Talk:Thomas Love Peacock
|WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Thames||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Is the illiterate bit about the deodorant true? Meanwhile, I shall attempt to improve it.Rothorpe 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Indeed, further investigation shows it to be complete nonsense, so have removed it Rothorpe 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"Peacock's own place in literature is pre-eminently that of a satirist. That he has nevertheless been the favourite only of the few is owing partly to the highly intellectual quality of his work, but mainly to his lack of ordinary qualifications of the novelist, all pretension to which he entirely disclaims. He has no plot, little human interest, and no consistent delineation of character. His personages are mere puppets, or, at best, incarnations of abstract qualities such as grace or beauty.
His comedy is Aristophanic. He suffers from that dramatist's faults and, though not as daring in invention, shares many of his strengths."
OK, who wrote that massively POV passage? It has no place in a Wikipedia article. Even if it were entirely fair to Peacock (which I don't think it is), it would still belong in the realm of opinion. It badly needs fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was someone called "richard garnett". I don't think he properly understood the principles of Wikipedia contribution, but then, he did write it in 1891. I edited the essay down to a reasonable size and added it, but I didn't feel up to re-writing... Hxa7241 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
India House poem
I have the collected Novels of Thomas Love Peacock, published in London in 1963. The introduction, by David Garnett, has a slightly different version of this poem:
- From ten to eleven, ate a breakfast for seven;
- From eleven to noon, to begin 'twas too soon;
- From twelve to one, asked "What's to be done?"
- From one to two, found nothing to do;
- From two to three began to foresee
- That from three to four would be a damned bore.
This version appears to scan better than the version currently in the article, which is not sourced. Does anyone know where it is from? If there are no objections in the next few days, I propose to substitute this sourced version. RolandR (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)