Talk:Charles Lamb

Page Renovation

I don't understand the call for citations on this page. Who ever made this claim should be more specific so we know exactly where people thing there is a problem. Anything that I have put in this article has been from general background reading and I can't see where I could put citations.

Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbycairo (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 september 2008 (UTC)

Pop refs

The M*A*S*H tidbit in "Popular references" is base.Lestrade (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

note on absent image

The DNB (1890) article on John Mathew Gutch says,

"Shortly before Lamb's death Gutch commissioned F. S. Cary to paint Lamb's portrait. This is the best likeness of Lamb extant."

but I couldn't see an easy way to add that. cygnis insignis 22:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Charles Lamb (writer) → Charles Lamb — I believe the writer is the primary topic. It was the original topic, until an undiscussed move fo 13 August 2008. Compare the size of the various articles listed at the DAB page, for one, and note that a Google search for "charles lamb" -wikipedia turns up mostly results for the writer. Also:

Charles Lamb → Charles Lamb (disambiguation)

— Srnec (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose. I think it's a waste of time that would be better spent writing or polishing up articles. "Charles Lamb (writer)" is perfectly clear. Bmcln1 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Clarity is not the only consideration, or we would tuck every article into the article title. This is the Charles Lamb, and should be so indicated, for ease of the reader (most of whom will save a click getting here) and of the editor making links; that this (and Elia) are also the shortest titles is also a good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The writer appears to be the clear primary topic, and the result of the proposed move does not appear to have any obvious adverse effects for any other article. --Xover (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, clear primary topic.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment this multimove is using the wrong template. It's incorrectly formatted multimove. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The moving of DAB pages in these sorts of cases has been assumed for years. I have only started mentioning them in move requests of late because of you. I don't care if the template was right or not. I think everybody knows what's being asked. Srnec (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If you use the proper format and template, RMbot will pick up on it, and dump a notice on the affected pages. Without using the proper template and format, RMbot will not notify the affected pages. Wouldn't notification be better? I notice there is still no notice at the disambiguation page about this move. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that {{move-multi}} looks like a better template to use for cases such as this, both because it is more specific and because it enables the bot to notify the other relevant talk pages of the discussion. Probably not a big deal, but worth keeping in mind for the future. --Xover (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Anachronism

Charles spent six weeks in a psychiatric hospital during 1795.

They had lunatic asylums (asyla?) back then, not psychiatric hospitals. No? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Lamb's Writings

@JoePeschel: I am not going to engage in a fruitless edit war over whether Lamb was the author of "miscellaneous" writings. No, maybe this does not merit mention as such in the lede. Probably the lede could be expanded a bit, but the body of the article needs a bit more, first, on Lamb's other writings, some of which have attracted notice and even high praise over the years. It's a somewhat complicated picture. His plays—and this should probably be mentioned in the article—are not notable, although one, in a way, was: Lamb managed to get Mr. H. produced at Drury Lane, and it then became notable at the time (December 1806) for being hooted off the stage! Only in later years did Lamb's personal correspondence win high critical praise; again that should be mentioned first in the body of the article before consideration for inclusion in the lede. I do beg to differ about one thing: "There’s no mention of a play or of a novel in the article." Not so. Rosamund Gray, a novella (i.e., short novel), and John Woodville, a "poetic drama" (i.e., a type of play), are mentioned. What is needed is for someone to hammer all this into somewhat better shape. I might attempt it myself when I find more time. Or you could if you are at all interested in the topic. Or any of a number of other Wikipedians (which is why I am posting this here rather than on your talk page) who are interested enough in Charles Lamb to take a crack at it. --Alan W (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alan W:

Hi Allan,

When I make a small change to a lede, say a word or two, it’s not to create a disagreement; it’s to correct a small error to make the bio better. I try to do a light edit and when I make that small change, I usually just make it without discussing the change on the Talk page first. I’ve noticed larger changes get made nearly all the time without discussing them first.

To me, talking about “miscellaneous writings” in the lede seemed unnecessary: if the writings are miscellaneous, why are they important enough to mention them in the lede? The phrase “miscellaneous writer” also sounds a bit like the writer himself is miscellaneous, and Lamb would probably not care to be thought of as part of a group of miscellaneous writers. Or, he might get a chuckle out of it. :-)

You’re right about that novella, which sounds unfinished. It should be mentioned in the article, as it already properly is, but writing one unfinished short novel or one long unfinished short story doesn’t make a fellow a novelist or even a short story writer. So, I hope no one misconstrues that bit.

You’re also right that the poetic drama is a type of play, but I don’t think writing that play is notable enough to call Lamb a playwright or otherwise mention the play in the lede.

I wonder if “antiquarian” is necessary in the lede? We could probably hammer this bio into a better article as you say, but I don’t know how to go about making big changes when, sometimes, even my minor changes are reverted. Any suggestions?

BTW, are you a Lamb scholar, or an enthusiastic of the Romantic period? I’m afraid I know more about Dr. Johnson, B. Jonson, and Shakespeare than I do about Lamb.

Cheers! Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoePeschel (talk • contribs) 18:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Joe, I can accept that you, like me, are making your edits in good faith, and we both are trying to improve the article. You've given me food for thought. I see what you mean, and "miscellaneous writer" is probably too vague. Yet I think there could be some indication that Lamb tried to be a kind of generalist, an overall "man of letters". That novella was not unfinished, and was even praised by none other than Shelley, though since that time it has not attained any mark of high regard. Although Lamb certainly left nothing notable behind him as a dramatist either, it was an accomplishment at that time to have a play performed at all at one of the two major London "legitimate" theaters. Even though the play failed, this was a degree of notability at the time. On the other hand, in the past two centuries, like another contemporary Byron, Lamb has become quite notable for his private correspondence. He has also retained a certain stature as a critic, including of Shakespeare, and I recommend what he wrote to any like yourself interested in Shakespeare. That is tied in with his stature as an "antiquarian", and I added that to the lede because it gives a clue to his notability. He was very well known then and now (to specialists in the period) for his publication of "specimens" of the writings of Shakespeare's contemporaries, drawing attention to what had otherwise been then recently neglected in quality writing by 16th- and 17th-century English writers. But, yes, it is also true that more about all this needs to be added to the body before it can be rightly added to the lede (in summary form, of course, in that case). Which is why I am holding back on attempting other changes at this point. I have to carve out some time, get maybe a few more good sources, and mull this over a bit more.

Yes, in one of my many past lives, as it now feels (I have had something like five distinct careers over the years), I taught the literature of the Romantic period, and that is one of my specialties, as you suspected. Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Without delving too deeply into this debate, let me just interject that a "Miscellany" is actually a term of art, and so saying Lamb is a "miscellany writer" is quite different from saying that he "wrote miscellaneous things" (though both could be applied to the same writings, just with different meanings). --Xover (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

A point worth making, although in this case it does not apply. Lamb contributed to periodicals, such as Hunt's Reflector, that were, in essence, miscellanies, but that wasn't what I meant. I think that JoePeschel does bring up something worth considering, and perhaps "miscellaneous writer" is too vague. Working along those lines, and making descriptions more precise, I just added something about Lamb's status as an "antiquarian" to the body of the article, to justify an earlier mention in the lede (you're welcome, Joe; I just saw that "thank you"; I did find some time, and the right sources, to do that much).

Another debate implied in recent edits is about the difference between "cowritten" and "coauthored" (presumably also "written" and "authored" without the prefix). Joe, I let your edit stand, as I didn't think it mattered that much; but now we have another opinion (of FreeKnowledgeCreator) that your change was unnecessary. And I have to agree that it probably was. In some contexts, there might be a subtle difference. But here, where we are talking about a single book to which two authors have contributed, I think "coauthored" (and without the hyphen, which has gone out of fashion in English in the past several decades) is just fine. Thinking about this further, I would say it is pretty standard when referring to creators of a book. --Alan W (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alan W:

Hi Alan,

I thought there needed to be some more talk in the body about Lamb’s being an antiquarian. Your addition fixes that.

As for “coauthored” and “cowritten”—one of my concerns is the brief one that I’ve already mentioned, namely, specificity. “Writer” and “cowriter” are more specific than “author” and “coauthor.”

As I’ve mentioned before, the word “author,” by definition in the OED is the “person who originates or gives existence to anything.” A “writer” is the “person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occasionally, one who writes in a specified manner.”

If you call Lamb a coauthor, it could very well mean he contributed ideas and suggestions to the book, without doing an actual writing. (Something akin to the “as-told to” memoir, where, I think, the celebrity, whose name is on the book, could properly be called an “author,” while the poor ghostwriter would be the actual “writer.”

But Lamb did more than contribute ideas or suggestions; he actually did some writing, as you say in the body of the article.

So, I figured it was best to say Lamb cowrote the book with his sister and to let them argue over which of them gets top (or any) billing.

Cheers!

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Joe, I'm frankly puzzled as to how you are deriving this difference of meaning between "author" and "writer". I have been consulting a few dictionaries on my own, and now I'm inclined to think that the difference in specificity is the opposite of what you are claiming. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary (both British English and American) gives four definitions of author:

a writer of a book, article, or report: he is the author of several books on the subject.

someone who writes books as a profession: my favorite authors are Kurt Vonnegut and Aldous Huxley.

the writings of a professional author: I had to read authors I disliked.

an originator or creator of something, esp. a plan or idea: the authors of the peace plan.

Only the fourth of the above corresponds to your meaning. For "writer", on the other hand, we see:

a person who has written something or who writes in a particular way: the writer of the letter.

a person who writes books, stories, or articles as a job or occupation: Dickens was a prolific writer | a writer of short stories.

So, the first of each group of definitions shows "author" to be more specific. And the second definition of "writer" is pretty much the same as the second definition of "author". Merriam-Webster doesn't show as many definitions of "author", but the first is also pretty specific: "the writer of a literary work (such as a book) <a famous author>" For Merriam-Webster, a "writer" is simply "one that writes", "such as author".

So what I see here is "writer" being the more general term, and "author" the more specific. Another Web site I found suggests that "author" refers to the writer of a published work, whereas a "writer" could be one who writes anything. Also, when you think of it, libraries refer to creators of books as "authors". You never search in a library catalog by "title" and "writer", always by "title" and "author".

In common usage, the terms are often interchangeable. But if any suggestion of a professionally published book's creator is meant, it would appear that "author" is the term we want, not "writer".

So, again, I can't say I agree with you on this one. Anyone else have any thoughts about this?

Regards, Alan W (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alan W:

Hi Allen,

The definitions you found seem a bit odd. Are you using a web source? I’m using the DVD version of the full OED and also the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition.

From the OED ( I hope the formatting holds up):

author, n.

1. gen. The person who originates or gives existence to anything: a. An inventor, constructor, or founder. Now obs. of things material; exc. as in b.

b. (of all, of nature, of the universe, etc.) The Creator.

c. He who gives rise to or causes an action, event, circumstance, state, or condition of things.

†d. He who authorizes or instigates; the prompter or mover. Obs.

2. spec. †a. One who begets; a father, an ancestor. Obs. (exc. in author of his being: cf. 1 c.)

3. a. esp. and absol. One who sets forth written statements; the composer or writer of a treatise or book. (Now often used to include authoress.)

b. elliptically put for: An author's writings.

4. The person on whose authority a statement is made; an authority, an informant. (Usually with poss. pron. ‘my, his author.’) arch. or Obs.

†5. One who has authority over others; a director, ruler, commander. Obs.

6. attrib. and in Comb. See also author-craft. Frequent in appos. use.

†7. The editor of a journal. Obs.

And from Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition

1. au·thor n [ME auctour, fr. AF auctor, autor, fr. L auctor promoter, originator, author, fr. augre to increase more at eke] (14c) 1 a : one that originates or creates : source <software s> <film s> <the of this crime> 1 b cap : god

2 : the writer of a literary work (as a book)

Cheers,

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Odd. The Merriam-Webster definitions were from what I found on line, here. I also have at hand an older 9th Edition Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, where what you see as definition 2 is given as definition 1. But of course that was published long before the age of the personal computer. It looks to me that definition 1 in the 11th edition exists precisely because now one often hears of the author of software or of a film (among other specific things). Definition 2 in the 9th edition is "one that originates or gives existence". That is of course in the etymology of the word, too.

The Oxford definitions I gave are from the current "Oxford Dictionary of English" (3rd edition), which was licensed by Apple, so I have the whole thing in an app on my computer. In any case, that is the latest.

There may be an element of customary current usage involved, too. And of course, room for different interpretations, opinions, and so on, which is why we are having this discussion. As I take it, "author" is typically used to apply to the writer of a specific work, as in, Chaucer is the author of The Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare is the author of Hamlet, Jane Austen is the author of Pride and Prejudice, and so on. You wouldn't customarily say that Austen is the "writer" of Pride and Prejudice, even though, in one literal sense, she was. Thus, I think it's more natural in its context to say that Charles and Mary Lamb were co-authors of Tales from Shakespeare. (And yes, as Bmcln1 reminded us, we should really follow British usage here, so I have no objection to the hyphenation.)

Again, a great advantage of Wikipedia is its community, the pooling of minds. Which is why I am hoping that of the "138,798 active users" here on the English Wikipedia, perhaps at least one or two others might contribute their take on what the difference is in customary current usage between "author" and "writer", especially as applied to attribution of the creator of a book.

Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to add, as for the verb form, the Oxford Dictionary I'm using has this as its first definition: "be the author of (a book or piece of writing): she has authored several articles on wildlife." That certainly seems to fit the present case: "co-authored with his sister, Mary Lamb (1764–1847)." The verb form in Merriam-Webster on the Web is similar. --Alan W (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the distinction is mostly academic in this instance. "Author" and "Writer" can be used interchangeably for this, since it is a published written work with no very special circumstances. The distinction between an author and a writer would come into play if the author for whatever reason didn't also do the actual writing, as in the case of a ghostwritten book, and only when we're discussing it in a way that makes the distinction relevant (the author of record for Trump: The Art of the Deal is Donald Trump, but it was written by Tony Schwartz). And lacking any specific reason to bring that distinction into it, the normal term to use is "authored", or, in this case, "co-authored".

And if we're to cite some authority for this, the OED's primary definition for "author" is "the writer of a book or other work; a person whose occupation is writing books" and goes on to note that this is "now the usual sense". Most of their definitions for "author" are as regards the act of creating something, or originating something. The author of a story, the author of his life's story, the author of everything (i.e. God, the Creator, etc., in a religious sense), the one who authorises an act; or the ouvre of an author (their combined published books). The term is clearly general enough to apply to other things (software, movies, lyrics, etc.), but the central and common sense is in relation to literature.

For "writer" the primary definition is "a person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occas., one who writes in a specified manner;". The senses are mostly about the mechanical act of writing. A technical writer, a staff writer, someone who writes for a living, including a typist (remember those?). For instance, the second main sense given is "one whose business or occupation consists in writing; a functionary, officer, etc., who performs clerical or secretarial duties; a scribe, clerk, or law-writer." Only halfway down the page do we get to the sense "One who writes, compiles, or produces a literary composition; the composer of a book or treatise; a literary man or author;".

References

Based on this, then, it is clear that when we are discussing the creative act, or the instigating or authorising act, the appropriate term is "author". When discussing the technical and mechanical act of pushing buttons on a typewriter (e.g.), the term is "writer". And while my familiarity with the Lambs is shockingly superficial, my conclusion is that they co-authored here. It was not one authoring while the other wrote, or both writing while some third party authored, or both simply writing without an element of creating. It would probably not be technically wrong to say the both engaged in writing, but it would be a misleadingly narrow phrasing. --Xover (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the page from my list for obvious reasons. Sigh. Bmcln1 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Xover! Good input, just that additional point of view I was hoping for.

Sorry to see we've lost Bmcln1. I don't find your reasons, Bmcln1, obvious at all. You could have added your perspective, you know, and it might have helped further to show how different Wikipedians view this distinction of usage. --Alan W (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

British Usage

@Alan W:

Bmcln1 mentioned that we should follow the British spelling in this article, for instance, ‘co-authored’, instead of “coauthored.” Alan W noted that he changed a few (but not all) Americanisms.

I wonder how far Wikipedia typically takes this. Is there a particular trend? I know the format for the date of birth/death is different between American and European bios. And it looks like Alan is using British punctuation to a certain degree—commas and stops outside of quotation marks. But aren’t primary quotation marks (‘) single marks and secondary quotation marks (“) double marks in the British systems? Has anyone noticed a particular Wikipedia style, or is it even important?

Cheers!

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

An article's affinity to a regional variant of English is described in: MOS:ENGVAR.

General style guides can be found in Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

The short-short version is, use British spelling and date format; everything else, including quote marks, is Wikipedia's general style. --Xover (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Xover!

Cheers!

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this, too, Xover. Joe, I see you are a journalist, so I'm sure you totally understand how every publisher has its "house style". Well, the Wikipedia Manual of Style is Wikipedia's. It's all there. If you haven't looked through it, I highly recommend doing so, and a lot of how we present things will become clear.

I will add that the intention is to apply British style (within the limits of Wikipedia style) to this whole article, since Lamb was a British writer. If it is not all consistent, that is only because no one has yet caught and fixed all the inconsistencies. I just did a quick search the other day for those Americanisms that I could find and change quickly. This is what happens when an article is built up over years by numerous different editors. --Alan W (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed a couple of spellings, which were all I could find in the article.Twistlethrop (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Those, I see, were both mine, just my American habits kicking in. Thanks for catching and changing them, Twistlethrop. --Alan W (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Lamb. 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/20090113164136/http://www.enfield.gov.uk/448/Literary%20Enfield.htm to http://www.enfield.gov.uk/448/Literary%20Enfield.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: 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) 09:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

South Sea House

Lamb’s “South Sea House” plays games with chronology and misled whoever wrote the Youth and Schooling section. The South Sea Bubble was half a century before his birth. Someone more competent than me should revise this paragraph.

Dan Milton