Talk:The Hollow Men
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] The Article
This article seems to reflect the opinion and interpretation of one person. While this article certainly belongs on Wikipedia, it needs to be cleaned up and made more scholarly, with references and information that is not simply interpretation of the poem.
I'm not yet ready myself to make the neccesary changes; I would like some more input. Enigma00 03:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree absolutely. The interpretation given is simplictic and reflects the work of a high school student. Richard.Pluta 7:47, 11 Jan 2007
I believe that the inclusion of the comparison of Guy Fawkes with a suicide bomber is an attempt to rationalise thinking about current events, and does not relate to the poem, or the poem's allusion to Guy Fawkes. Does anybody have an opinion on this? I am thinking NPOV and no original research. 217.155.64.102 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I added that information and I'm putting it in again. It is fact, not a POV and has nothing to do with current events. The poem starts with Guy Fawkes and it is not unlikely to end with him. An interpretation could be that God's will be done not mortals' but no interpretation is made; the inclusion just causes some thought to be given by the reader. WikiParker (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your reinsertion is a useful elaboration, though personally I also doubt that the 'suicide bomber' note is necessary, even if true. I trimmed its earlier version mostly because it causes (possibly distracting) redundancies: Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot are introduced twice, and in two different contexts--though at least a mention is appropriate in each case. Perhaps we can amend those sentences to something like:
- This last line also alludes to, among other things, the actual end of the Gunpowder Plot mentioned at the beginning, not with its a planned bang, but with Guy Fawkes's wimper, as he was caught, tortured and executed on the gallows.... --ful cleane (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've got no problems with that. The line is too important to leave solely to comments about movies and games in which it appears. A small subsection on it alone would be nice but it would be an invitation to put in the forbidden interpretations. WikiParker (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- This last line also alludes to, among other things, the actual end of the Gunpowder Plot mentioned at the beginning, not with its a planned bang, but with Guy Fawkes's wimper, as he was caught, tortured and executed on the gallows.... --ful cleane (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your reinsertion is a useful elaboration, though personally I also doubt that the 'suicide bomber' note is necessary, even if true. I trimmed its earlier version mostly because it causes (possibly distracting) redundancies: Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot are introduced twice, and in two different contexts--though at least a mention is appropriate in each case. Perhaps we can amend those sentences to something like:
I don't think it' fair to say that the possible note of hope in "whimper" is "generally unEliotic." After all, he later insisted that The Wasteland, for instance, was at least partly about the hope for redemption. He is not a comfortable "modernist." Tcamps42 (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're right: Eliot's relationship to something as vague as 'hope' is a complex one, and the conclusion of The Wasteland with a prayer can be interpreted on a less than negative note (though Eliot himself has admitted his limitations in criticising his earlier work, and he did refer to The Wasteland as 'rhythmical grumbling'). The vast majority of his prose, however, speaks against human, particuarly humanistic hope--the sort that might be represented by a baby's cry. The Victorian idea of progress, for instance, comes under constant critique as he first positions the decline of Western Civilization just after John Donne, then all the way back to after Dante; and then there's the famous opening lines of 'Ash-Wednesday,' 'Because I do not hope....' (It is true, of course, that the Quartets contain some meditations on spiritual potential, even as they often speak of human regret.) In any case, I think The Hollow Men has generally been regarded as the low point in Eliot's life and career, a place of spiritual and mental exhaustion, though one of his best poems. But I agree with the gist of your comment and have changed the wording a bit. --ful cleane (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inclusion of the poem
I'm fairly sure one does not include large poems in Wikipedia. I think it would fall under WP:NOT#REPOSITORY 71.125.115.48 23:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the copy of the poem included within the article and also a tag that indicated that the poem was a good candidate for inclusion in Wikisource. In the U.S. this poem is copyright protected for about another 30 years. I think, that with current laws, it goes into the public domain only in 2036, 70 years after the end of the calendar year of the author's death. WikiParker 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- It was published in 1925, as such the copyright should be up within the United States. However I agree this is better suited for Wikisource --T-rex 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- We are both wrong T-rex. Rest assurred that Eliot and/or his estate has not let the copyright on any of his poems expire. Thus, according to http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm, the poem is, in the U.S., protected for 95 years from the end of the year of publication. That means that it is in the public domain in the U.S. beginning in 2021. WikiParker 23:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Works of literature
The general "influence in culture" section sounds weak, I've been trimming it.
Specific questions: this article claims The Great Gatsby is based on the poem, but that article makes absolutely no mention of this, which is an odd omission if it was that significant to the writing of the novel. On the Beach (novel) is said to take its name from the poem, but that articles makes no mention of this. V for Vendetta is said to reference it, but it is not explained how, and that article also makes no mention of this. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Description and Interpretations
Nothing wrong with interpretations, but for instance we are missing fairly basic things in the description, the description wanders into interpretation, and the interpretations are scattered and unattributed, making them basically a collection of random anonymous thoughts.
If nobody fixes this, I may have to have a go at it. Help Make the Internet Not Suck, and don't let a poetically challenged fool like myself write about The Hollow Men. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have acted BOLDly and completely canned the Interpretations section for now. As was, it was blatant OR and posessed not a single citation. I'm absolutely certain there are published interpretations available. If someone can drag one up, cite it, and re-make the section, that would be awesome. Even a mere snippet would be better than that. BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edits and additions, November 23 2007
Added the section on Eliot's career--mostly from the intro to a grad. seminar paper I wrote--and edited the 'Description,' now an 'Overview' (since the quick--and in many ways inadequate--sketch of the poem's important moments does not quite amount to a full description). Also, expanded the opening paragraph, added some references, and compressed the cultural refs. Removed the flags (it felt justified after the clean-up) but the 'Overview' still needs work: the failed vow ('For thine is...') in particular. --ful cleane (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)