Talk:William Empson

Private Life

Worth having I think because it was colourful. Died of cirrhosis of the liver but 'never an alcoholic', according to Haffenden. (I've seen the same from a worshipful biographer of Liszt: two bottles of brandy a day but 'never an alcoholic'.) There's also a good interview with Frank Kermode on YouTube where he describes him as a 'horrible man' and habitually insulting, though in mitigation he was 'always slightly drunk'. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgACSipn_wM) There's also a memoir by one of the sons, Jacob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sartoresartus (talk • contribs) 11:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The Face of the Buddha

Time to update Empson's bibliography: (from The Literary Review).The publication of this wonderful book (The Face of Buddha) is not far short of a miracle – a corny word that would have made Sir William Empson harrumph, irritable scientific rationalist that he was. Until about ten years ago, Empson’s admirers (our name is Legion, for we are many) had assumed that the only manuscript of The Face of the Buddha had vanished forever – it was often rumoured to have been destroyed in the Blitz, until the first volume of John Haffenden’s invaluable Empson biography (published in 2005) established that it was in fact the man of letters John Davenport who had left it in a taxi when very, very drunk, circa 1947... 82.53.158.110 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've put a very rudimentary section in, just to have it there, which you're more than welcome to improve.Sartoresartus (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

This page needs urgent attention to basic intro, which was deleted clumsily. But this is not my field of expertise. Robma 22:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This entry is brilliant, and a credit to the whole idea of the Wikipedia. I hope subsequent emendations do no damage to the structure and information laid down here.

This is one of my fields of expertise. I am a former literary criticism reference series editor. I have never seen a more incisive, accurate, illuminating, well-judged summary of Empson's place in the history of literary criticism. Let it stand. TNH 04:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)TNH

Photo

The photo smells like ad... why do we have to take a photo from a book cover ? I read it's a great book about Empson, but anyway. Will look for a neutral photo.--84.189.100.34 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Matthias

Maybe cropping out the title would be enough? The picture seems to be a fairly good one. 71.225.231.211 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The photo tag also puts the question of fair use and low resolution; I don't think the uploader is bothered. I doubt any Empson pics are in the public domain as his heirs are still with us. This cover might be taken from something like Amazon, and thus from the publisher's promotional material. We should crop it and give the copyright, if anyone knows what it is.Sartoresartus (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Gresham college

I'm adding his Gresham College professorship, and pulling career info into one §. Hope this Ok by everyone. JackyR 22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing/publishing poetry

While Empson published very little poetry after 1940 John Haffenden's biography shows that he continued writing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.114.111.2 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

POV

THis article is far from neutral. It heas unsouced praise on the mans work. Needs to e re-worked

I, more or less, wrote the entirety of this article - some emendations, slight but needed, have been made by others. I should like to avoid POV-related problems, but I need specific examples of 'unsourced praise of the man's work.' In defence of how I have written, old-style and even contemporary encyclopedias - very often the work of distinguished scholars and experts - cannot but be licensed to praise in order to carry the narrative flow and energy of the piece, as well as to warrant the entry in the first place. (Who gives a fuck about Empson? Partly, this article explains why one might.) Surely, neutrality doesn't imply the expurgation of all evaluative vocabulary? HieronymousB 03:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a well-written, interesting account of Empson's life and the significance of his work. Lines such as "...one hardly feels one is being preached to, rather one senses one is in the hands of a mind as astute politically and as sensitive morally as it is able in interpreting the poetic achievement of Gray." could be described as unsourced praise, and perhaps could be modified. Good article, nonetheless. Mick gold 10:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm removing the tone tag. This neurotic fear of POV and anything smelling of original research that possesses some wiki editors can be counterproductive, especially in biographies of the dead where there's no suspicion of any vested interests being served (other than perhaps John Haffenden's cottage industry). It tends to kill any lively accounts stone dead and litter them with pointless footnotes laboriously proving that the sun rises in the East. Empson isn't a political organisation where you have to watch for the partisan spin, so I think we ought instead to take this as corrective model for many a dreary entry that's been NPOV'd within an inch of its life. HieronymusB is also right to point to meatspace encyclopedias, which tend on the whole to be vastly livelier and more readable than our collective efforts here (we suffer the disease of all committees). Mind you, the length is at the very upper limit of what I find tolerable. Sartoresartus (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, I'd also at least reference the biography and give the sources for the Kermode and Bloom evaluations in the intro. I can't tell which of the Kermode links at the bottom is paraphrased in the intro. Sartoresartus (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge

According to my records, Empson received a Cambridge MA in 1935. Also I can't think how he could have been banished from the city of Cambridge. I've amended the article. Millbanks (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the story as re-told by Frank Kermode based on the biography. It may well be that the university had the power to banish him from all property owned by the university and colleges, which doesn't leave much Cambridge, so I'd restore that unless you've got convincing evidence that this was impossible. Sartoresartus (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Haffenden, Among the Mandarins (at 38% of my Kindle edition), writes the decision by Magdalene College to strike Empson from the books and remove him from the university 'meant that technically he could no longer reside in the city of Cambridge.' This must be due to the statutes, which can't concern us here, but I think we can take that as read. I'll footnote it. Sartoresartus (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Quote

Shouldn't the quotations section be moved to Wikiquote? I'm not sure how to do it myself, but maybe someone with more expertise... AdjectiveAnimal (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the article has "you have to separate off the author (in the phrase that Radek used) as a man ripe for fascism." But that's wrong. It's Gorki, not Radek. See p 17 of "Some Versions of Pastoral". Andy Denis 15:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Denis (talk • contribs)

Citations

I've removed the refimprove tag at the top and some 'citation needed' tags in the body. It's agreed that the entry is slightly thin on footnotes (see above); it's also agreed that this is an exemplary entry. The two biographies are given in the bibliography, and I don't see how supplying page numbers for each perfectly innocuous factual statement is going to bolster them any. Notice that the tag explains that unsupported statements may be challenged: let those who urgently believe matters to be otherwise make their case first before we litter the text with needless tags. I've footnoted my own edits where they differ, that seems a more sensible way forward Sartoresartus (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Jackson

According to critic and journalist Kevin Jackson: "William Empson (1906-1984) was one of the two or three greatest literary critics of the twentieth century, a fine and uncommonly influential poet, and a remarkably original philosopher, linguist and polymath, whose spryly-carried range of learning encompassed mathematics, anthropology, physics and Buddhist art. He was also a magnificent English eccentric, whose rackety progress from Cambridge to Japan and China was crammed with amorous scandals, bohemian revelries, sober heroism and low farce. All these aspects of the great man received generous, judicious and eloquent attention in John Haffenden's superb biography William Empson: Volume I: Among the Mandarins."[citation needed]

This text is included in the article on Haffenden; if a reliable source can be found for it it might be added to Empson's article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)