Talk:H.D.

Rewrite

This was the text before I started a rewrite Filiocht:

Alternate uses, see H.D. (disambiguation)

Hilda Doolittle, better known by the pen name H.D. (September 10, 1886 - September 27, 1961) was a United States Imagist poet and novelist. She was born in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

During H.D.'s adolescence in Pennsylvania, she befriended Marianne Moore and Ezra Pound. She enrolled at Bryn Mawr, but dropped out in 1911 and moved to England. In 1913, she married poet Richard Aldington, and in January of that year, three of her poems, "Hermes of the Ways," "Orchard," and "Epigram," were published in the journal Poetry.

In 1918, H.D. met Bryher, who would become and remain her companion and lover, despite H.D.'s marriage to Aldington and Bryher's marriages to Robert McAlmon and Kenneth Macpherson.

In 1933 and 1934, she was pupil and analysand of Sigmund Freud. H.D. later published a fictionalized account of this experience in Tribute to Freud.

After World War II, H.D. broke with Imagism, and her poetry began to reflect her interest in spiritualism, mysticism, ancient Greece, Egyptology, and astrology. These influences are particularly present in Trilogy.

Works

• "Trilogy"
• "HERmione"
• "Helen in Egypt"
• The Gift
• Bid Me to Live

References

• Herself Defined: The Poet H.D. and Her World by Barbara Guest ISBN 0385131291

External links

• http://www.imagists.org/hd/

Marriage of convenience

Just one question: In 1921, Bryher contracted a marriage of convenience with Robert McAlmon which enabled him to fund his publishing ventures in Paris. What does this mean? How? Markalexander100 02:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Acronyms

I thought there was a policy at Wikipedia to never list articles under acronyms, and I would think that this would apply especially to an actual person with a real name (others, like NASA etc are more understandable)... surely most people would look her up with her real name, not H. D. (and obviously she would be linked from the disambiguation page as well)... Houshuang 21:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

She's almost universally referred to as "H.D." rather than by her full name. I think the policy is that we title articles by the name most commonly used, which would override the no-acronym thing. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should we then make an edit to the HD disambiguation page to clarify that "Hilda Doolittle" referenced there is H.D.? ~E$ (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence

This sentence is unclear in meaning:

" Around this time, Doolittle entered into a relationship with a young art student named Frances Josepha Gregg. After spending part of 1910 living in New York City's Greenwich Village, she sailed to Europe with Gregg and her mother in 1911."

Was H.D. travelling with her own mother or with Gregg's?

If the former, the sentence would read better as

" Around this time, Doolittle entered into a relationship with a young art student named Frances Josepha Gregg. After spending part of 1910 living in New York City's Greenwich Village, she sailed to Europe with her mother and with Gregg."

If the latter, consider,

" Around this time, Doolittle entered into a relationship with a young art student named Frances Josepha Gregg. After spending part of 1910 living in New York City's Greenwich Village, she sailed to Europe with Gregg and with Gregg's mother, [Gregg's mother's name] in 1911.

I'll look for a bio with a clearer reference, but if anyone knows the answer feel free to change it.

It was Gregg's mother: [1]. Mark¹ 08:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Frances Gregg's Gender

A recent addition to this article identified Frances Gregg as a man and stated that both H.D. and Ezra Pound were romantically involved with Frances. I found this puzzling as while H.D.'s bisexuality is well documented I had never heard of Pound ever becoming sexually involved with a man. A google search and a look at "The Life of Ezra Pound" by Noel Stock soon made it clear that Frances Scott was a woman. I know the male version of Frances is usually spelled FrancIs, but I assumed Gregg was merely going by an unconventional spelling.

This same mistake appeared in the article about Pound and has been corrected.

Devil Doll 20:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Reference to Three Way Sex

I removed a reference to three way sexual encounters between H.D., Bryher and MacPherson as I cannot find any reliable verification. (The same poster who included this material also wrote about Ezra Pound's threeway encounters with women in the Pound article, material that was quickly removed by another contributor). If someone can come up with some verification about these alleged encounters, I'll consider myself corrected.

Devil Doll 20:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

High school

I am trying to update high school affiliations for Lehigh Valley people. Does anyone know where she went to high school? PAWiki 19:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what high school she attended, but it would have been in or near Upper Darby, Pa., because she moved there with her family when she was nine years old.

Page move

In my openion, this article is about Hilda Doolittle the person, not H.D. the pseudonym. I'd like to page move; thoughts? Ceoil 16:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe that the exchange in the Acronyms section explains how searching for "Hilda Doolittle" or "H.D." will bring you to this article with no disambiguation. I can understand the argument that "H.D." in ways refers to a different person given her different approach to poetry during the birth of that pseudonym, but ultimately H.D. and Hilda Doolittle are the same entity. Enderandpeter (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, she is known as H.D. books of poetry were published under this "name".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockin' Intro

Kudos to whoever wrote the intro paragraph to this article, for noting her breakaway from both the Imagist movement and Pound's influence. The first hit in searching for "hilda doolittle" on Google brings up a page on the site imagists.org, and I fear that could be misleading. Again, superb work. Enderandpeter (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sappho

I've changed "the recently rediscovered works of Sappho" to just "Sappho." So far as I know, the Sappho H.D. would have read would have been the standard works that had long been in all the commonly available Greek texts; I can't see any way in which they were "rediscovered" in H.D.'s time (additional verses from papyri I think came mostly after H.D.) If anyone wants to keep the "rediscovered," please explain it in the text -- for instance, it could be argued that the existing works were "newly influential," though this would need references Strawberryjampot (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

I've changed the first reference to Ezra Pound from "the leading British Modernist poet Ezra Pound" to just "Ezra Pound," because 1) he's American and 2) surely he's too well known to need description (like Freud, later in the same paragraph, who is not described as "the prominent Viennese psychoanalyst.") Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, and better. I added the superative to emphasise the importance of Pound's role only. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

copyright vio on poem Oread?

is this still under copyright protection? she died in 1961, so arent all her works copyrighted for, i think, 80 years after her death? or am i totally off base on this?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

American copyright laws are different and have changed over time. Anything first published in the U.S. before 1923 is in the public domain. Yworo (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll re inclusion of Infobox

Let's gauge current consensus of who supports or opposes inclusion of an Infobox. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll responses

• Support - Infoboxes are useful and are encouraged on all biographies. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll discussion

We all get our kicks in differnt ways. Some are born with the desire to reduce difficult, complex people to one or two word 'sound bites'. Go Yworo, stalker and reductivist. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Yworo (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Try and earn that right rather than gaming it. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:I left this message for Modernist, and yeah, I admitted I wanted to take down the infobox. Now Yworo has hit each of the articles I've mentioned in my post. Yworo, please explain your reasoning, backed by a strong argument, and include exactly what should be done about subjective data in infoboxes for poets. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be subjective data. Anything in the infobox should already be somewhere in the article and cited, so not subjective. I'm not a big fan of the influenced and influenced by items myself, but if they are limited to what's supported in the article they are not too bad. Yworo (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Try tending one of these articles for six months, a year, four years, and then repeat what you've written above. It's subjective when people add indiscriminately to fields available in the infobox. Somebody has to tend those fields, which is a pain. Writing about poets, poetry, and literature in general is a bit different than other disciplines. Add in the modernist aspect - and really it's just best to avoid the infobox. You're mad because I posted on Modernist's page. What you don't understand is that I've been slogging through the world of modernism for most the summer, have a lot of these pages watched, and yesterday, really thought we needed a nav template. That was the gist of my post to Modernist - in addition, of course, that I don't think they should have infoboxes. You've taken that and run with it. Unfortunately this is one one of the few hours a day when I have the opportunity to actually work on an encyclopedia article, and tonight that time is being used for this unnecessary discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The same problems happen, with or without an infobox. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the argument? I'm going to try to get some work done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia changes. Infoboxes are now the style. If you'd stop opposing inevitable progress, you could go right on editing rather than arguing. Yworo (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not a style, nor are they mandatory. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for their inclusion is increasing. It's only a matter of time. If not now, next year. Yworo (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is circular; the concencus you mention is only increasing becasue of your noise. Your matter of time argument just shows how you are evangelical, not thinking. Ceoil (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Still can't spell consensus, eh? Yworo (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes are understandable - considering that all that he's saying is exactly right on...Modernist (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you and he are both welcome to assume what you will. Doesn't make it right. Yawn. Yworo (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This needs to stop. It's unnecessarily disruptive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it has stopped. Yworo's arguments are not very sophisticated, and only go as far as ILIKEIT. After that its insults. So here we are. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DISRUPT; why is this poll occurring on multiple talk pages? I believe it would be more efficient to put the category up for deletion, as it's a disruptive category anyway-- there is no requirement for infoboxes, hence no reason for that template to exist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because of a comment I made to Modernist about infoboxes on his talkpage yesterday [2] without realizing it would cause such disruption. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't you - he chose to do these things all on his own...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It would have happened anyway, sooner or later. Better it was a high profile blast and ended quickly. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'd better assume that you all actually responded Oppose to the poll? Or is the opposition actually weaker on this article? Yworo (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose to an infobox on this article as to the others that I listed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Yworo, sorry guy, the answer is the same tonight as it was last night; No. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction - Best Known for?

It's more than a little problematic that the article begins by stating that HD is best known for her association with two male poets. This dismisses the importance of her work on its own terms. I propose changing it from "best known for her association with" to "associated with". Taking out "best" would also make for a more objective statement.Qassandra (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not entirely sure I agree. HD indeed is well-known for her role in the imagist movement - the other two poets happened to be male. Without Pound, she might well never have been published, at all. In fact Ezra Pound's article also states that he is known for developing imagism - certainly am open to rewording along those lines, but I don't think much can done about the fact that Pound and Aldington were men. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the word "best" and think it makes sense. That way the association with Imagism is still there, but we're not qualifying it with a questionable term. Arguably, nowadays, she is as well known for Trilogy as she is her Imagist work.--Oreadic (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It really depends on what the sources say. I had a look at some current bios and scholarship yesterday and everything mentions her association with Aldington/Pound/Imagism. Everything. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article?

After reading a rather short bio on her here and a longer one here I guess there is quite some info missing in the article and together with the fact that there is a lot of uncited text (also on personal life and psychoanalysis), its FA status might need a review.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Paradise Chronicle I'd encourage you to bring this to FAR: we could always use more help with the backlog of deficient featured articles that should be defeatured. (t · c) buidhe 06:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Citation style

I'd like to change citation styles to use "Cite" templates and Template:Sfn for the shortened footnotes. It would mean readers could more easily see which source is being referenced. As I understand it, adding the cite templates would add to the load time of the page, so there's a trade-off. Any thoughts or objections? Pinging @Ceoil and Victoriaearle, who are active in improving the page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Good with meCeoil (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil, you reverted a couple reference style changes needed to implement the above. Can you help me understand why? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok my bad; I was standardising the sources section and didnt realise you has stared work. Sorry about that. One thing, as I am older and find templates difficult would you mind doing the overhaul (I hope you are still interest) after the content additions), ie at the end of next weekend. Thanks so much for taking this on. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries! I'm happy to hold off for a few days. One thing I could use your thoughts on is how to cite Trilogy. It's a book by H.D. with notes by Aliki Barnstone, and we're (I'm guessing here) only using Barnstone's notes as references. Do you have a good idea on the best way to make it clear what's being cited? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy days. Will be much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Re anothologies, lets cite the edition editors (eg Aliki Barnstone) only. Best. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, but let's postpone the detail discussion until later. You're working on the important stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't see it like that. Anyways, thanks so much for the help. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

We're citing Barnstone so she needs to in the ref but not necessarily split into chapters (which is messy). WorldCat's citation has both H. D. and Barnstone as author, which seems right to me. I've tweaked it but am fine with having it changed. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely endorse, the citations here are cumbersome, and thanks so much for taking that on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If I were working it, I'd be opposed for various reasons that aren't germane. But I won't be working here, so ok. Victoria (tk) 18:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for everything, Victoria. If you feel like expounding on citation styles at my user talk page, I'd be interested! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No reason for thanks, and yes, I was too slow. Carry on all. Not interested in discussing templates, sorry. Victoria (tk) 19:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm done with the templatification of the sources. I formatted the slightly complex reader's notes/intros/multiple chapter references in a way that makes sense to me. I'd be happy to hear if this works for others. During the review, I made notes for improvement in #Random stuff below. I can do another pass once others complete any expansion, so feel free to add sources that are formatted differently (esp. VE). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There are still quite a few sources returning HarvRef errors as they aren't used in the short notes (they can be seen by installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js). Is work still underway, or shall we delete, comment out, or move to Further reading the unused sources? Those are:

• Evans (2010)
• H. D. (1979)
• Laity (1996)
• Lucas (1993)
• Wagner (1983)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been reading Laity and will likely have at least a little to add in §Appraisal. We could add an H.D. 1979 citation after "In End to Torment she approved of Norman Holmes Pearson's labeling of Helen in Egypt as "her 'cantos'"." in §Late work so we're citing both the secondary source and the primary. I'm on the fence about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wagner (1983) removed. Victoria (tk) 22:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography, and any other help needed?

A glance at the biblio shows that it's riddled with important errors of two types: dating and categorization.

-The list hops at random between supplying dates of first publication and dates of authorship, with no indication of so doing. (Word to the wise: 60 year old bibliographies are almost never reliable for this kind of thing.)

-It furthermore lists individual poems as though they are collections, poems from collections as though they were never collected, and lists non-fiction works as though they were novels.

These bits I can fix myself in a few days time once I get the chance, if nobody else has.

There are, however, a few decisions which have to be made beyond mere correction of errors:

- A great many of H.D.'s works listed here were never published in her lifetime, and not just late works that never quite made it to press; many early and middle works weren't published until the '80s. This thus raises the question: should the entries be ordered by date of authorship or publication?

- [I'm now suddenly forgetting what I thought the other editorial questions I had here actually were... Maybe it will come to me later.]

On another related note, I'm currently doing work on H.D. and have a stack of a few dozen sources on H.D. in danger of falling down on top of me. I may not get a chance to comb through the whole article and sketch out what needs work, but if anyone wants to flag specific areas that really need either rewriting or better sourcing, I'd be happy to get on it once I get the chance time wise. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Note to self clean up intro. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

help totally needed!!! and thanks so much for this this view. I would reorder by date, regardless of publication, as it it fits better with her development. Ceoil (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is a nice tune in thanks. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just a note to all that I'm a little backlogged on getting my thesis in, but I haven't abandoned any of these bits and pieces. Fingers crossed I can help with this stuff, and other things mentioned under @Firefangledfeathers post that I noted, by next week. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is sorted for the time being. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Random stuff

• "Apart from a number of visits to the United States, she spent the rest of her life in Switzerland." Source supports her living in Switzerland until death, but not remaining there all the time apart from US trips.
  • Agreed. "Spending the rest of one's life" in a place does not imply that you literally never left it, only that you continue to live there. Something like "She lived in Switzerland the rest of her life." would be sufficient. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Reworded as suggested. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• "She returned to the United States in 1960 to collect an American Academy of Arts and Letters medal, becoming the first woman to be granted the award." Source mentions the medal but not the distinction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Excuse me for interjecting, but this was the American Academy of Arts and Letters Award of Merit or Award of Merit Medal, first conferred in 1942. It is awarded to one person each year, and rotates around a series of six artistic disciplines (painting, short story, sculpture, novel, poetry, drama). The Academy makes lots of awards, but this one is relatively prestigious, and is accompanied by a substantial cash prize (currently $25,000).

    See https://artsandletters.org/awards/ (I suppose that could be turned into a reference somehow: I can't find an easy way to link to the full list, but you can find it by clicking on the headings there, or you can find HD by searching.)

    HD's medal, for poetry, in 1960, was the first awarded to a female poet (the previous three poets were WH Auden, St. John Perse, and Jorge Guillen.) But the first woman to received the Award of Merit Medal was Enid Bagnold, for drama, in 1956. So we need to be a little careful about how we describe this award. Theramin (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

    • Thank you for interjecting! Knowing the exact award helped me track down a secondary source noting the distinction (Friedman mentions it in Signets), and I've added the citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Which source mentions the family living in Highland Park? That bit could use a citation, since it's not covered by Friedman/DuPlessis 1990.
• Which source places "Vale Ave" in 1957–58? Friedman 1975 just names it as an unpublished work.
  • If any do, they're wrong; it's squarely in 1957. Matte Robinson's 2015 introduction to the Hirslanden Notebooks: "She wrote the long poem Vale Ave in five weeks, April 15-May 13, 1957" (pg. ix). If I recall correctly, the H.D.-Pearson letters & some of the diaristic works attest to this. To be honest, Friedman's Psyche Reborn is not a very reliable source for this sort of thing at all any more. It's over thirty years old and most of H.D's texts were either unpublished or out of print at the time. Not knocking her work of course, it was an extremely important work of scholarship at the time, and is still of some use, but there's a lot more material that's become available in the interim. Probably most important up-to-date secondary source for some of this stuff is Matte Robinson's book The Astral H.D.; it's very much grounded in the full breadth of available archival material and doesn't make any factual claim of which the author can't be sure. The aforementioned introductory essay to the Hirs. Notes. is pithy but also very useful for some of this stuff. There's also a H.D. timeline in the Cambridge Companion to H.D. which mentions authorship and publication dates, but it doesn't cite where it's getting its info so to be honest I can't quite attest to its accuracy; it's a legit source that's there in the absence of anything else, though, especially for some of the very obscure prose works. I'm finishing up my thesis as we speak and am planning on overhauling the whole bibliography because there's a lot of things to be cleaned up there, and I have strong sources for it to hand, so I'll be able to get on that stuff in just over a week. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Happy to wait. Congrats on being in the finishing stage on your thesis. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Kelvin supports "he was a main inspiration" and what follows, but the earlier part of the paragraph is unsourced. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• There's noticeable distance between the source and our summary in "H.D. was aware early on that the strictures of Imagism and Pound's control would limit and constrain her creative voice, and by the mid-1920s was attempting to break "beyond Imagism"." Does some other source fill in the gaps?
• Did Doolittle become "romantically involved with the English writer Brigit Patmore"? Hollenberg only mentions an Aldington–Patmore fling and is also not explicit about who introduced Doolittle to Aldington.
• Modernists trying to "make it new" is supported by Hughes p. 375 but most of the preceding sentence is not. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I got some of these and working on others. Annoyed I can't find the "make it new" sentence; will trawl through history. Looks like unsupported text was added over the years, and then & refs and text got shoved. Btw I fixed Moody b/c I'm working off the hardcopy (i.e dead tree version). Thanks for the hard work. Victoria (tk) 02:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Fixes look good to me. I struck the items you addressed. I like the tweak to Pound's controlling temperament. As far as I can tell, it's not in Hatlen, but I also am sure that it's true. Leaving the note above for now and I'll keep an eye out in my reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Just found the Eiffel Hotel bit re "make it new"; it's in a source I used on Pound. I'll make a fix but it'll be unformatted. This btw is why I objected to formatting refs; there's a suite of articles that are interrelated and I'd be cross if the refs on Pound are redone (long history there). Victoria (tk) 02:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
        • No complaints from me. I admit I've been curious this whole time! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
          • Re controlling, Hatlen explains on p. 111 that by 1920 H.D. had moved to the 'writing on the wall' experiment, beyond imagism, and on the earlier pages Hatlen uses the word "proprietary" on pages 107 and 108 in regards to Pound. Unless we go to direct quote, which really isn't needed, we're allowed to synthesize the source. This is fine in my view. Victoria (tk) 03:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
          • Adding; I've tweaked the text there a bit. I really need to find some time to go through the history. One of the problems is that we're dealing w/ text that in some cases is quite old (15 year +), written by a poet, before w/ needed inline citations, then there were years of accretions, and now overlayed w/ new text. I'd noticed too that there were some messy parts. Victoria (tk) 03:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
          • One follow-up on this. There's some tension between §Appraisal's "By the mid-1920s she had gone beyond imagism" and §Imagism's "All of her poetry to the end of the 1930s was written in an Imagist mode". The latter is unsourced. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

            I've had to do some history diving to tease out what's supported by what. Messy indeed. No fight from me on the tweaked language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• The §Late work section needs some source shuffling and hopefully a pg. range narrowing on Sword and Twitchell-Waas.
  • Added specific pages. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Can we fairly use File:Hilda Doolittle, later years.jpeg? Right now we're leaning on an NFCC#8 rationale of "To illustration the subject of the article. She is deceased, so a free used image is no longer possible", but free images are available. Is this a case where depicting her in her later years is a reasonable need that trumps the existence of free images of her when younger? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Good idea and done. Was hesitant about using under the old reasoning. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, Wagner 1983 does not support H.D. being an influence on Robert Creeley. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• I can't find the "Anthology. "Sagetrieb." University of Michigan, 2008. 49." source. I assume 49 is a volume or issue number, but it doesn't seem like they go up that high. Other sources are available for that snippet of The Walls do not Fall, but I didn't find one that supports "clearly and immediately signal her break with her earlier work".
  • Unfortunately Sagetrieb isn't digitised at all and appears to be out of print (which is extremely annoying for lots of reasons but I digress) so isn't the best thing to source from if it can be helped. I'm sure one could find plenty of people who say it or something like it, but to be honest, the phrase "clearly and immediately signal her break with her earlier work" puts it unnecessarily strongly, IMO. There's scholarly debates about the extent to which Trilogy "breaks with" or in some continuity with her earlier writing, and it's not really the sort of debate that needs to be written into the article. I'd imagine it'd be sufficient to simply note that Trilogy marked the first work in the long-poem form which she continued to utilise until her death. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree. If I get my head back into the sources on this before you do, I'd like to add something like your suggested language with a citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Ramsay needs a page number or range. It's a big ol' PDF with no searchability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• §Selected works needs some consistency on whether to include both year of writing and year of publication and on whether to be explicit about posthumous publication.
  • I'm on this, as above. I'm happy to redo the "Selected Works" - and make them a complete works - in a few days. The only question I'd have is whether to sort by publication date or authorship - given the sheer amount of works that were published posthumously (or barely "published" at all, i.e. texts like Kora & Ka were pressed in runs of less than a dozen), it would make far more sense to me to order them by date of authorship and note the date of publication when it differs in any significant way.Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Awesome. I like your suggested approach. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Neither the NYT obit nor the Guest source I replaced it with verify "heart attack" as cause of death.
  • Don't know where the heart attack line is coming from. Should be removed.Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• • If File:Hilda Doolittle, later years.jpeg is the only one with a FUR, then yes. I might add to the FUR to strengthen it, though it looks fine to me. Victoria (tk) 21:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Re Wagner 1983 & inspiration - Wagner is refers to Robert Duncan (poet) only. Snipped out Creeley. Victoria (tk) 21:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Re Ramsay, I see it in the searchable abstract here. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Structural changes

How would other editors feel about:

• Dropping §Career as a section heading and bumping up all its subsections to level 2
• Sub-sectioning §Sources into "Books" "Journal article" and "Other sources"

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

On the first point, I would worry that it would make the level 2 list of drop down sections a bit too “busy”. As far as I can see, the current structure makes perfect sense. If others thought it should be renamed to something other than “Career” (to, say, “Life and Work” or something like that) because it’s basically general biography, I’d have no objections.

On the second point, I’m really not sure of the utility of so doing. A Works Cited list is not the same as a Further/Suggested Reading list. The former is there to state what one has cited, not to guide the reader in their own study. The latter would want to be far more selective; I’d be happy to do one up - consisting of some of the main important critical/biographical works - if others thought it would be useful. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers, I agree with Pseudo-Dionysius. If we don't have a level two - i.e "Career" or "Biography" or somesuch - someone will come along and add one. But I'm not attached to it and wouldn't protest a change. Re., changing sources, prefer to keep in alpha order without sectioning out to books/journals/etc. In my mind the various modernist literature articles are an interconnected suite and it would be nice to keep them as similar as possible, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 21:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'd like to drop both proposals. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(resurfacing and trying to catch up with all the work): like Dionysius' suggestion of “Life and Work” and have renamed the sect. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil would you mind pinging me when you're done so I can look through? I am miserably behind and swamped in real life, but I'd like to get this closed up this week before I go on a much-needed semi-wilderness vacation where I will be mostly without internet access, followed by an extended period of a house full of guests. If we can't get this sewn up this week, it may be a month before I can re-focus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, its not really my decision anymore, given the work by Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius, backed by Firefangledfeathers, in the last few days. This seems to be one of those rare events, where others take over and more than deliver. I've had a watchlist for some 16 years; usually boring af - few times has it been such a joy to refresh. Ceoil (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thx, Ceoil; pinging Firefangledfeathers then about my time constraints. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we're ready for it SG! I have time during the week next week to respond to review items, if all the others don't get to it first! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thx ... busy for the rest of the day, but I can probably then make this tomorrow's venture ... bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll be able to help over this weekend. It sounds like you have your hands full Sandy, to say the least; while the feedback will be very much appreciated, I think we are on a good track with 3/4 editors working on it, so pls dont feel time bound. Best Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

My sense is this is just about done, so it would be a relief to get it off the "to do" list :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I hear you. Unfortunately I overcommitted a few months back, here and elsewhere, adding to my, and it seems, your stress levels. Am clawing back, but leasons learnt. Ceoil (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Need for consistency: are we calling her "H.D." or "Doolittle"?

There's a little bit of flip-flopping in the article between referring to H.D. by her given last name and by her chosen non-de-plume. This kind of inconsistency isn't great: it could be confusing for readers not familiar with H.D., and looks untidy to those are.

We need to decide clearly: should the article refer to the poet born "Hilda Doolittle" as "Doolittle" or "H.D." throughout?

While of course referring to an article subject by last name is standard protocol for Wikipedia, H.D. is known ubiquitously by her initials, and virtually no serious scholarly source (at least for many many decades) refers to her by her last name.

For what its worth, I would feel pretty strongly that referring to H.D. by her last name "Doolittle" would be equivalent to calling the Icelandic singer "Guðmundsdóttir" throughout the article on Bjork.

I can anticipate the counter example of "A.E." George William Russell, who is "Russell" throughout his article, but this example is a lot less one-for-one as it looks, simply because H.D. was never known professionally as anything other than H.D. (excepting some work written under totally unrelated pseudonyms), whereas George William Russell was "George William Russell" in a lot of areas of his professional life, and modern scholarship uses his name much more often than they do "A.E." on the whole.

Either way, it's an important point to get some consensus on. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

My instinct has been to call her Doolittle until her adoption of pen name and then H.D. after that. I would also be fine with H.D. throughout. Great to see you around PPD! Hope the thesis work wrapped up well! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but I really don't think it's helpful to mix the two; we're talking about one person here, irrespective of whether they used different names at different times.

It's fairly normal to discuss people's past in terms that would not have been used at that given moment (e.g. articles for transgender people invariably use their latterly chosen pronouns, even when discussing their early life).

Beginning her history by reiterating her given name and then carrying on calling her H.D. for the rest would make more sense than jumping around, as far as I can see. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Good points. I reread MOS:SURNAME and it supports your suggestion. I just changed most 'Doolittle's to 'H.D.'s. The one debatable one I'd like someone else to check on was

• Original: "Doolittle told him that she found her full name old fashioned and "quaint""
• Suggestion: "H.D. told him that she found "Hilda Doolittle" to be an old fashioned and "quaint" name"

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, thank you for the well-wishes Firefangledfeathers!! I handed it in (eventually) and just found out my results today. Very pleased! :D Celebrating by curling up next to the fire with a takeaway and editing the Wikipedia article for H.D., because I am very cool. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem here

The problem I see, having now read this a few times and added some edits, is that it ambitiously seeks to combine both her personal and professional lives, which is unusual in a biographical article on here. It would be better structured, I think, if the two were separated, as they usually are. I understand the desire to tackle all of it chronologically and the idea that the two impacted each other, but that's often the case. I would separate all her relationship/marriage/pregnancy details into a personal section. In so doing, it would also make it easier to understand her actual work. Keystone18 (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined against that organization for this article. Will have a longer response soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see this comment yesterday. I'm also inclined against that organization. There are plenty of articles that combine life with art, which in my view is difficult to separate because the one informs the other and vice versa. See James Joyce and Vincent van Gogh as examples. I think the organization as is works fine. Particularly for a woman, relationships/marriage/pregnacy tends to crowd out artistic endeavors and that should be part of the narrative. Victoria (tk) 23:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That's broadly my view as well. I think there's too much interplay between the life and the work to cleanly separate them. Major personal life beats like her relationships with Pound/Aldington/Bryher, her psychoanalysis with Freud, and her bisexuality would leave her writing career undercontextualized if moved to a different section.

The resectioning that Keystone18 has already done looks fine to me. We discussed the structure a little bit during the FAR in #Structural changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I missed yesterday's edits for some reason. The images should be put back as they were, or at least gain consensus to change. I'd be opposed to stacking them all up in the early part of the article rather than having them sprinkled throughout chronologically so that they illustrate the relevant sections. Also some of the sections look quite too long for easy readability to me now. Will look at it some more and get back. Also pinging Ceoil since he chose many of the images. Victoria (tk) 01:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've boldly put most of it back as it was. In my view, especially since this is an FA and such a large amount of work went into it recently, it needs discussion/consensus for such large changes. Putting back section headings as they were edit is [3], repositioning images are clearly described in the edit summaries. I may try putting in some text box type things as we have in Ezra's article, but let's first see what the structure ends up looking like. Just for the record, I prefer it as it is. World War I & World War II were traumatic and in my view deserve their own sections, as in Ezra & Hemingway. Victoria (tk) 01:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I missed the image changes and prefer where you've placed them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Adalaide Morris

HI, I wanted to link to Adalaide Morris a notable H.D. critic, but how do I do that on a reference? Thank you!LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi LoveElectronicLiterature. Somewhere in the relevant citation template, add "|author-link=Adalaide Morris". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!!! LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)