Talk:The Man of the Crowd

Original Research

Hello all, and particularly Midnightdreary, I'm still very new to this, so I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to discuss the article, and if I've made a mistake I'd be happy to debate through the proper channels.

So,

I understand completely when you warn me against writing original research into a wikipedia article, Midnightdreary, and I was fully aware of the danger of essentially speculating as to the meaning of a literary work of fiction when I wrote my analysis, which is why I made sure to back up my assertions with appropriate quotations, a practice which was not observed by the previous author of the analysis. I don't remember exactly what it said--something about there being no reason for the narrator following around the man of the crowd--and it's probably in the history somewhere, but I was honestly so disappointed with its blatant wrongness and superficiality that I registered as a wikipedian and corrected it myself. I love wikipedia, but the analysis for this story was essentially the kind of evidence people use to claim that wikipedia is a bad source for research, and I knew that this website could do better.

You're right that my analysis could use backing by published academics, and while I'm not completely sure just yet that such backing even exists, I am willing to bet that there is no published research that contradicts my statements on this subject. The moment you or anyone else finds any, please let me know, because I would be very interested to read it, as I think my conclusions were rather obvious ones. In general I am eager to debate my analysis with you, with academics, with anyone at all, and I am not the kind of obstinate personality who will persist in being wrong when it is obvious that such is the case. So please, if you disagree, disagree, and we'll talk. Thanks, Sublunari 14:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Debate is not necessary. Essentially, your analytical reading of the story isn't really Wikipedia-worthy. I recommend you look into the policy on original research. It's not about proving with quotes from the source text, nor is it about not being able to find scholars who disagree. ALL analysis should originate from previously published scholarly work. And be careful about slamming my previous (place-holding) mini-analysis. =) The reason I hadn't added more, and pardon my superficiality, was because I had not yet found significant sources. Frankly, I don't believe your analysis anyway; I still assert that there is no true reason for the monomaniacal obsession the narrator has with the man of the crowd. Sure, he looked funny and stood out, but why is he so devoted to him? Anyway, your analysis may get tagged or even deleted; that's just how it works around here. I do hope you stick around, though, as a lot of the Poe articles can really be expanded. By the way, I maintain the Portal:Edgar Allan Poe if you're looking for something to check out. --Midnightdreary 14:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means, in the spirit of the pursuit of knowledge, and not the furthering of our own petty personalities, please tag or delete my analysis the moment you find a published piece of academic work that provides a better explanation for this story than the one I have written. "Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil." However, for the time being, I don't think my analysis is the cause of much harm--for one, because in spite of its brilliance wikipedia does not recognize this story as being particularly important; and also, it is better than the previous analysis for the simple reason that it actually quotes Edgar Allan Poe, rather than no one at all. As I recall, your analysis had no quotations whatever, and as far as I can tell you have offered no explanation of your own as to why the narrator follows the man of the crowd, nor have you offered any kind of support, from the story, or from academia. You have disagreed with my original research, without supporting your own, or any kind of alternative, with any kind of evidence beyond your own opinion that I am simply wrong. This smacks of hypocrisy--there was seemingly nothing wrong with original research being on this wikipedia page until yours was replaced by mine. But please, find something in the story, something in a journal, something beyond yourself (as I have done), and I will be the first to congratulate you.

As I said, the narrator, like Poe himself, is an addictive personality. If you look for addiction in this story, you will find it everywhere. Cards, sex, booze, money, all kinds of addictions. The man of the crowd is addicted to crowds; the narrator is addicted to this man; synecdoche (a part representing a whole, or vice-versa, metaphorically-speaking) is all over The Man of the Crowd--it could be a case study in the very concept. If you really want me to, I will go back through the story and quote every instance of addiction, and either list those instances here, or on the analysis page, but that may prove too lengthy a litany for our readership.

Some outside sources--

'The lure of the city is captured well in a tale by Edgar Allan Poe, "The Man of the Crowd," whose frenzied hero seems driven across town relentlessly, by an inexplicable passion. In the end, we understand that he is desperately hunting for the rush and bustle of anonymous throngs. The man described by Poe is plainly sick—yet we all share some of his addiction for "the tumultuous sea of human heads."' http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/42140;jsessionid=baa7Jge7WjypKD

"In "'The Man of the Crowd" the narrator recounts his recovery from a debilitating illness,"--addiction of some substance no doubt--"and cites his own sensitivity and compulsion as the result of his physical condition. By making use of the trope of the unbalanced invalid Poe creates an immediately recognizable type from whom irrational behavior and perception are accepted as a matter of course." http://www.sfu.ca/iga2001/igaabst.html

I'll see if I can add more later, as these are probably not sufficient, but they are more than nothing.

--Sublunari 22:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are misunderstanding the policy on original research. It has nothing to do with the quality of your analysis, its authenticity compared to any published analysis, or whether I agree/disagree with it. Simply put, you can NOT have your own commentary in here. What more can I say? If you have academic sources that have an analysis you'd like to input here (I didn't check the sources you show above), then add it in. I have nothing against you or your aspirations to analyze the story, it just doesn't get added to Wikipedia. I'm not trying to debate your analysis, so I apologize for questioning it earlier (I was mostly just making a quick personal opinion comment that has nothing to do with the improvement of this article; ignore it). Consider the analysis section of "The Masque of the Red Death," which I have been working on recently; every assertion is backed by a previously published reliable source. We have to do the same here, not based on personal opinion but based on Wikipedia policy. --Midnightdreary 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)