Talk:The Caine Mutiny/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Cainemutinybook.jpg

Image:Cainemutinybook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jewish themes

While I have not read or seen The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial, I have read the book and seen the 1954 film. It may pass over the heads of many movie goers, but there is a marked difference between the movie version and the novel version of Lieutenant Greenwald's drunken rant to the officers of the Caine. In the film, his only reason for placing Queeg and other career military men in high esteem is because they were the ones protecting this "fat, dumb, and happy country" from our enemies. The novel is quite different.

It is well established that Lt. Greenwald wass Jewish. He recieved discrimination from Captain Breakstone (who dismisses the fact that he's anti-Semitic), but that does not ultimately decide the case as Captain Breakstone was able to seperate his prejudices from what is right, something the Caine wardroom apparently cannot do. Greenwald showed up late at the party, drunk, and began to rant to the celebrating officers of the Caine.

He said that the Germans were very serious about how the hated Jews. They were rounding them, "'sterminating" them, and melting down their bodies into something useful. Soap, he said. He said that while the rest of the ship's officers (and Greenwald himself) were reserves, and were therefore trying to make non-military careers when the war started, Queeg was a regular. The regulars, he said, were the only people keeping the Germans from coming here and melting down his mother, poor Mrs. Greenwald, and cleaning their "fat behind[s]" with her.

This is not the first time it has been mentioned in the book either. Indeed, in the second chapter of the book, it says that Willie Keith was busy entertaining the patrons of the Club Tahiti, while Japan went on conquest and "the cremation ovens of the Germans consumed men, women, and children at full blast, thousands every day."

Yet despite this great importance, it goes unnoted in the movie. And it is also absent from this article. I have changed the information so that visitors may look at is and see Herman Wouk's true intentions.

Signed, T2Green (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read the book and seen the movie. This is one of several things they had to trim in order to get it down to a 2 hour film. That's how it often is for novel adaptations. Afalbrig (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

(Primary topic?)

Should we treat the novel as the primary meaning of this title? I would say it should be the film. PatGallacher (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Greenwald

The article fails to notice what is quite clear in the novel (tho i don't recall whether Wouk had any character realize it): Wouk has given Greenwald the moral stature to explain the war and the Navy to the 90-day wonders, not only via being a vet of riskier combat, and understanding that the war is no game, but also via his disfiguring war injury in the form of burn scarring to his face and/or head.
--Jerzy•t 07:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It was yellow wine

On the last page of Chapter VI of the book:

"So I'm not going to eat your dinner, Mr. Keefer, or drink your wine, but simply make my toast and go. Here's to you Mr. Caine's favorite auther, and here's to your book."

He threw the yellow wine in Keefer's face.

A little splashed on Willie. It happened sofast that the officers at the other..."

• • So does that settle it, I hope?--Some time ago i endured, politely(back then, no more), an admin with pretty obnoxious and patronizing remarks who also suggested I was making a pee joke. But I thought at least I had gotten the correct fact permanently in the article. It makes me pretty mad to find out that it has said white wine all this time.199.33.32.40 (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In a Google search for the referral of yellow wine in the novel reveals several hits. Novelguide.com [1], for example, expresses it as “yellow” wine. Searching Wikipedia for yellow wine reveals both the currently used (via a link) Huangjiu (the picture does not strike me as very yellow!) and Vin jaune, French yellow wine. If it is not specifically known what type of yellow wine Wouk is referring to in the novel, it seems like expressing it as “yellow” wine without a link would be the more conservative option. Pinethicket (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the book itself doesn't say "yellow", it says yellow.76.218.104.120 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

How about we get around this with a direct quote at that point in the plot summary? Say, "He threw the yellow wine in Keefer's face." 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.104.120 (talk)

Good idea, that will work! Or simply use "yellow wine". Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, what you have recently put in there is fine, regards to you also.--Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It was champagne!!!!! "The table was crowded with flowers, and candles, and silver, and bottles of champagne." "Several new officers, who had reported aboard since the ship's return, and who had never seen Queeg, listened in wide-eyed wonder, and laughed uneasily at the jokes, and drank vast quantities of Keefer's champagne." "He drank as much of the novelist's champagne as anybody" and after the reference to throwing the "yellow wine", "There were five unopened bottles of champagne still standing on the littered table." The entire sequence is a none-too-subtle allusion back to "the yellow stain" and a foreshadowing that Keefer was going to mimic Queeg when he became captain. Wouk can be a little heavy-handed in his cleverness, fun as it is. Recall that Wouk had Keefer show his fondness for champagne early on in San Francisco when "Keefer insisted on ordering a bottle of champagne to celebrate their temporary freedom from Queeg". Or when he tipped his own hand by having Willie say during his testimony, "It was one of those naturals." It was cleverly circular.--Reedmalloy (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Wikipedia currently has an unreferenced article on Captain Queeg which, besides lacking any independent references, is basically an in-universe biography. It also seems to be a synthesis of information from the book, play, and film without regard for where it comes from. I'm not sure we need a seperate article on a character from a single story. It does happen, but only insofar as references indicate the source material from which to write the article. If there are no objections, I will perform the merge keeping relevent information as needed. --Jayron32 04:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the Captain Queeg article should remain as a stand-alone. Reading a review on the movie Kon-Tiki, I came across a cultural reference, he "threatens to go all Queeg on his shipmates." http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/kon-tiki-2013. I prefer to read separate articles on novel or movie characters instead of on the movie as a whole. That being said, the Captain Queeg article needs references. MaggieB0n3s (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger or no, both articles desperately need a 'Reception' section summarizing critical comment, to build out the text from plot summaries to something that shows the undoubted notability of the book. As the Queeg article currently stands a merger would be quite justifiable, so, like MaggieB0n3s, I'd say it's time either to add references or to go ahead and merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Citatiom needed?

Why so many {{citation needed}} when this is explaining the book, so the book should be the obvious reference, unless otherwise indicated? Gah4 (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Strawberries

Should we mention the strawberry incident? When some strawberries vanish from the ship's store, Queeg is convinced that someone has an illicit key to the pantry and literally has the entire ship searched, calling his mental stability into further question. Should this be mentioned in the summary? Bkatcher (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The plot summary omits that crucial plot point while going into excessive detail on secondary points like Kiefer's background. Coretheapple (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)