Talk:Pudd'nhead Wilson

Novels: Crime / 19th century Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Crime task force.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force.

Untitled

This link has some interesting info that might be included. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1697100 24.7.106.155 07:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Title?

Isn't the correct name of this book The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson?

That is the title as given by Project Gutenberg, and also in the link to the full text provided at the end of the article.

If no one objects, I will make this correction.Chillowack (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a terrible article

I've rarely seen as lame a Wikipedia article about a work of literature as this one. Yes, Pudd'nhead Wilson is an "ironic" novel, but it doesn't begin to show how deeply the irony goes. Although the injustice of the childs' swapping is righted, things don't turn out as they should, and Twain suggests that things might have been better left as they were. The politically correct 1984 film glosses over this.

The article also neglects to mention that the basic plot is obviously (???) inspired by two Savoy operas, HMS Pinafore and The Gondoliers, and possibly Il trovatore. Sherlock Holmes couldn't have been far from Twain's mind, either.

If anyone is interested, I'll re-read the novel and fix up the article. I won't do it unless I'm asked. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, sure, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm reading it for the 1st and probably only time, and I agree that the article has major problems and factual mistakes. 2601:18A:8100:33E0:408E:5415:CA1D:197 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Michael Christian[reply]

The Significance

This section reads like a 7th grade book report written by a kid who is flunking English. It's not only very badly written and full of grammatical mistakes, it probably isn't really even necessary. The rest of the article is also pretty dreadful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrCobweb (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pudd'nhead Wilson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The "About" section and I believe the "Plot" one also are verbatim or nearly so from Langston Hughes' short essay on the book that comes with many editions. This needs to be credited.

Last edited at 10:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 03:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

F R Leavis

"F R Leavis was influential in his reassessment of the novel."

How? Where? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3902:B10A:FC58:BA14:8AB2:43A0 (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]