*depressed sigh*
Jan. 2nd, 2005 08:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
I really feel bad. And this is embarassing, because I'm going to sound arrogant.
How on earth can people feel proud of only reading a book a week, or less, even? I can read a book just going to class, and another coming home. It's a sad week when I don't manage to read even one book. High school, I would take out six books from the library at once, return all six within two days. That's not counting the books they gave me, and the ones I read while in the library during lunch. Is it normal to read so little? Is it that people read slowly, or that they have other things to do? I don't get it.
I feel weird now. Like the freak here.
Well, I did tell you not to click. Don't blame me.
How on earth can people feel proud of only reading a book a week, or less, even? I can read a book just going to class, and another coming home. It's a sad week when I don't manage to read even one book. High school, I would take out six books from the library at once, return all six within two days. That's not counting the books they gave me, and the ones I read while in the library during lunch. Is it normal to read so little? Is it that people read slowly, or that they have other things to do? I don't get it.
I feel weird now. Like the freak here.
Well, I did tell you not to click. Don't blame me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 05:11 pm (UTC)If you're a freak, there's a pair of us.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 05:18 pm (UTC)Is that a non-exact quote / rephrasing from somewhere? Emily Dickinson comes to mind (the "I'm nobody! Who are you?" poem).
If it wasn't intended, it's still a cool coincidence *L*
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 05:21 pm (UTC)I'm nobody! Who are you? Are you nobody too? Then there's a pair of us, don't tell. They'd banish us, you know. How dreary to be somebody, how public like a frog! Telling your name the livelong day to an ever admiring bog!
but with line breaks and all.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 05:25 pm (UTC)I'm Nobody! Who are you?
Are you - Nobody - Too?
Then there's a pair of us?
Don't tell! they'd advertise - you know!
How dreary - to be - Somebody!
How public - like a Frog -
To tell one's name - the livelong June -
To an admiring Bog!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 05:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 05:51 pm (UTC)Emily Dickinson, The Complete Poems, Edited by Thomas H. Johnson, ISBN 0-571-10864-4. This one (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0571108644/qid=1104716074/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_10_2/202-0543387-6483009#product-details).
And I've only ever seen it in the form I posted.
I'm suspecting the one on bartleby.com is an edited version - they did that at first with her poems, to make them less odd and more likable. Especially since the capitalization is normalized, there's a very reduced number of dashes (which is exceedingly odd in a Dickinson poem - even her first ones used dashes a lot), the line arrangement is slightly altered (look at lines 3 & 4), and more "sensible" phrasing has been substituted.
The poem - number 288 in the book I have - is marked as having been first published in 1891, in the second book of poems they published by her, back when they still were editing verses.
According to the introduction in the book I have, the first edition to publish all poems by Dickinson the way she wrote them was the 1955 edition, which the book I have is based on. The edition bartleby.com has was published in 1924 (http://www.bartleby.com/br/113.html), and appears to be, from the table of contents (http://www.bartleby.com/113/), a simple collecting of all the volumes that had before been published into a single volume.
It's missing a lot of poems, too, that weren't published until 1929, 1935 and 1945 (three different collections) - it only has 597, while the book I have has 1775.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 05:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 05:44 pm (UTC)