Talk:Samuel Johnson: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Martin Wyatt No edit summary |
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
It is a bit difficult to account for the prominence given to Johnson. If it were not for Boswell, he would be virtually unknown. His original work is all but forgotten. As a critic, he showed in his ''Lives of the Poets'' that he could occasionally be acute, but he decried some of the greatest literary figures of his age, such as Swift and Sterne. As a lexicographer, his pre-eminence is dubious, some of his definitions being more facetious than accurate. He was a bit like a modern celebrity, famous for being famous. However, the article as it stands is reasonable enough. --[[User:Martin Wyatt|Martin Wyatt]] 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | It is a bit difficult to account for the prominence given to Johnson. If it were not for Boswell, he would be virtually unknown. His original work is all but forgotten. As a critic, he showed in his ''Lives of the Poets'' that he could occasionally be acute, but he decried some of the greatest literary figures of his age, such as Swift and Sterne. As a lexicographer, his pre-eminence is dubious, some of his definitions being more facetious than accurate. He was a bit like a modern celebrity, famous for being famous. However, the article as it stands is reasonable enough. --[[User:Martin Wyatt|Martin Wyatt]] 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
:Isn't he mainly famous now for pithy sayings? [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:10, 27 April 2013
It is a bit difficult to account for the prominence given to Johnson. If it were not for Boswell, he would be virtually unknown. His original work is all but forgotten. As a critic, he showed in his Lives of the Poets that he could occasionally be acute, but he decried some of the greatest literary figures of his age, such as Swift and Sterne. As a lexicographer, his pre-eminence is dubious, some of his definitions being more facetious than accurate. He was a bit like a modern celebrity, famous for being famous. However, the article as it stands is reasonable enough. --Martin Wyatt 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't he mainly famous now for pithy sayings? Peter Jackson 09:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)