Talk:I'm Nobody! Who are you?

Poetry Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

How does the poem go?[edit]

There has been a question about the correct text of the poem. Naturally, there isn't one answer. Below are the 2 texts that seem "definitive" to me:

Poems by Emily Dickinson: Second Series (1891) Ed. T. W. Higginson and Mabel Loomis Todd	The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1960) Ed. Thomas H. Johnson
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 To tell your name the livelong day To an admiring bog!	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!

The first is the first publication of the poem (which you can see here), and how it was known to the world for about a century. The second is from what I take to be the definitive modern reading edition, based on Dickinson's manuscripts (this ultimately derives from the 1955 Variorum Edition, which I haven't seen). In my view, both should be given in the article. After all, it's a very short poem, and the differences are instructive. Phil wink (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that of course Franklin is now the best authority for ED's texts... I was only a decade or two behind the times! I've put Franklin's text and the 1891 text into the article, which is now I think a little clearer. Phil wink (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]