I don’t really understand why people post poems online without providing their attribution. Perhaps poems are perceived as something similar to proverbs, small floating bits of wisdom without a specific, individual author.
Unrelated to that, it’s interesting to note that this particular rendition is not a very “loyal” representation of the original manuscript. Emily Dickinson used dashes extremely frequently in her poetry, and this edition appears to remove them completely, replacing them with more conventional punctuation. You can see the original manuscript at https://dickinsonsbirds.org/project/poems/210 - IMO this editorial decision isn’t justifiable.
No excuse for the lack of attribution (especially for Emily Dickinson, it’s just ironic).
As a non-native speaker without any knowledge of English poetry, I can appreciate the added clarity of using more traditional punctuation which gives me an immediate feel for the intended pace instead of making me pause to “decode” the poem. I’m sure some meaning and context is lost, but I have to admit that for an idiot like me it is a much smoother (and therefore casually enjoyable) read.
The edited punctuation is indeed easier to read, exactly why it was introduced. But, regarding the “indended pace”: Dickinson used her unorthodox punctuation with intent, and if the pace feels jarring, and/or forces you to pause and reconsider - that’s likely what she really intended.
Well I do see many people posting poems just so, without the authors, not just by mistake. So this one ticked me off, especially because I really wanted to know who the author is :D
The second comment wasn’t meant as criticism directed at you, but at the editor. This version with normalised punctuation is indeed very widespread online.
![Hope by Emily Dickinson [Rule]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Hope_is_the_thing_with_feathers%2C_1891.jpg){kind=link}
I don’t really understand why people post poems online without providing their attribution. Perhaps poems are perceived as something similar to proverbs, small floating bits of wisdom without a specific, individual author.
Unrelated to that, it’s interesting to note that this particular rendition is not a very “loyal” representation of the original manuscript. Emily Dickinson used dashes extremely frequently in her poetry, and this edition appears to remove them completely, replacing them with more conventional punctuation. You can see the original manuscript at https://dickinsonsbirds.org/project/poems/210 - IMO this editorial decision isn’t justifiable.
No excuse for the lack of attribution (especially for Emily Dickinson, it’s just ironic).
As a non-native speaker without any knowledge of English poetry, I can appreciate the added clarity of using more traditional punctuation which gives me an immediate feel for the intended pace instead of making me pause to “decode” the poem. I’m sure some meaning and context is lost, but I have to admit that for an idiot like me it is a much smoother (and therefore casually enjoyable) read.
I thought I put it in the description my bad
I’ve edited the title to have her name in it
The edited punctuation is indeed easier to read, exactly why it was introduced. But, regarding the “indended pace”: Dickinson used her unorthodox punctuation with intent, and if the pace feels jarring, and/or forces you to pause and reconsider - that’s likely what she really intended.
I thought I had put her name in the description, I’ve edited the title to put her name in it
This was the image on the Wikipedia page of the poem so that’s the one I shared
Well I do see many people posting poems just so, without the authors, not just by mistake. So this one ticked me off, especially because I really wanted to know who the author is :D
The second comment wasn’t meant as criticism directed at you, but at the editor. This version with normalised punctuation is indeed very widespread online.