual formatting. Put another way, it seemed very much that a line of octameter with internal rhyme was homeomorphic to a rhyming couplet of tetrameter. I was trying to discover, perhaps, what was being achieved by presenting the lines as being twice as long as they might otherwise be. Anyway. Many thanks for the essay. --Che Gannarelli (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for coming across as patronizing; it wasn't my intention, as I really am trying to help. My point ultimately was that a line is written as a line and no analysis should ever be made to determine where a line is; it's not like the poem was written like prose as one line of text and it's up to us, the reader, to add in line breaks. The rhythm and structure is built into that line the way the author built it, and it's no more complicated than that. Choosing to break a poet's line because you have a better way to format it goes against the poet's method. If Poe had meant to use a tetrameter, he'd have written a four-foot line. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That's all I wanted to know, really. I was being unfair describing you as patronizing, there, and I apologize. Thanks for the help. --Che Gannarelli (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia can someone ask the question, "What makes a line a line?" And not be immediately banned for complete idiocy. Hope you feel lucky that midnightdreary is a nicer person than the both of us, because I would have just referred you to the essay and told you to sod off. 16:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

poetic structure

"rhyme with the word 'nevermore'". Certainly true, but would one not consider the rhyming with "Leonor", too, to be more significant, as the entire poem thereby is "soaked" with the narrator's beloved one? No source for this interpretation though. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Version??

I am a simple Wikipedian, and I see that the version on 26 May was the one matching the mentioned source. Now it has been reverted under the comment: it was already in the form as mentioned in the source. But the source looks different, is like the one that has been reverted,.... So who is in the right? Sort it out please...Super48paul (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have been unclear in my edit description. The poem as it is displayed in this article already has a source, to which the poem text should match. The new edit altered the poem to make it match a different version of the poem, without changing the source. If there is already a source (or footnote, or citation), it should match that source. If a new version is introduced, the new source has to come with it into the article. Does that make sense? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it should make sense I suppose... But I leave it to you guys/girls to optimize this entry. As long you are aware of the discrepancies noted by a Wikipedian strolling by... Good luck!Super48paul (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for strolling by. But you do realize the current version is without a discrepancy, whereas the edit that was reverted added a discrepancy? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation

'...the bird, who acts only as he has been trained to act "by some unhappy master".'

The article states that as if fact. However, from the poem:

"Doubtless," said I, "what it utters is its only stock and store, Caught from some unhappy master, whom unmerciful disaster Followed fast and followed faster, till his songs one burden bore,

It can be seen that this is only speculation by the narrator.

-- A problem in the Overview section of the article: "the narrator becomes angry, calling the raven a 'wretch'..."

The lines relevant in the poem:

"`Wretch,' I cried, `thy God hath lent thee - by these angels he has sent thee Respite - respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore! Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe, and forget this lost Lenore!'

The narrator is calling himself a wretch, and bidding himself to take the nepenthe. If he were calling the raven a wretch, he'd apparently be telling the raven to drink and forget Lenore. (Considering the raven's ill treatment of Lenore's memory, that may not be a bad idea...)

I think it should be changed.

Thank you, anonymous poster! I think you're right on this one. The current text no longer says that the narrator called the raven a "wretch." :) --Midnightdreary 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

An interesting thing is that this article claims the poem is about a talking raven that instigates the narrator. I don't think it's about the raven at all. I don't even think the raven is real. I think the raven is a hallucination of the narrator, which is why it instigates his misery. It personifies his misery so he can have an argument with himself. I mean, he is going mad. He is an unreliable narrator. I think the poem is a character piece about his descent into despair, alone and mad. An appeal to our fear of that in ourselves. Of course, I could just be giving Poe too much credit. But I can't imagine anyone acclaiming this poem while believing the raven is a real character. There must be some talk about this somewhere. I can't be the only one to have thought of this.50.168.176.243 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sp.?

Assume there's a reason visitor is spelled "visiter" in the first stanza. Sca (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Poe. My guess is that it was written that way because it was a fairly standard spelling convention for the word at the time. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's written that way three times (or should I say "thrice"?): once in the first stanza and twice in the third. The text is credited here to the website of the Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore, and they should know: at that site they have a massive comparative listing of versions and publications of the poem, and of Poe's corrections and modifications. The "visiter" spelling is used in all three occurrences of the word in the text they give. I think we can trust their expertise and let the matter rest.
 

And so do other Wikipedians! I just went to look at the text of the article, with the idea of inserting an invisible comment, and this is what I saw:

{{not a typo|visiter|reason=original spelling}}

Solved and settled. --Thnidu (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Satan, and nepenthe

In the section that mentions the underworld, I mentioned the allusion to Satan, called "Tempter." I also removed "At another point, the narrator imagines that Seraphim (a type of angel) have entered the room. The narrator thinks they are trying to take his memories of Lenore away from him using nepenthe, a drug mentioned in Homer's Odyssey to induce forgetfulness." I replaced this with a discussion of nepenthe before the discussion of the balm of Gilead, since that is the order in the poem. I don't think the poem supports specifically the notion that the angels are seraphim, or even that the narrator actually imagines or sees angels. I also think the narrator is referring to some metaphorical relief from the memories, rather than an actual sample of Homer's amnesia-inducing drink.

The synopsis suggests clearly that Lenore is dead. I didn't change this, but I'm not sure if Poe intended that, and perhaps it should just say "lost." Roches (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The angels are seraphim, or at least the narrator imagines them as much: "Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer / Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor." I think the previous version before your edits were much better in emphasizing these are allusions rather than synopses, as the subsection is headed. Further, there was strong opposition to quoting lines of the poem without a footnote (as you did here) during the featured article review process. I caution, too, and as you already know, that it is not up to us to interpret the poem or determine which parts should be literal or metaphorical. Frankly, I think we could do better in sourcing the interpretation and allusions already here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Raven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927070214/http://www.gallery-diabolus.com/gallery/upload/utisz/Poe%20d.jpg to http://www.gallery-diabolus.com/gallery/upload/utisz/Poe%20d.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927070159/http://www.gallery-diabolus.com/gallery/upload/utisz/Poe%20hengerrel%20d.jpg to http://www.gallery-diabolus.com/gallery/upload/utisz/Poe%20hengerrel%20d.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Raven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928004432/http://www.ingramgallery.com/price_raven.htm to http://www.ingramgallery.com/price_raven.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Dore raven shadow2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Dore raven shadow2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 31, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An illustration by Gustave Doré for Edgar Allan Poe's narrative poem "The Raven", accompanying the poem's final lines "And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor/Shall be lifted—nevermore!"

First published in January 1845, "The Raven" tells of a man who, pining for his lost love Lenore, falls into madness as he is barraged by a talking raven's repeated calls of "Nevermore!". This poem, which has often been noted for its musicality, stylized language, and supernatural atmosphere, makes numerous references to folklore, mythology, religion, and classical antiquity. It has been widely reprinted, parodied, and illustrated.Engraving: Gustave Doré; Restoration: Lise Broer

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Raven Manet C2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 24 October 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-10-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

This picture is an illustration by Édouard Manet for a French publication of Edgar Allan Poe's narrative poem "The Raven". In the poem, a raven flies into the narrator's home through the window and perches on a bust of Pallas Athena. The narrator asks the bird a series of questions, to which the bird's only reply is "Nevermore". Eventually, the narrator falls into despair and ends with his final admission that his soul is trapped beneath the raven's shadow and shall be lifted "nevermore". Originally published in 1845, the poem was widely popular and made Poe famous, although it did not bring him much financial success. "The Raven" has influenced many modern works and is referenced throughout popular culture in films, television, music, and more.Illustration credit: Édouard Manet; restored by Lise Broer

Again? It's been less than a year since last time. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good point. This is not the same picture so it deserves its place in the sun, but it doesn't have to be now. I've pushed it back to 2020. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

‘Poe, however, claimed’

This reads very much as if Poe is wrong on this point. But if you actually look at the verses, you'll quickly realise that Poe is right, which is unsurprising, considering he's the author. So what do you guys mean with ‘Poe, however, claimed’? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Version for Narrator and Orchestra

In 1921, the Russian musician Arcady Dubensky (1890-1966) left Russia, where he had trained at the Moscow Conservatory, to become a violinist in the New York Philharmonic and pursue a career as a composer. Leopold Stokowski took a great interest in Dubensky's works and premiered his 'Melo-Declamation' for Narrator and Orchestra on Edgar Allen Poe's 'The Raven' on 9 December 1932. The Narrator was a young singing student named Benjamin de Loache (1906-1994) and the Philadelphia Orchestra provided the accompaniment. The performance was repeated the following evening and both of them were recorded by RCA Victor. The result was a pair of 10" 78rpm 'picture records' on which were featured engravings of Poe and Stokowski as well as the complete poem. The recording was issued on CD in 1994 by Cala Records and again more recently by Pristine Audio. In view of the fact that the Dubensky arrangement has not been mentioned anywhere in here so far, presumably it is acceptable to provide a link to the Cala CD reissue on YouTube! ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKsR-ZWtlQU - Philipson55 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why every adaptation or reference to "The Raven", one of the most famous poems in the English language, needs to be included here. See, for example: WP:CRUFT, WP:POPCULTURE. Consider instead The Raven in popular culture. And, no, it's probably not a good idea to include YouTube links. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Full text of poem

I removed the full text of the poem; this is already covered by Wikisource. Volland 19:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting it back. I see no reason why the full text of the poem should not be included; after all, the article is about the poem, isn't it? It's just plain stupid not to have the full text of a poem in an encyclopedia article about that poem. –Gravinos (Politics is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 21:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it is stupid NOT to have the text here. When I Google the poem and was brought here, that was what I was expecting. But since it wasn't here, I had to find a completely different website to find it. Don't be a jerk by removing stuff. What harm is it ehre anyways? It's not like Wikipedia is running out of space or something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.98.119 (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this beats the record of responding to old comments (about seven years, folks). Nevertheless, to respond to your concern ("But since it wasn't here..."): them poem is, in fact, included right here in this article. Further, there are several links at the bottom that take you to other places to read the poem. Sorry we made it so difficult for you. As an encyclopedia, the bigger concern is not presenting the text of the poem, but encyclopedic information about the poem. Isn't it great we can do both without running out of space? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue with this approach is "when do you stop including?" how long, how many, which? On the philosophy of inclusion it means all works would be here. The basic premise has been that the works (of whatever length) belong at Wikisource, and then are fully cited with the version and source; whereas Wikipedia includes the encyclopaedic content. There may be a snippet that includes part of the work for examples or as part of the encyclopaedia. I would again push for the removal of the full work from the article, may be start with the lead-in stanza, and then link off to the work at enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I second this response. The full text of the poem could be included in a section titled ‘the poem itself’. Wikisource aside. Thewolfde (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The full text of the poem is literally in the first section of this article. (Also, another record-breaking response to an old comment: 16 years!) --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Text and audio

Text and audio versions in this article do not match! 37.29.242.165 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)