Talk:Coleridge and opium

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

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

Sweeping generalizations[edit]

While the sweeping generalizations about drug addicts may, like all sound generalizations, be generally true, they are used here to impugn the integrity of Coleridge without presenting any other basis. Since the man was at the same time one of the clearest of all observers in history of his own intellectual processes, whence his famously penetrating distinguishing of Sense-Fancy-Understanding-Imagination-Reason, it seems likelier to me that his explanations, if embarassed, are accurate enough. jb (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that his article impugns COleridge's integrity is entirely specious. Despite the strong statements of books like Fruman's The Damaged Archangel, Coleridge's reputation as poet and literary critic is assured. If his drug addiction, outrageous plagiarism, and domestic irresponsibility did not rob him of this status then this artical certainly will not. Futhermore, Jhbeck23, if you can find one respectable Coleridge scholar who believes his own explanations concerning, for example, the authorship of Kubla Khan i would be very surprised!

I think this article really misses the point concerning Coleridge's drug use. Opium at the time was the equivalent of a prescription drug. It is not like Coleridge was using it as a what we would call today a "street drug." Coleridge was under the care of doctors who prescribed that he take the drug (Dr. Daniel and Dr. Gillman). Not being a medical doctor himself, he lacked knowledge about the effects and consequences of taking the drug. Thus the article creates a false impression of Coleridge, who openly admitted that he detested opium as a cure for his ailments. In today's world prescription drugs are exceedingly common, any thing from Prozac, Zoloft, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Lithium, etc, and they too are prescribed by medical doctors. If Coleridge were alive today, he might be on disability. In fact, Coleridge spent his final 18 years living with a physician because there was no disability insurance at the time. The fact that he was as prolific as he was, in spite of his physical ailments, is a testament to his ability to persevere through adversity. The false impressions created in this article distort and bend the truth without actually totally breaking it, and there is definitely a negative spin to it. Likewise, the opinions of Robert Southey are little more than opinion and hearsay, opinions after a falling out with his old friend Coleridge. I wouldn't necessarily delete this article, but it definitely needs cleanup, and greater attention to the facts. To some extent the article impugns Coleridge and also serves to impugn Wikipedian "historians" who see Coleridge and opium use through modern lenses, not the lenses of the 1800s when opium was basically a prescription drug. Besides, most of Coleridge's famous poems were largely written before 1800 when he wasn't addicted to opium. On a further note, the article totally ignores the politics of the day and the fact that Coleridge's period of poetic inactivity correspondes mainly with the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815). Get real, how much do you think a philospher-poet can get away with with a world war on? Charlescole. PS: I have a Ph.D.

Despite the above commentator telling us that he/she has a PhD, these comments seem a tad bizarre to me. First of all, in Coleridge's time 'prescription' drugs did not exist in the contemporary sense and failure to understand that C. was using Opium at (at least a partially) recreational sense means that you just weren't paying attention to Coleridge's life. By saying that Coleridge was taking opium as an 'equivalent' to a prescription drug suggests that this person is seeing it through 'contemporary' lenses. Furthermore, there is not question that C. was regularly under the influence of Opium when he wrote Kubla Khan, The Ancient Mariner, and Christabel. Coleridge was self-medicating as well as experimenting with the drugs potentially creative aspects. This opinion is confirmed in my opinion by both De Quincey and by Abrams in his book on opium use and poetry. (Kirbycairo (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think the main problem with this article are lines like "... as with much of what Coleridge says, it should be taken with a grain of salt. and "..as everyone who has dealt with the issue of addiction knows ..." which seem to have a certain bias or presumption to me. also, although Coleridge's opium use was of detriment to his life, it is a leap to assume the reader sees him " as simply a weak, slothful, man who lied, plagiarized, and abandoned his wife and children". I have taken these lines out and tried to rewrite parts of this article to make it more balanced, but it needs more work, and references.alexander110 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments[edit]

Type in four tilda's at the end of any comment you mkake and it will date and time stamp your comment with your User ID or your ISP Id. ThanksLiPollis (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]