Talk:The Chrysanthemums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Definitely needs cleanup

I'm going to try to clean up this page myself, but if anyone can assist me I would greatly appreciate it. I've read the story, and I can put more accurate and relevant information in this article. --Nevhood 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New external link needed

when looking at this page on March 13, 2007, i found this link, "http://amb.cult.bg/american/4/seinbeck/chrysanthemums.htm", that was in the external links section to be ending at a 404 page in what appears to be russian. Will attempt to find another online source for this short story, but would appreciate some help. Might have to turn to my local library for a copy. --Kablaq 17:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kablaq (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC).


I found a copy of it online. AgentSmith15 18:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of the term "homosexual"

I think that the use of the term "homosexual" in the section labeled "Another view" needs some textual reference. Just because they slept in separate bedrooms does not mean that the man was gay. I have read the story and it seems that they definitely have marital issues, but I found no evidence, in my opinion, that the husband was a homosexual. I will not go against this opinion if there is some textual evidence or proper citation to back it up.--Cutesmartguy 01:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Textual reference is not necessary in my opinion, because the idea of the man being homosexual is merely one of several options presented. You cannot deny the possibility that there is something keeping the wife from being sexually satisfied, whether that be that her husband is gay, impotent, or sterile. Homosexuality is just one explanation for her dissatisfaction, so I don't know why you've singled it out as the only one to need textual support, other than that it seems to be the most "outrageous" of the claims. It's just as well supported as any of the other explanations. - hitheremynameisbob, June 6th, 2007
I've made a slight alteration that leaves the husband being gay as a possibility, but does not support it over the other possibilities. As Cutesmartguy said, having separate bedrooms doesn't indicate sexual orientation over any of the other possible reasons. I've removed the POV tag that was there, as I don't think it's really the right template for this situation, and I've hopefully resolved the problem anyway. --Icarus (Hi!) 04:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

Most of this article appears to be personal interpretations, perhaps the results of class discussions about the story. This qualifies as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I've tagged the article as such for now. If there are external sources for any of the ideas presented in the article, they can be added as references. Otherwise, most of the content will have to be removed as original research. --Icarus (Hi!) 04:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)



Art exists not only on the pages of a book or the canvas of a painting. Art is in the interpretation of these things: it is personal, intimate, and inseperable from the reaction and interpretation of each viewer. Everyone takes something different from a story, and thus there is nothing fitting wikipedia's standards to say about one. I agree completely that nothing here has the references needed to meet the standards of Wikipedia, but I believe that it is impossible to meet said requirements when the subject at hand is, itsself, unsupported fiction. Quoting other people's interpretations of a story from "official sources" does not make those interpretations any more or less valid than yours or mine.

Hear me out; most people do not look online for the bare facts of a story. They don't want a lesson on the times and conditions in which the story was written. Of course, this information should be included in an encyclopedia, but not at the cost of everything else. This article is about a short story. However, stories do not exist purely in a realm of definitive facts, and any great author will tell you that the wonder of writing lies in the infinitely many applications and interpretations of the text as it is read again and again.

No-one on this page has stated the views here as "fact." They've all left the final judgement to the reader. What they've done is explain what they took from the story, something that cannot be absolutely right or absolutely incorrect. If you delete these opinions, being clearly stated as such, you will leave scant else to print here. What can you say about a fiction that is based in fact? You can say what year it was written, and where the writer grew up, but you can say very little about the actual story: the reason people have sought out this encyclopedia. Even if you allow "expert" opinions, I dispute your use of that descriptor. Is it not true that the only "expert" on the subject of a fiction is its author? I believe it to be so. Being a writer myself, I know far more about my characters than any of my readers, and can hardly validate any of them referring to themselves as anything other than "Spectators" of the events in my fictions, much less "Experts" on them.

My point here is thus: while this article may not conform to the standards set forth by wikipedia's staff, the standards of fact and citation should not apply in a case such as this, when the only thing one can say of the subject at hand is a personal opinion, and all citation yields is an opinion by someone with a prefix to their name. So, unless you want to go through and delete most everything that has been written about every work of fiction in this encyclopedia that is not referrenced directly back to the author, let live the interpretation and the opinion of the common reader found here; they are the essence of the story, and just as valuable as those cited and indexed to a self-proclaimed "expert." 129.171.233.26 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) -hitheremynameisbob June 27, 2007

The contents of this article may have value in its own right, for the reasons you have stated, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for this type of content. Personal interpretations can and have been removed from articles about fictional stories. Please review the official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research if you are interested in learning about why, no matter how interesting or insightful personal interpretations may be, they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have seen a number of other instances in which articles about stories had personal interpretations, some mundane and some incredibly creative. Wikipedia does not exist for, and could not possibly support, personal interpretations from any random person who happens to stop by, no matter how valuable such discussions may be in appropriate forums. --Icarus (Hi!) 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The largest problem with it, I think, is that it presents one view as fact - most notably, the "Rereading Henry" portion, which states as fact an interpretation which is far from neutral or universal (I've heard Henry's role interpreted in the exact opposite fashion, and that alone should be grounds for changing that part), and for that matter somewhat naively expressed. Most other short story articles offer possible interpretations and points often brought up by the literary community, while judging from the history of this article it looks like someone wrote it after discussing the story in English class, and later edits by others nitpicked and adjusted various statements of opinion while failing to fix or even identify the article's base problem. It doesn't help that English teachers seem in general to have strong opinions on this story. 128.186.223.157 (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing original research

After seven months with no reduction in the amount of original research in this article, I decided to be bold and remove much of it myself. I removed a great deal from the article, and reduced the excessive verbosity of what remained. Like the previous anonymous commenter said, it's become a mish-mash of bits and pieces from different students who came here after reading the story in class (probably, in some cases, copying and pasting from a paper they had to write about it). I've left in what appear to be the more significant key points. The previous version of the article can be seen here. If any interpretations have published academic sources, those can, of course, be included. --Icarus (Hi!) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)