Jump to content

Talk:John Betjeman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dismissal of Modernism?

[edit]

"He was alleged to be a snob, a romantic, out of touch with the realities of contemporary life and steeped in nostalgia.[who?] While these criticisms contain an element of truth, his opposition to modernism's rejection of history and disdain for the individual has since found support as modernism's full rigour has in turn been rejected and supplanted, and human scale and cultural context have been readmitted to serious debate."

This doesn't seem very NPOV... I think the page on Modernism would disagree with this dismissal. 77.97.143.150 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

[edit]

Quick question - Were Betjeman and MacNeice not already aquainted from Marlborough rather than later on at Oxford as stated?

I believe you are right. Anthony Blunt was another of his contemporaries at Marlborough.--Oxonian2006 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The juxtaposition of "Princess Anne" with "Oh little body, do not die" is a bit alarming, but I'm not sure how to rearrange the article. Perhaps the quote should be preceded by a heading such as "Quotations". -- Heron

And while we're at at it, was that poem really printed as prose? Also, it's missing a quotation mark—I assume it goes at the end. —JerryFriedman 18:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll see if I can look this up   Saltmarsh 14:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC) done    Saltmarsh 14:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just consideably extended Betjeman's work & bibliography. I am about to extend the top of the article. Please let me know if I'm standing on any toes!   Saltmarsh 14:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - Were Betjeman and MacNeice not already aquainted from Marlborough rather than later on at Oxford as stated?

Grave picture

[edit]

Um... Betjeman's article is the first wikipedia article of a person I've seen which has a picture of the person's gravestone (and its the only picture in the article too)... it doesnt seem to be an especially notable gravestone (the fancy calligraphy is a question of taste and not that unusual), except for its occupant. If it was Karl Marx's grave or Jim Morrison's grave, there is probably a reasonable argument for having pictures of those graves in an article, as they are notable tourist/sightseeing stops. I don't think Betjeman's grave is - what is the rationale for having a picture here of it? seems a bit morbid and is out of line with other articles. I think it should be replaced with an image of the poet when, you know, he was alive. Bwithh 22:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a very pretty church in exactly the sort of area where people do vitit such sites and his grave, like many other poets, is certainly mentioned on all the usual local tourist bumph. Frankly it seems far more serious that we don't mention Slough, which if not his best work is certainly his most famous.Alci12 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Charles Parnell article for another example of the grave's use as part of the article. I agree that there certainly should be a more extant image in contrast to the image in question, however, its removal would be a little rash, especially if the only cause for doing so were to pander to tourist interests. I think that the inclusion of the gravestone, and I refer once again to the Parnell article as a student of Irish history, gives an insight into the character of the indicidual concerned, the very nature of the object depicted demanding (usually) some profound, if not initially response.
Would it not be better to have an image of him when he was actually alive, especailly as he was around in modern times and there must have been several photographs of him taken of him. It would be better to have a proper picture of him so we can see what he looked like, and not a statue (altough this is good in the article as he was instrumental in saving St Pancras from demolition) nor a picture of his grave (a bit mawkish for the top of the page and not particularly well known cf. Karl Marx etc)

Fantastic Article

[edit]

As the centenary of the poet's birth approaches, I felt that I knew far too little about the man in question. Turning to Wikipedia, I found an article which was balanced, excellently referenced and generally very well-written, and come away much better informed. Such small 'nuggets' found scattered across the Wikimedia world do the Wiki foundation, especaiily Wikipedia a great deal of credit.


Come friendly editors and decide on Slough

[edit]

In contrast to the sentiment above (by Alci12), I think this article really should make mention of Betjeman's most famous poem, even if it is not necessarily his best. It could even be in as brief a mention as "While best known for his poem Slough, Betjemena's verse ranges widely in both style and substance." Or something like that. But since it is his best known work it should be mentioned in his page. Agreed? Eusebeus 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Agree. Slough is undoubtedly his most widely known work, and shows both Betjeman's humour and his concern for architecture, both significant in his life and works. It's also very funny. DuncanHill 13:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Whilst "Slough" may be a work often quoted, isn't it pure guesswork to say that its 'his most widely known'? I'd have plumped for A Subaltern's Love-song as his most widely known, even if many people wouldn't recognise it by it's title.

Mighty Antar 14:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The complete lack of mention of the poem in an article of this length is a glaring omission. For good or bad, it has entered the national consciousness - why else would this be a news story? It is certainly mentioned in the article on Slough itself, and if even Slough itself is famous for it then surely Betjeman doubly so. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it is his best known, Slough (poem) now has its own Wikipedia article...
...which isn't linked from the author's page!
Ridiculous.
Four years on and still no mention in the article (TWELVE YEARS since the original query!!)
Looks like I have some editing to do...
EdJogg (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is most frustrating trying to come up with any proof that 'Slough' is Betjeman's best known work. Talk to anyone about the town (yes, I live there!) and there's a very high chance that they will mention 'friendly bombs'. Even this BBC poetry page about Betjeman chooses the opening lines in the callout box as THE sample of his writings.
The reference is also used by journalists in the same vein, usually when writing about Slough's successes (of which there have been many!)
Will just have to add something and let others improve it.
EdJogg (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who does not know the poem, or any of Betjeman's work, it seems to me that at the very least it is a very well-known poem, and on that basis alone it needs to be mentioned, particularly as there's an article on it. Whether or not it's "the best-known" is really neither here nor there. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depression and daffodils

[edit]

I thought the depression and daffodils comment was said by Larkin about himself

You may well be correct. It was Phillip Larkin who according to Collin's Concise dictionary of Quotations said "Deprivation is for me what daffodils were for Wordsworth" in an article in The Observer newspaper in 1979. Is the quote in our article simply a mistake, or was it Betjeman paraphrasing Larkin or visa-versa? Mighty Antar 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since his death

[edit]

As Jamie T using Betjeman's work is mentioned here, is it not equally relevant to add that the band British Sea Power are fans, appearing on the BBC2 documentary Betjeman and Me, performing The Licorice Fields at Pontefract? Their lyrics also share themes with much of the poetry, examples can be provided --Sparrow 08 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germany?

[edit]

In his autobiography "sumoned by bells' he says that his family were of Dutch origin contrary to the belief who had mistakenly thought that his name was German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.153.74 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not so sure anymore: FamilySearch mentions a George Bete Betjemann from Bramstedt, Landkreis Cuxhaven, Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen), Germany, as his direct ancestor in the direct male line. Chances are the Betjemen were actually of German descent and came up with the story about Dutch descent during the First World War, when German descent was not very popular. --Maarten1963 (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye

[edit]

Despite Betjeman's categorisation as a Private Eye contributor, this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. --81.156.177.239 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Was The Week That Was

[edit]

Webpage for TW3 suggests that Betjeman was a writer for it. 202.78.34.38 (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Style

[edit]

This article contains much interesting information and much cloth-eared English. How very strange that someone who obviously loves English verse should be so totally at sea in the aesthetics of the English language. PiCo (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


So edit it. Spanglej (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betjeman's Banana Blush

[edit]

I removed the link to Wilkin's site, the audio is clearly from Betjeman's Banana Blush, and the site has no copyright or license statements anywhere. Paradoctor (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Birth - Camden? No thank you..!

[edit]

I'd like to propose changing JB's place of birth from Camden to Hampstead.

Camden, a name thought up for the 1960s Borough as part of the re-orginisation of Local Government in London, was certainly not where JB was born. Camden Town, the only Camden of the 1900s was part of the Metropolitan Borough of St Pancras.

I'm convinced JB himself would disapprove of the use of the ugly 1960s named Camden!

So let's change JB's Birthplace to Hampstead (MB of).

Sounds good Spanglej (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

We're very short on refs. Parts of the article still read like a college essay. If anyone has any links to add - I think they would lift the article into becoming a good biographical piece on a great poet. I'm sure JB appreciate the effort. Spanglej (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Store windows

[edit]

The image of his house in Cloth Fair, City of London, looks like a shop or store. Did he live above the shop? Was his house converted into a shop?Lestrade (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

He lived above the bar/restaurant now known as Betjeman's. SEMTEX85 (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greta

[edit]

"Greta, the object of his affections has remained a mystery until recently revealed." So ... who was she? 173.16.252.154 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Bowra

[edit]

In the section on Betjeman's time at Oxford Maurice Bowra is inaccurately described as 'Dean' of Wadham [College] from 1938 to 1970. In fact, Bowra was Warden (i.e. Head) of the college during that timespan. (When first appointed as a Fellow of Wadham in 1922, he was for a time Dean). I've taken the liberty of correcting this error. Norvo (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Betjeman. 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) 05:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Betjeman. 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) 22:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Betjeman&oldid=1207039941"