Talk:The Chrysanthemums

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tmerc2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsand8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely needs cleanup

I'm going to try to clean up this page myself, but if anyone can assist me I would greatly appreciate it. I've read the story, and I can put more accurate and relevant information in this article. --Nevhood 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This page definitely needs some help with the plot summary and a more in depth description of the characters. This is a story that readers often find difficult to unfold and understand because it has a lot of important and valid information/topics. It would be much easier to understand if someone were to put more relevant and heavier information in the sections that need the most work.Lmuraskin18 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel that there doesn't need to be a link to what a chrysanthemum is everytime the word comes up on the page. HoganMac1 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

New external link needed

when looking at this page on March 13, 2007, i found this link, "http://amb.cult.bg/american/4/seinbeck/chrysanthemums.htm", that was in the external links section to be ending at a 404 page in what appears to be russian. Will attempt to find another online source for this short story, but would appreciate some help. Might have to turn to my local library for a copy. --Kablaq 17:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kablaq (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I found a copy of it online. AgentSmith15 18:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of the term "homosexual"

I think that the use of the term "homosexual" in the section labeled "Another view" needs some textual reference. Just because they slept in separate bedrooms does not mean that the man was gay. I have read the story and it seems that they definitely have marital issues, but I found no evidence, in my opinion, that the husband was a homosexual. I will not go against this opinion if there is some textual evidence or proper citation to back it up.--Cutesmartguy 01:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with this statement, and the time period also needs to be taken into consideration. Ashsosa1 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Textual reference is not necessary in my opinion, because the idea of the man being homosexual is merely one of several options presented. You cannot deny the possibility that there is something keeping the wife from being sexually satisfied, whether that be that her husband is gay, impotent, or sterile. Homosexuality is just one explanation for her dissatisfaction, so I don't know why you've singled it out as the only one to need textual support, other than that it seems to be the most "outrageous" of the claims. It's just as well supported as any of the other explanations. - hitheremynameisbob, June 6th, 2007

I've made a slight alteration that leaves the husband being gay as a possibility, but does not support it over the other possibilities. As Cutesmartguy said, having separate bedrooms doesn't indicate sexual orientation over any of the other possible reasons. I've removed the POV tag that was there, as I don't think it's really the right template for this situation, and I've hopefully resolved the problem anyway. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research?

Most of this article appears to be personal interpretations, perhaps the results of class discussions about the story. This qualifies as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I've tagged the article as such for now. If there are external sources for any of the ideas presented in the article, they can be added as references. Otherwise, most of the content will have to be removed as original research. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Art exists not only on the pages of a book or the canvas of a painting. Art is in the interpretation of these things: it is personal, intimate, and inseperable from the reaction and interpretation of each viewer. Everyone takes something different from a story, and thus there is nothing fitting wikipedia's standards to say about one. I agree completely that nothing here has the references needed to meet the standards of Wikipedia, but I believe that it is impossible to meet said requirements when the subject at hand is, itsself, unsupported fiction. Quoting other people's interpretations of a story from "official sources" does not make those interpretations any more or less valid than yours or mine.

Hear me out; most people do not look online for the bare facts of a story. They don't want a lesson on the times and conditions in which the story was written. Of course, this information should be included in an encyclopedia, but not at the cost of everything else. This article is about a short story. However, stories do not exist purely in a realm of definitive facts, and any great author will tell you that the wonder of writing lies in the infinitely many applications and interpretations of the text as it is read again and again.

No-one on this page has stated the views here as "fact." They've all left the final judgement to the reader. What they've done is explain what they took from the story, something that cannot be absolutely right or absolutely incorrect. If you delete these opinions, being clearly stated as such, you will leave scant else to print here. What can you say about a fiction that is based in fact? You can say what year it was written, and where the writer grew up, but you can say very little about the actual story: the reason people have sought out this encyclopedia. Even if you allow "expert" opinions, I dispute your use of that descriptor. Is it not true that the only "expert" on the subject of a fiction is its author? I believe it to be so. Being a writer myself, I know far more about my characters than any of my readers, and can hardly validate any of them referring to themselves as anything other than "Spectators" of the events in my fictions, much less "Experts" on them.

My point here is thus: while this article may not conform to the standards set forth by wikipedia's staff, the standards of fact and citation should not apply in a case such as this, when the only thing one can say of the subject at hand is a personal opinion, and all citation yields is an opinion by someone with a prefix to their name. So, unless you want to go through and delete most everything that has been written about every work of fiction in this encyclopedia that is not referrenced directly back to the author, let live the interpretation and the opinion of the common reader found here; they are the essence of the story, and just as valuable as those cited and indexed to a self-proclaimed "expert." 129.171.233.26 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) -hitheremynameisbob June 27, 2007

The contents of this article may have value in its own right, for the reasons you have stated, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for this type of content. Personal interpretations can and have been removed from articles about fictional stories. Please review the official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research if you are interested in learning about why, no matter how interesting or insightful personal interpretations may be, they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have seen a number of other instances in which articles about stories had personal interpretations, some mundane and some incredibly creative. Wikipedia does not exist for, and could not possibly support, personal interpretations from any random person who happens to stop by, no matter how valuable such discussions may be in appropriate forums. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The largest problem with it, I think, is that it presents one view as fact - most notably, the "Rereading Henry" portion, which states as fact an interpretation which is far from neutral or universal (I've heard Henry's role interpreted in the exact opposite fashion, and that alone should be grounds for changing that part), and for that matter somewhat naively expressed. Most other short story articles offer possible interpretations and points often brought up by the literary community, while judging from the history of this article it looks like someone wrote it after discussing the story in English class, and later edits by others nitpicked and adjusted various statements of opinion while failing to fix or even identify the article's base problem. It doesn't help that English teachers seem in general to have strong opinions on this story. 128.186.223.157 (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing original research

After seven months with no reduction in the amount of original research in this article, I decided to be bold and remove much of it myself. I removed a great deal from the article, and reduced the excessive verbosity of what remained. Like the previous anonymous commenter said, it's become a mish-mash of bits and pieces from different students who came here after reading the story in class (probably, in some cases, copying and pasting from a paper they had to write about it). I've left in what appear to be the more significant key points. The previous version of the article can be seen here. If any interpretations have published academic sources, those can, of course, be included. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that there is original research used in the summary which Wikipedia does not allow. For example, it was interpreted that Elisa was felt attraction to the man who visits the ranch and that Elisa and Henry seem like a “well-matched couple”. There seemed to be more as well but I can be wrong. Although the interpretations are good for assignments and also in trying to further understand a story, without concrete evidence from a reliable source which is required by Wikipedia, they are just personal interpretations. You did a good job of reducing the amount of original research present int the article so I hope that I can reduce it even more. I also liked that you put the original unedited version of the article in your comment.Esierra12 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

In what I can only describe as the complete failure of Wiki magic, someone has set the page The Chrysanthemums, one of Steinbeck's major stories, to redirect to the main John Steinbeck page, which neither references nor mentions the story. I'm changing the redirect to The Long Valley, because if we must have a redirect instead of a proper article, it should at least be to a page which includes the words referenced, because otherwise we're just going to confuse people. 169.231.41.53 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect/bad reference link?

It appears that this link: http://www.answers.com/topic/the-chrysanthemums-story-2 redirects to a generic Answers.com search page. It displays a lot of interesting information on flowers, but doesn't seem to provide much information pertaining to this story. I'd suggest that it is removed or replaced. kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 02:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of opinons

This article has a large amount of opinions in it, such as "they seem a well matched couple" and "clearly Elisa envies the man’s life......"These are interpretations and are not explicitly stated. I am planning on removing these from the article.Tmerc2 (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Everything should be kept neutral and shouldn't try to convince a reader towards an opinion. Jjperez1 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

These comments belong in the section above on "original research." Dumas1110 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Section on Analysis

The article could use an analysis section to talk about the point of view, the narrator, and different themes in the story such as: marriage, inequality between genders, and loneliness and isolation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nholm2 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Section on Symbolism

I added a brief section on the page that discusses how the chrysanthemums are as a symbol of Elisa. Erikalugo1 (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I like your interpretation of how the flowers and Elisa are similar. They are both strong and sturdy, while also being delicate and dainty. However, I do think this section could be longer and some textual evidence could be shown to push your point a little further. It's mentioned multiple times that she's a strong yet delicate woman, and when the tinker comes to her garden, she's weary of letting him near her pots or scissors. That shows off more of her masculine side, as she's keeping the stranger away from her personal items.

Erisdon (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think making a point of to talk about masculinity is another good point. Yes she is delicate but she clearly yearns to be more powerful. Ashsosa1 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the explanation of the flowers and what they symbolized. However, I believe that more symbols should be discussed in this section.

9Frank (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there are more symbols than just the chrysanthemums themselves, like the way Elisa's husband treats her.Jchud2 (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we should also talk about the fights mentioned in the story. In the beginning of the story, Elisa didn’t seem interested in fights or watching them, and she quickly says no. But towards the end, after what happened with the man, she expresses some kind of interest in the fights.Kimcaaa (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. In the beginning we see Elisa wearing a floral, more form fitting dress yet in a way she tries to cover up her femininity by where bulkier clothing (the gloves, apron, and mens hat to cover her hair). In a way its like she is protecting herself and trying to give off a "mighty" or "strong" image that typically comes along with masculinity. We later see a much more feminine side to Elisa later that night after she "scrubs" herself clean almost symbolizing a shedding of her previous more masculine image. This more feminine and vulnerable look is seen throughout the night up until she sees the chrysanthemum shoots in the road. It's then that we see her revert back to that more protective masculine side from the being of the story when she gains interest in the fights which is typically designed as a much more gory and masculine subject or event to go and watch. So I also feel that the fights were an important part of the story.Marissabizzario (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I added a brief section about the fights in the plot summary(in the first paragraph and last paragraph).I found that they were important to the plot and showed a slight change in character in Elisa. Feel free to elaborate on it. Marissabizzario (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I edited and added to the section on Symbolism Jjperez1 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I am adding another form of symbolism in the chrysanthemums 9Frank (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that there should be more additions to the symbolism section besides the idea of the chrysanthemums. As Lmuraskin18 mentions below in the Femininity vs Masculinity, the clothing that she wears and her appearance thoughout the story is vital to the story as a whole. The heaviness and masculinity of the clothing she wears in the garden further expands upon the idea of being fragile and vulnerable to the "real world"QuoththeRAven (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Their are many other symbols in the story that greatly contribute to the theme and tone of the story.Mleon15 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. I am adding a sentence about the fog with a source momentarily. PeachGuy (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Language of Flower redirects to "The Chrysanthemums," however we do not direct back. I think we can add that here because it comes from a previously used source. Mleon15 (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I added a wiki link to Language of Flowers. Mleon15 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Editing the Characters Section

There could possibly be some edits made in the "Characters" section. Possibly adding more information about the characters that is in the "Plot Summary", which would allow that section to be slightly shortened.Jjperez1 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the character section needs to be edited and fixed since there was no mention of a ranch hand named Scotty in the Steinbeck’s short story. Maybe, there is a character named Scotty in another interpretation of the story such as a movie, etc., but this Wikipedia article seems to be referencing Steinbeck’s original story. If there are other places that “The Chrysanthemums” are featured they should have their own section where they are mentioned. Furthermore, the character titled “the tinker” should be replaced with “The man” because he never states his exact job title to Elisa, only what he does and it is what he is also called throughout the story. I plan to edit the character section so it would be in line with the story.Esierra12 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go in and make a few minor edits. Feel free to change anything.Jjperez1 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you changed some of the things I was concerned with about the character section. But I think you did not cite and reference some things correctly. I am going to try to fix some things so hopefully, the warning box would go away.Esierra12 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm changing "scissors" to "sisors" under the description of the man because the stories I referenced spell it that way. It's similar to how mowers is incorrectly spelled "mores" in the story. PeachGuy (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing the summary and symbolism section

I am editing the summary of some grammatical mistakes in hopes of making the statements clearer and understandable. I am also editing out the word "clearly" that is used in a couple of places because the way the word "clearly" is being used makes the statement an opinion. There are also a lot of unnecessary commas that I am editing out. I am also renaming the "Symbolism of the Chrysanthemums" to simply "symbolism" in hopes that others will add the other symbols in the story to this page. Erikalugo1 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have also made some grammatical changes to the "Plot Summary" section to better fit Wikipedia's Manual of StyleEmilydean1 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Editing the summary and incorrect/not cited information

While reading the summary I noticed that it was too long and that it had some unnecessary information could be taken out to shorten it. Furthermore, the summary also had some incorrect information in it. For example, the part that says Elisa boasted that she was strong after Henry commented on her appearance, as well as Henry's reply, is not present in the story Also, there where words either paraphrased or taken directly from the story that was not cited at all. Such as how Elisa is described as in the summary. Without the citations or references to whatever is used then there is a case of plagiarism, unintentional or not. Later I hope to cite whatever needs to be correctly cited in order to hopefully get rid of accidental plagiarism.Esierra12 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Femininity versus Masculinity

Steinbeck portrays Elisa as strong, empowered woman who despite that is often is seen in the shadow of her husband. Her physical features often come across as masculine even though on the inside she is as feminine as a woman could be. Elissa's clothing as heavy and masculine. Steinbeck repeats the word heavy several times throughout the story to prove how her appearance can come across as masculine. Steinbeck does shoe how the character's feminist by pointing out her wearing a "figured print dress" but then details how the dress is "completely covered by a big corduroy apron." The author makes it a point to state that her new dress is “the symbol of her prettiness” (243). Elisa is shown as a pretty woman but is hidden behind the masculinity of the world. Her husband seems to be the breadwinner of the couple while she sits home and tends to her garden and puts all of her time and effort into the chrysanthemums. Her hard work and passion will always be clouded by a man’s success.

It can be shown throughout the entire story how some could be questioning the characters femininity when there is so much masculinity shown.Lmuraskin18 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a great point. We even see Henry in a way label her work on the chrysanthemums as not good enough. We see this when he first comments on the chrysanthemum and complements them saying "Some of those yellow chrysanthemums you had this year were ten inches across", but then his comment is quickly followed by "I wish you’d work out in the orchard and raise some apples that big.” One can interpret this as him praising her work, but just because it's a more feminine task it's in a way not good enough and almost a waste of time. We can assume that this is a typical thing for Elisa to go through . That's why when the "the man" (or tinker who wants to fix the pots) complements her chrysanthemums and in a way praises her (without following it with a negative comment). So she acts the way she does, which is so happy, ecstatic and gains confidence. Marissabizzario (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I changed the last two sentences in the first paragraph of the plot summary.Mbish4 (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorporation of story information

I believe background information about the story such as the name of the publisher and other information should be added at the beginning of the page.Jovany Pedraza-Garay (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I will be getting around to this by adding an infobox for a book and filling it out with as much info as I can find.Jovany Pedraza-Garay (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

symbolism

What does raising chrysanthemums have to do with pleasing her husband? I feel like there was more opportunity to talk about other meanings of chrysanthemums and how that meaning relates to her as a person. Jsand8 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I am going to add a paragraph or so in the symbolism part that adds to the effect that the chrysanthemums symbolize her overall character Pdavi1 —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)