Talk:Jack and the Beanstalk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Am I the only one or does anyone else see a need for a reference a "Psychoanaliytical interpretation" of Jack and the Beanstalk that includes discussions as this one did? What does this possibly add to anyone's useful knowledge of this fairy tale? Everyone knows that Freudian psychoanalysts have this fettish and tend to find these references in everything the see. Sorry but when my young child is looking up references to a simple fairy tale I resent having to later explain the "power of the phallus" or "masturbation" to them at their young age. There may be a time for that later but not now. Including silly references such as this takes away from the power of a child's immagination to make up their own interpretation of this simple yet profound tale. This section is useless pablum and I will report anyone who continues to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockmon7 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, it should be removed. It could be referenced in an article about Freudian psychoanalysis, but I think it has no place here. - Redmess (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone look over my synopsis of the story and correct it as necessary? -- Zoe

Is it just me or is having a spoiler warning for Jack and The Beanstalk just a little silly? - Sando

Why? Because it's a classic story? Peach Boy is another classic fairy tale -- can you tell me the ending without looking it up? (It's Japanese. But expecting someone who is, say, Japanese, to know Jack and the Beanstalk is as silly as expecting an Englishman to know Peach Boy.) Goldfritha 00:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Talking instrument Jack stole from the Giant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.21.232 (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the English-speaking WP, so the audience is less the entire world than it is the English-speaking world. But I think having a spoiler warning on Peach Boy would be almost as silly--you don't "spoil" a folktale by giving away the ending, they're meant to be told over and over and do not depend on the element of surprise. "Wow--happily ever after! Who woulda thought?" Nareek 11:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Scanned Images of the 1807 Edition

This now appears to be a dead link. I'm not one of the primary contributors to this page, so I'm not taking it off, but I want to give a heads-up Otto1970 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Which is it, "Fee Fie Foe Fum" or "Fee Fi Fo Fum" ? Both spellings are used in the article, mostly the 3-letter version even though Google shows more hits for the 2-letter spelling).

You pretty much answered you own question... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.216.89 (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Spoiler warnings

The plot summary in this encyclopedia article is helpfully labelled "Plot synopsis". As such it's all the warning a reader needs. I've removed the unnecessary and ugly "spoiler" warning underneath it. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excess

removed excessive pop culture references

[edit] "Controversies"

I find it ironic that there has actually been "controversy" over Jack and the Beanstalk, but no controversy under articles on fairy tales considerably more murderous than this one, or even under Goldilocks and the Three Bears in which the protagonist not only steals the food and breaks the chair, but also gets away with it. How much does the "controversies" section really have to be here? Not050 (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Not050

[edit] Pantomime

I came here looking for details of this well-known pantomime. I'm not surprised to find that it is based upon an old folk tale, but I am surprised that the pantomime version is hardly mentioned at all (the only mention is an external link to a commercial site that will try to sell you a script). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil the (talk • contribs) 15:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)