Page talk:Essays in miniature.djvu/95

Sorry for the interruption. Wondering why you use (prefer?) Sic over SIC. Are there any cases in which you would use SIC? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I follow the practice of not changing typos / misprints and don't see a need to draw readers' attention to them with an underline. I don't remember using SIC, though I may have been tempted when I thought it would cause confusion. If you use the one or the other I will now be aware that you already know there is an alternative template.

One way or another, I found Repplier's works because of your earlier efforts. Cheers, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That is how it works. I believe Repplier and Mrs. Coates would have been associated with one another, although I don't have any significant direct links (yet). Editor of this work, Arthur Stedman, is son of Edmund Clarence Stedman—whose poetry I have contributed here. Coates' work, Mine and Thine, is dedicated to ECS.

I will keep your thoughts on Sic/SIC in mind. My thinking was that if a reader sees the underline, they will know it is a typo in the original, and not a possible proofreading error. It may save them an inquiry ... but then again, we also often learn/are inspired from inquiry. Thanks much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Right under my nose... Repplier was a guest at the Coates' summer home in the Adirondacks—"Camp Elsinore"—where one could experience "one of Agnes Repplier's deliciously caustic sallies." Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good, because I searched a couple of texts at IA with no success. Repplier has a dig at Andrew Lang in this volume, which made me chuckle, and her review of Kipling's Child Stories in "Children in Fiction" prompted me to add and improve those as well.

The Sic template was created before scan backed texts, a flag for users who had clicked edit to correct a typo, as an assertion by another user that it is verbatim. Those readers who are distracted by misprints or errors can now see what appeared on the page in the proofreading namespace, so the usage also includes 'a transcriber has noticed this, but does not want to correct and underline it'. I seem to recall someone banging a pulpit while preaching that 'Indulgence in SIC is the quick and slippery road to Eternal Denotation'. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am one who gets a quip several minutes after its delivery, if at all. But I try! Repplier's dig at Lang was mostly beyond me. I likely needed more context, or am otherwise lacking in the art of language/comprehension. Not a dig, but recalling Arnold's assertion that Carlyle "fiercely attacks the desire for happiness" thereby "[cutting] him off from hope" drew me to Sartor resartus for clues to point-of-view (probably wrong text for that). Difficult text for me to read. I did a lot of re-reading. Much of Coates' poetry is also difficult to read, but I heed the words of Gerard Manley Hopkins to Robert Bridges: "If it is obscure do not bother yourself with the meaning but pay attention to the best and most intelligible stanzas..." The rest usually comes into focus thereafter, and after several readings. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)