Talk:The Hollow Men

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Merewhtie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation Needed

From the article.. "Dancing "round the prickly pear," the figures worship false gods, recalling children and reflecting Eliot's interpretation of Western culture after World War I."

I'm new to poetry, let alone scholar's interpretation of what might have gone through the head of the poet, and I understand scholars of poetry dig deep into the mind of such, could you at least link to an article or provide a better explanation? Are you saying that "dancing around the prickly pear" is analogous to walking around the Kaba? Help me (and other readers) out here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.95.79 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The note that citation is needed to show that Coppola's Apocalypse Now is based on Conrad's Heart of Darkness: Coppola has said this in multiple interviews. You can find one here with The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/aug/09/francis-ford-coppola-apocalypse-now-is-not-an-anti-war-film “You have to realise, when I was making this I didn’t carry a script around,” he says. “I carried a green Penguin paperback copy of Heart of Darkness with all my underlining in it. I made the movie from that.”

If the "citation needed" note refers to the quote "Mistah Kurtz - he dead," this announcement can easily be found two-thirds of the way through Part III of Conrad's Heart of Darkness: “I blew the candle out and left the cabin. The pilgrims were dining in the mess-room, and I took my place opposite the manager, who lifted his eyes to give me a questioning glance, which I successfully ignored. He leaned back, serene, with that peculiar smile of his sealing the unexpressed depths of his meanness. A continuous shower of small flies streamed upon the lamp, upon the cloth, upon our hands and faces. Suddenly the manager’s boy put his insolent black head in the doorway, and said in a tone of scathing contempt: “‘Mistah Kurtz—he dead.’" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:630:5F20:F0CE:5178:81ED:3F0D (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The Article

This article seems to reflect the opinion and interpretation HELLO! 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)

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)

You know, the whole thing could be done better. It isn't a terrible article, but it would be nice to see a very well researched, well written article for such a terribly important work of art. Gingermint (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The overview still contains interpretations. "...amongst some talk of war" seems purely interpretive. Perhaps because this poem obviously inspired aspects of "Dr. Strangelove?" A citation on Guy Fawkes whimpering at his death seems in order.

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)

Cultural Influence

Been watching this page and thinking about this since making major additions last year and it seems that the cultural impact section (a glorified, if slightly more critically useful, trivia section) is far too long to sit comfortably in this article as it is at the moment.

I cannot think of another article where criticism, evaluation, and anecdotal bits hang together as awkwardly as this, and the length and variety of cultural references demonstrate that a culling or trimming of them would be a loss of information -- and not a substantially useful one.

I propose that we create a new page for the cultural references, or remove the vast majority of them. I'll probably go ahead and do this in a couple of days unless there's some good reasons to the contrary.

What do you think?

--ful cleane (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No response so I'm going ahead with the page split. Only reasonable alternative would be removing most of the cultural anecdotes, which would be a loss of information for wp. --ful cleane (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort ful cleane. Actually adding those paragraphs on literary and cultural critism may do the trick in getting the changes to stick (some seperate cultural references pages get deleted.)

--

I see that the article now has a Colbert Show reference. However, there's another reference from a couple of seasons ago, when Stephen Colbert was interviewing football player/poet Dhani Jones. He asked Jones (and I paraphrase): "Do you ever say, standing over a fallen quarterback, 'This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a SACK motherf---er!'". --BCC (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not worthy of article. WikiParker (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

--

When removing the cultural influences, it is evident that the person who did this decided that the cultural references they valued the most were universally more valuable than others. I have added the references to EMF's song "Longtime" from the album Schubert Dip, along with the links to the Wikipedia page for EMF and to the Wikipedia page for the album the song came from. As a general rule, if a band and an album both have a Wikipedia page, they are culturally significant even if the significance is not part of your culture. I am not a big fan of EMF or anything, I just feel that this was a startling omission and did not represent a worldwide view on the subject. Given that TS Eliot was British, it seems unreasonable that mention of EMF's cultural influence was deleted because they were British and therefore not as important to Americans as some episode of the Colbert Report (which, I am inferring, is a TV show). I found this Wikipedia page whilst trying to remember which song started with "this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends," so clearly people are searching for that cultural influence and not finding it on this page. I did also add a reference. If the section is too long, surely the previous addition of "Axel Thesleff" (who doesn't even have a Wikipedia page and may be a self-promotional reference, I don't know) would be the next one to remove, not EMF. 2A02:C7D:864B:3A00:596C:30D5:B324:7D6 (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Form for the poem's title

In my opinion the form of the title of the poem should be that it is given inside double quotes and not italized at all, i.e. "The Hollow Men." Some of Eliot's poems were originally published as books with a single poem in them. They would get the italized form, e.g. The Waste Land. Please see the Punctuation section for the T.S. Eliot talk page for more. WikiParker (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me! --ful cleane (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not with a bang but a whimper - The association of binding laws —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepidarts (talk • contribs) 02:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How many lines?

How many lines long is the poem? 50? 5000? Kaldari (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it might be 98 lines. Kaldari (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging back in text from The Hollow Men in popular culture

Following an AFD I have merged back in some text. See Talk:The Hollow Men in popular culture#Possible selective merger. Thincat (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Really?

"The final stanza may be the most quoted of all of Eliot's poetry." MinorProphet (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Planned Edits

Hello! I will be providing heavy focus on the article for the next two weeks. I believe this article is fattened up with ideas and allusions that seem to be personal literary analysis without proper citations instead of an unbiased article. I am open to discussing different aspects of the article and how they can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merewhtie (talk • contribs) 04:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"Journey of the Character" Section Questions

Looking at the second section in the article, it appears to be opinionated to me instead of providing a factual statement. In the pome itself, the isn't really one character we see the world through. The hollow men are in a position explained to us, but they don't go through an actual journey of any kind. Is it really necessary to keep such a section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merewhtie (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Current Edits

I've moved quiet a few sentences around in the Theme and Context subsection. Many of them didn't have citations, so I also added to them that way in accordance to the flag wikipedia threw on this article. I am slightly confused on how to approach the reference section. I thought there was going to be a split between how the Hollow Men influenced pop culture instead of cluttering this article with that trivia section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merewhtie (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding Poem?

I do believe 'The Hollow Men' is in the public domain now. Should it be added to this article? Sherlocke (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@JoyD Smiths PTMr8: It's usually not appropriate to add the entirety of works to Wikipedia articles, but it can be added on Wikisource at s:The Hollow Men if you can verify that its copyright has elapsed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)