Talk:Green Eggs and Ham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] Real green eggs and ham
The only reason why I put the breakfast item there, is that for a non-american, some of the humour is missing if you don't understand the there is comedy in the eggs actually being green in the book. Mark Richards 22:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hi MR, I hope the current revision is now ok. Your new material is now near, but not at, the top.
- I now see your point, namely that Seuss himself was probably familiar with real-life, spinach-based green eggs and ham (which I wasn't). The rewrite I did was to conform to a fairly iron-clad law of Wikipedia articles, which is that the first sentence should identify the item under discussion. (Look around the encyclopedia and you'll see that this principle is pretty generally respected.) I hope this helps, or at least is not excessively annoying. Opus33 15:16, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
That works for me - thanks, Mark Richards 15:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
-
- It's certainly news to me! Thanks. 66.92.237.111 20:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW, not that it applies here, but take a look at Disambig, Rome and Cream, that was kind of what I was going for here ;) Mark Richards 15:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed. I guess we both feel that real green eggs and ham wouldn't merit an article on its own. But if it did, I agree with you that a disambiguation thingy would be correct. Thanks for your reply, MR. Opus33 16:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
You're right ;) Mark Richards 17:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Is there proof that the "real" green eggs and ham predates the book, rather than having been invented post-GE&H as a novelty? Lawikitejana 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Misquotation?
The article quotes the book as saying
I do not like them in a box. I do not like them with a fox. I do not like them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
but I don't think this is correct. I think it is more like
I would not eat them in a box. I would not eat them with a fox. I would not eat them in a house. I would not eat them with a mouse. I would not eat them here or there. I would not eat them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Perhaps someone who has the text handy could check to make sure. Dominus
- The passage (p. 31) is correct. Thank you for exercising editorial vigilance. Opus33 03:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it appears that I was remembering (incorrectly) a later passage. Thanks very much. -- Dominus 13:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Link to copyright-violating pages?
These two links:
- Green Eggs and Ham complete text.
- Green Eggs and Ham illustrated version from Sy Kopath
go to pages that I'm virtually certain are copyright violations--Green Eggs and Ham is very definitely still under copyright, and the copyright is defended zealously by its publisher.
It's true that the Wikipedia can save its readers the trouble of buying a copy of this book by providing these links, but it seems not really right to me. I am sentimentally influenced by the thought that Dr. Seuss himself probably would not have wanted us to include such links. Opus33 20:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- While an appeal to what he would have wanted is indeed sentimental, the fact is that the reason(s) he would likely not have wanted us to direct to copyright violators are the same reasons that copyright protection exists, so a respect for copyright is both legally sound and a fitting tribute to those inventive people we admire. Lawikitejana 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- As I expected, both links are now (Nov. 2006) dead, suggesting that Random House people at some point found them and persuaded their authors to take them down. Opus33 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hebrew ham?
An anonymous editor just removed the line:
Does anyone know if this was true (and should be restored to the article)?
Atlant 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Keeping popular culture items separate
The reasons to keep the popular culture items in a separate article are as follows.
- This material tends to keep accumulating and ultimately becomes longer than the actual information about the book, which is a form of poor organization.
- Pop culture material is of more interest to people interested in the particular branch of pop culture involved, and tells us nothing about the book itself.
- Having piles of popular culture items included in every article about a work of art gives readers a bad impression of the Wikipedia--namely that it's edited by a bunch of ignoramuses who never read a book, but know their popular culture cold. This isn't (entirely) true, but we shouldn't give the impression that it's true.
- Lastly, there's an esthetic element: Seuss's book is a beautiful and clever thing, beloved by many, and I'm not crazy about including a lot of stuff in the article that basically desecrates it.
- Opus33 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
-- In response: It is not as if I feel these reasons are invalid, but the other Dr. Seuss books that are famous enough to warrant a list of popular culture references include theirs inside the breadth of the article. (Grinch, Cat) Granted, those are shorter, but even if it were only for the sake of a standard, I believe it should be maintained.
In any case, I am hardly disagreeing about the quality of Seuss's book, but to say that cultural references are a desecration to it seems a little excessive. Additionally, cultural references mentioned are rather objective, actually, since they're a media and societal aspect, and this isn't a fanpage. Lastly, the stand-alone article of the popular culture items looks slightly ridiculous on its own; no one actually searches for "Green Eggs and Ham Cultural References," they search for "Green Eggs and Ham." It clutters Wikipedia itself. I agree the list need not have any prominence, but it harms no one and nothing at the bottom of the Green Eggs and Ham page.
-- Kylara21 -- June 27, 2006.
- I'd be in favor of merging them. I tried to make a common ground by showing part of this list here, but I definitly don't think that pop culture references needs its own article. I acknowledge that the list is very large. Maybe it could be turned into paragraph form? A paragraph for movie references, a paragraph for TV, etc.?
- - Haon 04:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Animated Version?
Does anyone know if there was an animated/cartoon version of the book made? I seem to remember seeing it on tv a long, long time ago, but I can't find any mention of it via Amazon or IMDB.
Thanks.
[edit] Deleted content in Words
I re-inserted the following: "The tale is in the form of a s..."
I noticed that the fifth sentance read as follows: "Despite Seuss's success, it is unclear whether Cerf
ever paid the beto-called "cumulative" story, with a list of
circumstances which gradually increases as the story progresses."
The 'beto-called' part caught my eye, and after tracking down the deleted original, thought it best to put them back.
-Coalhalo 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
