Talk:The Walrus and the Carpenter

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Walrus and the Carpenter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Why not include the entire poem ?

It is not so long and is in public domain.2601:401:8002:4A57:217C:AA18:F372:4097 (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 innocence 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Unnecessary links It surely is not necessary to have a wikilink to words such as shoes and ships. Will anyone need to look these up to understand the poem? Chemical Engineer (talk)

Spoiler warning?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

What about the Matrix movie sequels?

The films of the trilogy "The Matrix" were all based on this publication. The references are made throughout the film and when interviewed the actors and the writers and director all say that is based on through the looking glass with a more modern and action oriented theme.

19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Truefoe Truefoe Truefoe 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The publication that the Matrix trilogy contained references to is Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. This article is just about one of the poems in that book. The relationship between the Matrix and Alice is already mentioned here. It's also mentioned in the index at the bottom of that page. --JayHenry 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing interpretation?

Other's above have suggested removing some of the proposed interpretations of the poem. I agree, most especially with the most absurd interpretations; e.g. those that fit the state of the world as they are now, rather than as they were then (Iraq, etc). Such comparisons can indeed be useful as rhetorical devices, but I suspect that, in the long run, they are not notable or encyclopedic enough for inclusion. I thus propose removing these unsourced statements in the section about interpretations; at the very least we should stick to contemporary comparisions.

I agree. Such things have no bearings on the meaning of the poem at the time and seem to have been posted here as a "plug" for writers. Unless all modern interpretations are lumped into one area I suggest they be removed.(Dbcraft (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Star Wars!

   Have you ever noticed Darth Vaders outfit looks like a walrus?  What then about

Lukes transformation from episodes 4-6 to that of a priest. Some belive christ picked iup the carpetrey skill from Joseph. Most of the rebel and empirial forces in episode 4 have helmets that look like half clams, much more acceptable in a millitary uniform than the non-symetrical shell of an oyster. Maybe Lucas had his own interpretation of the poem?--207.14.129.123 08:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Interpretations Again

I am removing all entries in the "interpretation" section which are not sourced reliably. Some of these were simply too dubious and without credibility. Jellocube27 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the Dogma edits. The reference was indeed in the movie. It was memorable because of its religious implications, which should be a part of the entry, even if some may disagree with the interpretation. (Especially considering the choice of a carpenter wasn't Carroll's, but saying it would cast doubt on the theory might have been considered WP:OR, so I left it out.) I've revived those edits. If you want sources, then I guess I could link to a YouTube video, but considering the copyright implications, I'm not sure if the video would be permanent. SineSwiper (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It's some obscure movie with characters discussing, not an "interpretation" of the poem. It's not worth mentioning. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dogma is obscure? Yeah... in BIZARRO WORLD!206.24.49.1 (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History is written by the victors vs Vae victis

The oysters question is, carpenter vs walrus. Instead of: why do we consent with what either religious (can´t act against the public opion) or democratic (take responsibility for about 4 years elected for guaranteeing to people´s expressed will to be for the good of future generations) celebrities tell the people to be for the good of the ordinary people ( aka oysters )? btw: don´t fear the blue oyster cult.

Are you implying that that little prick continuously used as a running gag in that tv series South Park ( season 6 episode 15, season 8episode 8 ) isn´t supposed to turn out to be a douche?

So, they are referring to that poem?

English

What happens to the Oysters who follow the Walrus and the Carperder? Do you think

they deserved their fate? 2405:201:A804:3139:B070:D797:E13A:8AA4 (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]