Talk:Balliol rhyme

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

1950s publication

A little reticent about the printed collection of the mid-Fifties, which contained at least one direct hit on the economics don, and later government adviser, Thomas Balogh, and some other near misses. 90.198.12.156 (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difference from Clerihews?

The lede says Balliols are not to be confused with Clerihews, but perhaps something could be said as to why that is the case? As it stands, based at least from the descriptions on their WP pages, they look extremely similar. Both are essentially four-line comic poems. Rhyming is the same in each; two couplets (AABB). Both are biographical. The only difference I can see is that Clerihews seem to be a bit less restricted (for want of a better phrase), both in meter and rhyme, than Balliols. In fact, if anything, Clerihews look on straining to rhyme as good thing. But is that all there is to it (that and the origins)? If so, is it worth there even being two separate articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:F369:D000:FD7F:B569:6EA1:DD9F (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICS, the major difference appears to be that, whereas clerihews are biographical, Balliol rhymes are autobiographical in form and substance, stemming from their origin in The Masque of B-ll--l ("Here comes I a Turkish Knight ...").

I agree that the bald statement in the lede, that "They are not to be confused with Clerihews", needs to be amplified.

--Jmc (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (broadly) with Jmc. They seem quite different to me (although clearly having features in common). (a) Balliol rhymes are written in the voice of the subject, Clerihews in the third person; (b) Balliol rhymes are written in a simple but regular, metre, whereas Clerihews take much of their comic effect from playing with the conventions of metre and rhyme; (c) the first line of a Balliol rhyme generally comprises the subject's name, plus other words of introduction, partly to adhere to the traditions of mummers plays, partly to establish the metre; whereas the first line of a Clerihew generally comprises the subject's name alone, with perhaps just one or two additional short words. The historical origins of the two forms are also clearly quite separate, which I think is probably the point being made by the statement in the lede. I certainly see no mileage in merging the articles (what would we even call the result?). I agree there would be no harm in expanding on the difference in the lede, but what we really want is a secondary source comparing the two. GrindtXX (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree (narrowly) with GrindtXX; the point about the separate historical origins is also a major differentiator . Accordingly, I propose deleting the third paragraph in the lede. The first sentence ("Balliol rhymes are almost always about a person") is plainly wrong - they are always about a person. As for the second sentence ("They are not to be confused with Clerihews"), in the absence of "a secondary source comparing the two", mention of clerihews is better left to a "See also" section. -- Jmc (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose removing the 'Coker' example. As mentioned in its introductory line, it doesn't adhere to the AABB rhyme scheme, which would seem to be a necessary characteristic of a Balliol Rhyme. -- Jmc (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with all those changes. I note from the article on John Wilson Croker that the "squib" in question dates from c.1824 (no source cited), so it would appear to predate Balliol rhymes by over half a century. However, I think (on rule of three principles) that this article does benefit from (at least) three examples, so I suggest you replace it with something else. GrindtXX (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GrindtXX Thanks for your tick of approval. I've made all the proposed changes, including replacement, rather than deletion, of the dubious third example (I go along with the rule of three). Thanks for clinching its dubious standing by chasing down its date. I've also done some minor rewording of the first para to point up the fact that (to quote you) "Balliol rhymes are written in the voice of the subject" (in fact, it might be better if the lede used your wording). -- Jmc (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilson Croker

Is the poem about John Wilson Croker a Balliol rhyme? cagliost (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm John Wilson Croker,

I do as I please;

Instead of an Ice House

I give you — a frieze!^[1]

Answer (see discussion above): No. It was written before the first Balliol rhymes. cagliost (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.athenaeumclub.co.uk/

[1] ttp://www.athenaeumclub.co.uk/

[1]