Talk:A Visit from St. Nicholas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Visit from Saint Nicholas, surely? Quill 00:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The label for the Snopes link (here and on Clement Clarke Moore) is misleading; they talk about the dispute, but do not actually refute Moore's authorship: Whether Moore or Livingston wrote "A Visit from Saint Nicholas," one of them melded elements of Scandinavian mythology with the emerging Dutch-American version of Santa Claus... 61.51.67.145 17:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thunder and Lightning...

...translates to Donner and Blitz. As far as I remember, the poem mentions a reindeer named "Donner", but not "Donder" as it mentions in the article. Blitzen would be the infinitive form of the verb "to lightning" (though that doesn't really exist in English). Anyone care to clear this up? --Jemiller226 23:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sure: you're thinking that the words in the poem are German, but they're Dutch.

[edit] I am not sure this is correct...

"more proof links the poem to Moore than" If there is proof of Moore's authorship, then there is no dispute. Even if re-worded as "more evidence links the poem to Moore" then even this, I think would be POV as it isn't wikipedia's place to assess the merits of evidence. It would perhaps be better to say that the poem had been attributed to Clement Moore and later to Henry Livingston although no proof exists of authorship. DavidFarmbrough 15 Sep 05

If there is more evidence there is more evidence. That is merely stating a fact. MrBucket 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Private correspondence of the editor

We need a source for this, I've taken it out for now. Having read Foster's work it seems largely convincing. Rich Farmbrough 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Names of reindeer

I removed the full list of the names of the reindeer. I would be nice, however, to have the several versions of the poem in Wikisource. -Acjelen 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to point out that on snopes it quotes the poem and it mentions Dunder and Blixem. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/donner.asp Feral Mutant 20:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please put back all the raindeer names. It is an important cultural detail, and does not take up much room. Many children memorize these names. 69.87.193.238 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Include entire poem?

Do you think we could just print the complete original poem in the article? Other articles have full songs and poems in them and the poem is in the public domain. What do you think? Meyow 17:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should. --Chancemichaels 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
The original version, of course, but who knows which that might be? MrBucket 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure WP has a policy of including the text of a poem in its article. As long as there is a link to Wikisource, I don't see a real need to include the text. Perhaps the Wikisource link could be moved to the top of the article. -Acjelen 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote for including the text of the entire original poem. It is not that long, there are no copyright issues, and this poem has great cultural significance. It would also be good to have a prominent direct link to an actual image of the original December 23, 1823 publication. Ideally, there would be a thumbnail illustration in the article, that would link to an enlargement. 69.87.193.238 21:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Google books can be searched, but I can't find an original -- this 1856 image is the earliest I can find: 69.87.193.238 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Poets and Poetry of America - Page 82[1]
1856 - 622 pages
A VISIT FROM ST. NICHOLAS. ...

[edit] Victorianization of Christmas?

This was 1823.

Perhaps. Victoria's principal contribution to Christmas was the Christmas tree. Visit certainly presents a very domestic and children-centered Christmas compared to even the Christmas in Dickens' writing, which is much more public. The wholesomeness is also very ironic: home invasion, but by a saint; reverse burglary; the sly conspiracy with the father. -Acjelen 14:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually burglary is a more accurate term than robbery in this case. The home-invader's intent was to avoid an encounter with the "victim", which is not the case in a robbery.--Appraiser 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never heard that nuance. I suppose that makes Bilbo Baggins a burglar after all. -Acjelen 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite - Victoria wasn;t crowned until 1937. I find it unlikely there was any grat "Victorianisation" going on in 1823. I must say though, it surprises me this poem ws written so early. It does seem very Victorian to me. It seems more likely it helped shape what became the Victorian Christmasn than that it satirized it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlando098 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original copies

How does one have an "original copy" of a poem that first appeared anonymously in a newspaper? Are they newspaper clippings? -Acjelen 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the author would have had a copy that he wrote, to send into the newspaper. From the context, I presume this term has been extended to include any copy that Moore wrote out himself. SixFourThree (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

[edit] Authorship controversy

This section seems to be a whole lot of nothing. Moore took credit for the work, and during his lifetime it was published in an anthology of his works. Seems to me that we ought to touch on the controversy, specifically citing those historians who hold a different opinion, but a blow-by-blow of rampant speculation about who knew whom, who might have been exposed at one point in his lifetime to what, and comparing styles seems to add more weight than the "controversy" deserves. At the very least, these lists ought to be replaced by a brief summary. SixFourThree (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

I disagree. For a work as well-known as this one, authorship is significant, especially since is appears that credit for the work was stolen from the author. If anything, that section should be expanded.--Appraiser (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If there was any "there" there, I'd agree. But all we have is speculation, and some is silly at best. These lists don't provide any clarity. How can we determine if credit was "stolen" since no other author ever stepped forward to claim credit, either before Moore did or after to challenge his claim? Livingston never made any claim to the poem. Seems to me that this article is lending weight to a controversy that doesn't really exist in any substantive form. SixFourThree (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
This is a major sleuth problem for the poetry world, as explained here [2] and here [3]. I agree that the lists don't adequately cover the topic, but to me that is a call for expansion, not deletion. Maybe I should add it to my todo list.--Appraiser (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
A "major sleuth problem"? According to both your links, the theory is being advanced by one man. That should be the subject of the "Authorship Controversy" section. I agree that the subject deserves to be covered, but the article shouldn't imply (or outright state) that this is some sort of Shakespeare/Bacon thing going on. SixFourThree (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree