Talk:The Pilgrim's Progress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Synposis?

I haven't read this book before, and I'm afraid of going to your detailed list of what happens throughout the story. Can someone make a summary for us readers? --24.20.136.246 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cover

This is a seminal work in Western Civilization and deserves an illustration from one of its many editions over the years. drboisclair 23:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian is known as Graceless before he is Christian

Christian is not known as "Pilgrim"; however, in the film version made in recent years and in "Dangerous Journey" this is something that is stated. However, in the book we read the following: "THE PORTER [Watchful of House Beautiful]: What is your name?/CHRISTIAN: My name is now Christian, but my name at the first was Graceless: I came of the race of Japheth, whom God will persuade to dwell in the tents of Shem. Gen. 9:27."

At the beginning we read: "OBSTINATE: What, said Obstinate, and leave our friends and our comforts behind us! /CHRISTIAN: Yes, said Christian, (for that was his name,)"

The "conversion" comes about when Evangelist tells Christian about fleeing from the "wrath to come." At that point, right at the beginning of the narrative he is called "Christian": he is never called "Pilgrim" as he is in the movie version or in "Dangerous Journey". "Conversion experience" is not an accurate description for what happens to Christian, although, his being encountered by Evangelist, who tells him to "flee from the wrath to come" causes him to leave home, which is the Old Testament concept of repentance, i.e. "turning around" (Hebrew: "shuv"). drboisclair 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Second Part

In one section of this article, there are quotes from a person who says "I have not read of a man who gave Jesus but one grote". I beg to differ with him. The New Testament gives the account of Jesus' disciples--they followed him wherever he went and did many things for him. Someone wasn't reading the Gospels--or any other books in the New Testament, for that matter--properly. Scorpionman 19:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Scorpionman, I would also beg to differ, but this is what Bunyan thought. He might have a point in that as far as I know of the New Testament, it is only reported that the women like Mary Magdalene, et. al. gave Jesus and His disciples money to support them. Bunyan is making a point that it was not reported that men gave any money to Jesus while women did. drboisclair 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Length

This article is too long and goes into too much depth about characters and locations, while only devoting a few paragraphs to basic plot summary. Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes, though perhaps that could be a spin-off project. Could someone suggest a way of moving the non-encyclopedic content to a resource other than Wikipedia and providing it as an external link? --LostLeviathan 21:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The characters and locations are of interest because so many of them are used as allusions. Someone looking for Pilgrims Progress is often going to want Mister Stand-fast or the slough of despond or Vanity Fair. The plot is straight-forward; most of the information is in the characters and locations. Still, many of these characters and locations couldn't support an independent article. I think we have a good balance now. It's possible that the plot synopsis could be moved nearer the top of the page, if readers would find that more convenient. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I second Mr. Harrison's suggestions. Length should be no problem to subjects that are of great historical moment. Wikipedia is also a source of information. Why decrease the information it offers to the reader? Why can't Wikipedia be what we the internet users in the world want to make of it. The openness with which people are invited to edit it suggests that people influenced by their culture are allowed to shape it for what it is--admittedly, within reason. drboisclair 10:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adaption

Warner Oland gave his screen debut in an early adaption of "The Pilgrim's Progress". See imdb. --Stilfehler 14:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conventicle Act

While I agree with the editor's characterization of this act as unjust or with the characterization of John Bunyan's imprisonment as being unjust, it would be not NPOV to have it in the main text. I'm sorry that I felt it should be reverted.--Drboisclair 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some new pictures

I added some photos from my 1778 London edition. The map is particularly fun. I've not seen that in any of the modern editions. Hope you enjoy them.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinsertion of the Wikiquote material

It is not redundant to have these special quotations with an inter Wiki link. I ask that the link remain.--Drboisclair 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

No real balance in this article, surely there is some criticism for this work! :) Zidel333 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In the 1950s a survey found that readers thought that it was the most boring book they had ever read. It is considered to be a precursor to the novel. It was written by a poor, lower class "tinker." It is a timeless classic. Perhaps critiquing it would be like critiquing the Mona Lisa. The early literary critics had nothing but adulation for it. Finding some negative evaluation would be an interesting find. It is interesting that in 1913 a James Baldwin rewrote it without any allusions to religion in what he entitled John Bunyan's Dream Story.--Drboisclair 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Drboisclair -- critiquing this book would be very problematical. For one thing, it's more than 350 years old, and doesn't really fit into modern genres of fiction. It's format is totally different to a modern novel, and rather more like the script of a play than anything else. It was written for a very specific purpose, and within the much more religious world of its time. If you were to level negative criticisms against it, you'd basically be commenting on the mid 17th Century society of England and the way Protestants saw themselves. Modern readers might find the way the Catholic Church is portrayed as rather insensitive, and the roles of men, women, and children are very different to their roles nowadays. But it's a book of its time, like the Bible or Satyricon or Huckleberry Finn, and bound to be different to modern books. I'd suggest at best you could highlight the way different social groups were portrayed, and perhaps try to explain why Bunyan was critical of, for example, the Pope or the middle classes or the judiciary. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, there's an *allusion* to PP and its structure in C. S. Lewis's _The Allegory of Love._ He believes the image of Life As Progress is superior to The Moral Battle. (By the way, beyond _The Pilgrim's Regress_, there's clear influence in the travels of _The Horse and His Boy_ and _The Magician's Nephew_. Any critical comments? 128.147.38.10 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it the great C.S. Lewis who wrote an essay "Lions in the path/roadway"? As a Christian theologian C.S. Lewis was greatly influence by St. Augustine, which we can see by the unicorn's declaration at the eschaton of Narnia, "Further up and further in." I guess the Lion/Aslan is a positive figure (Jesus) as opposed to Giant Grim's lions just before the House Beautiful. I don't see much influence. Lewis has better theology in my opinion than Bunyan.--Drboisclair 19:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian thinks that he sees the shining light

"Then said Evangelist, pointing with his finger over a very wide Field, Do you see yonder Wicket-gate? [Mat. 7] The Man said, No. Then said the other, Do you see yonder shining light? [Psalm 119.105; 2 Pet. 1.19.] He said, I think I do. Then said Evangelist, Keep that light in your eye, and go up directly thereto, so shalt thou see the Gate; at which when thou knockest, it shall be told thee what thou shalt do."

It is because of this information that I have indicated that Christian thinks he sees the "shining light."--Drboisclair 04:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First edition image provided

I have provided an image of the title page of Pilgrim's Progress's first edition, and I would like to begin improving this article for GA and A rating.--Drboisclair 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on English variety used in this article

Since this article is about a book by a British author who wrote using the British English of his time, I would like to suggest that it be amended to contain (current) British English and not American. Specifically, the following words should be amended: sepulcher [sepulchre], armor [armour], traveler/s [traveller/s] and neighbor [neighbour]. 90.207.178.62 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to cite a Wikipedia policy that mandates that? I think that the argument is ridiculous. We should work toward making a uniform English language rather than perpetuating differences.--Drboisclair (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The manual of style has guidelines for when it is or isn't appropriate to use a particular variety of English in an article. The only essential question is whether or not there are "strong ties" to the desired variety, and I would posit that works of literature always have at least one obvious tie to a particular kind of English. ;-) If someone wants to go through and make such an update then I think it would be within the Manual of Style's recommendations. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I will check the text of this work, and if the reference is to a word in it, and if it is spelled in this way, I will make the change. I think there is a point in using the spelling from the text.--Drboisclair (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, in the case of "sepulchre": Bunyan spells it "Sepulcher"! It should remain in the article as he has spelled it himself.--Drboisclair (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"Armour" for "armor" is in accordance with Bunyan's spelling, so I have changed "armor" to "armour."--Drboisclair (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have also changed "neighbor" to "neighbour" and "traveler" to "traveller" in accordance with Bunyan's spelling. If there are any other words, please post them here or change them if they are Bunyan's spelling. The 2003 Oxford, W.R. Owens edition is a reliable source for determining how Bunyan himself spelled words. On page 37 the text reads "Sepulcher" and on page 38, line 3 of the 60s Wharey/Sharrock edition it reads as "Sepulcher" as well.--Drboisclair (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Great stuff Drboisclair! I will take your word for it on the "sepulcher" point ;-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, in the 17th century a self-taught artisan like Mr. Bunyan dealt with an English that was not standard in any widespread way. That is the way with our glorious living language! I live to see English as the lingua franca of the world.--Drboisclair (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 200 Languages?!?

No way this book has been translated into 200 Languages. Even if that's what the Oxford edition says: that's a fantastic number, as in virtually impossible. I'd be surprised if the book has been translated into 50 languages. Does anyone have further proof/evidence? --woggly (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been long stated in earlier editions that it had been translated into 100 languages. This is documented by authorized editions, so proof is not necessary just because you may be skeptical. Are you disputing this because there are not 200 languages on earth or are you disputing this because you do not feel that The Pilgrim's Progress was translated into that many languages? Cf. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, ed, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 1092: "The book, which circulated at first mainly in uneducated circles and whose supreme qualities were only gradually recognized, has appeared in a vast number of editions, and been translated into well over 100 languages."--Drboisclair (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You can see this [1] to show that there are over 6,000 languages on earth. You see the evidence later in the article about the exotic languages into which this classic was translated.--Drboisclair (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll explain. While it is true there are thousands of languages (closer to 7,000), far fewer languages have a written corpus of literature. To the best of my knowledge, the Bible is the most widely translated book in the world, and has been translated into over 2,000 languages; often in order to translate the Bible it has been necessary for missionaries to invent new systems of writing for languages that previously had only an oral tradition. Secular works that have been widely translated include "The Diary of Anne Frank" (66 languages [2]), "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" (60 something languages) and "Hamlet" (50 something languages) and The Communist Manifesto. In other words, if "The Pilgrim's Progress" has indeed been translated into more than 200 languages, this would likely make it the single most translated novel in the history of literature, which I somehow doubt. Especially given the fact that the book has never been translated into Hebrew (as far as I have been able to glean from various sources, including the National Library in Israel). Hebrew is not that esoteric a language: it is number 32 on UNESCO's list of Top 50 target languages for translation [3]. --woggly (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you admit that the Bible has been widely translated. Well, next after the Bible The Pilgrim's Progress has been translated the most widely. In order to meet your challenge--for which I thank you--I have seen where it is reported that The Pilgrim's Progress has been translated into all the languages and dialects of Europe. It has been around since 1678/84, so it has had the time to make the rounds. It was translated into Native American languages because it was considered by missionaries to be a tool for their work of evangelization. The same is true for other languages. Check it out, you may be surprized that a novel as "musty and stuffy" as The Pilgrim's Progress used to be quite widely read throughout the world.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen that The Pilgrim's Progress has been translated into Hebrew. I guess I will look for that internet reference.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have found it catalogued that Pilgrim's Progress was translated into Hebrew:

British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books: Bunyan, London, 1884, column 30 [4]: See "Halicoth" "Sepher Halicoth Ourath": It was done in 1845 and 1851.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)