![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]