Talk:The Walrus and the Carpenter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Problems 2 Quote 3 Spoiler warning? 4 Poem formatting 5 The Disney Version

[edit] Problems

Just because something deals with what is considered a "dark" theme dosen't make it sinister. The tone is what matters and the tone of the poem is whimiscal and the "sinister" aspects are played for laughs. Why do adults insist on covering the Alice stories with their own negative viewpoints and cynical interpetations of the world? This is totally contary to the innocense Carroll intended in the work, and a perversion of the books spirit of whimsical diversion from the more serious aspects of life. Aaargh! - anon | Many interpretations must be provided on this page :) or else we'd be providing a biased view.. Jellocube27 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is highly speculative and poorly written. For example: One such interpretation is that the walrus and the carpenter symbolize the British government and the oysters symbolized the lands the British government took over time that didn't belong to them such as China, India, or South Africa. I'm sorry, I don't recall a point when Great Britan took over other countries. Yes, they colonized, and yes, they got China addicted to opium, but this passage still seems highly speculative in nature and is not source. Actually, none of this article is sourced! I suggest a complete re-write if the longest paragraph we're going to have is about Dogma.Jellocube27 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the Dogma portion of this article into a new section, 'In Popular Culture', as it is not a true interpertation. Jellocube27 21:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well today was productive. If anyone cares to add more sources, especially to the "interpretations", I'd be extremely greatful! Jellocube27 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Note, however, that it was written before the first world war. This comment is unnecessary-- there were many genocides before WWI! If it is meant to indicate the time which it was written, I have provided the original date of publication in the first paragraph Jellocube27 21:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. And without one of those, we wouldn't have had Dragostea din Tei. Go figure. Shinobu 14:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone write up a citation for The Annotated Alice? Thanks Jellocube27 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the author referred to the difficult reasoning of the contemporary economist Walras. Walras basically said that if anybody was unhappy then everyone would be better off if everything changed. Having Walras talk to a sensible person like a carpenter was very clever! This is the kind of nonsense that lead to Paul McCartney being compared to the Walrus. The Beatles soon found that being the walrus was infectious, and they all got it together. I hope the author of this page will consider this idea for the main part of the page. Frizb 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research or speculation! Also, if you had read the article, you would know that the significance of the carpenter is not in his profession:

Martin Gardner noted in The Annotated Alice that when Carroll gave the manuscript for Looking Glass to illustrator John Tenniel, he gave him the choice of drawing a carpenter, a butterfly, or a baronet (since each word would fit the poem's meter). Tenniel chose the carpenter. Jellocube27 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Well, I can't find the reasoning why the quote of the most well known passage from the poem was inadequate and got deleted. I would prefer keeping it, as it did not do any particular damage. Any suggestions? Blahma 11:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the quote was not adding anything to the article; it is linked at the bottom of the page if anyone wants to read it. Perhaps if the passage was illustrating a point in the article, it would fit. Why is the quote well known? It is is really a significant passage, it should be explained in the articles. These are only my ideas. What do you think? Jellocube27 16:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the quote because it's a well-known and often-quoted stanza. While adding the entire poem would not have been appropriate, including its best-known section could prove enlightening to those unaware of its origins. - EurekaLott 01:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me :) I will put it back on. Jellocube27 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning?

Do we really need to warn against spoilers here? --Apoc2400 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the spoiler tag. Jellocube27 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poem formatting

I'm not sure how to do it myself, because just putting it in plaintext would defeat the purpose, but I think the text of the poem itself needs to be formatted differently, somehow. Anyone got an idea? PaladinWhite 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the poem's text from this article, it was much to long and had no place here. Furthermore, I moved the wikisource link to the poem above the fold. Jellocube27 03:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Disney Version

I got them straight from the movie itself, and I am pretty certain that they are correct.Captain Red Hook 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that this version should be added to the Wikisource and linked like what happened with the original. PaladinWhite 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if it should be added to wikisource, as the Disney version is certainly not in public domain. The information is a good addition to the article-- nevertheless, it clutters the page! Perhaps we should write a summary about the changes made to the poem, and provide that instead of the poem itself? Or, we could link to another website which hosts the poem. Jellocube27 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found a website carrying the version yet. A summary would also be good, but the changes are rather extensive (as all but the first stanza was changed). Adding it to the Wikisource and linking it sounds like a good idea, but I have no idea how to do that. Captain Red Hook 21:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that wikisource would accept it, as it is not in public domain. Jellocube27 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)