Talk:Erewhon

[Untitled]
I don't know about this article. It seems to me that Wikipedia ought to be reserved to plot summaries, social context, and other less subjective things. This article is more like a literary analysis. "Clearly" this and "obviously" that wouldn't even be proper in any situation. It's a book, Butler isn't here to tell us what he meant so it's open to interpretation. And if it isn't, then it would be better to leave out the "clearly" in the first place.

I'm not sure what to do with this article. If anyone likes the book and likes Wikipedia they should tear the intro down and start over. There are also some other areas throughout the article that need to be neutralized.

Roy Harmon 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Hors-la-loi 10:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, why isn't it Erehwon?
The article's attempted explanation leaves me baffled. A simple Google search was no help - this is the kind of stuff I come to Wikipedia for. Interestingly, Erehwon has an article and many, many Google hits, so I will at least link it, but it's still not clear to me what the real story is. Spalding 19:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is that we can only speculate why the title isn't Erehwon. I might speculate it didn't look as nice as Erewhon, the article has a different speculation. Why would we link the wrong title? Notinasnaid 22:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it exists and is related. Spalding 23:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION The Author wishes it to be understood that Erewhon is pronounced as a word of three syllables, all short--thus, E-re-whon. Retrieved from The Project Gutenberg eBook, Erewhon, by Samuel Butler. Release Date: March 20, 2005  [eBook #1906] Pawyilee (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be relevant to note that the Maori language, spoken in Aotearoa/New Zealand, has five vowels and ten consonants, one of which is the "wh" (sounds like f). Butler would have been familiar with this. {JAJ, 27 February 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.137.5 (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet, it still reads, "It is likely that he did this to protect himself ..."68.83.72.162 (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * None of you seemed to have realised that "wh" represents /ʍ/, which sounds like "hw". If you read "Erewhon" backwards, you should still be pronouncing it the same way as if it were written forwards.
 * Seriously, how come no one else has brought this up? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Butler meant the title to be read as "nowhere" backwards even though the letters "h" and "w" are transposed, as it would have been pronounced in his day (and still is in some dialects of English)." What is the "it" in the last clause referring to? The clause should either be explained more fully or removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.214.17 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The line is confusing and logically incorrect.  It is clear from the preface that it is pronounced "E-re-whon", whereas pronouncing "nowhere" backwards gets you "rayw-own" or "rayw-hown", depending on how you pronounce your "wh".  I'm going to try to clean it up into something that makes sense. LordQwert (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Defining "Magnificence"
"Banks of that era were few and quite magnificent."

Not only does the entry itself read like a subjective literary analysis, but this kind of subjective language has no place in an encyclopedia entry. How does the practice of shaving coins lead the author to a conclusion about these banks supposed 'magnificence?' If subjectivity is the rule, I could replace the word 'magnificent' with 'malevolent,' 'conniving,' or even 'purple,' and the 'truth' of the statement would be no more nor less verifiable.

This entry needs some serious cleanup.


 * Actually, banks of that era were magnificent. "The first banks were probably the religious temples of the ancient world," according to History_of_banking, and the resemblance continued down to modern times. Pawyilee (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we need the present section on “Musical Banks”, which to me seems full of unsourced, unverifiable and plain wrong assertions? Butler was writing about England in 1870, not about Palestine in the year 70. His target was specifically the Church of England, the only Christian denomination in the country that had ancient cathedrals. Hors-la-loi 10:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Book of Machines

 * To him it was a joke...

Sez who? Butler says in his PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION:


 * I regret that reviewers have in some cases been inclined to treat the chapters on Machines as an attempt to reduce Mr. Darwin's theory to an absurdity.  Nothing could be further from my intention, and few things would be more distasteful to me than any attempt to laugh at Mr. Darwin; but I must own that I have myself to thank for the misconception, for I felt sure that my intention would be missed, but preferred not to weaken the chapters by explanation, and knew very well that Mr. Darwin's theory would take no harm.  The only question in my mind was how far I could afford to be misrepresented as laughing at that for which I have the most profound admiration.

Retrieved from The Project Gutenberg eBook, Erewhon, by Samuel Butler  Release Date: March 20, 2005  [eBook #1906] Pawyilee (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is important to note, however, that Butler wrote of machines developing consciousness by natural selection, not artificially." This line strikes me as a clear misreading of the text, in that Butler goes out of his way to remove the distinction between "artificial" and "natural" advancement in machines; my understanding of the Book of the Machines included the idea that the strongest pressure of natural selection as it relates to machines is—at least for the time being—their utility to humans, and that humans are and may continue to be a vital part in their evolution, not "artificially", but as part of an expanded definition of natural selection. As it strikes me that a large part of the profundity of those chapters of the novel comes from exactly that observation (and related ones) on Butler's part, I don't believe this sentence belongs in the article, especially unsourced. --Fallingcow (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fallingcow that the statement about natural vs artificial seems out of place. Given that machines exist because of human designers and builders, it seems that human-made modifications are part of "natural selection"? We constantly modify machines to run more independently with less human interaction. It is not easy to see that fuzzy line where the builder crosses over and becomes servant, the machine compelling the changes it "needs", carried out by compliant unsuspecting fingers. GeeBee60 (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-sourced digression in intro
Removing this bit here:
 * "Mesopotamia, in mid-Canterbury, is probably the most famous of New Zealand's high-country sheep stations. Its boundaries, which lie along the Rangitata River from Forest Creek to where Camp Creek joins the Havelock River, embrace an area of about 100,000 acres. Mesopotamia's neighbours are the famous Mount Peel, Mount Potts, and Erewhon Stations. The nucleus of the station was taken up in 1857 and 1858 by Henry Phillips, J. Carter, and E. Owens, who in 1860 sold their leases to Samuel Butler. Because it was isolated behind river barriers, Butler named his station Mesopotamia. In 1863 Butler sold his interest in the station and since then the leases have passed through many hands" (entry in 'Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand' 2010 website).

The parenthetical at the end is not a valid source citation, making this unsourced. This level of detail does not belong in the intro, and it doesn't belong to any existing section of the article. It is an unnecessary digression that adds nothing to the current article. The single sentence paragraph that followed it provides the only relevant info much more succinctly: there is a sheep station in NZ named after Butler's novel.

If someone cares to find an actual source for this and edit it so that it has a place in the article, more power to you. As-is, it's rubbish. 71.200.134.47 (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The source is http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/mesopotamia-station/1 Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand is the official encyclopaedia of New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Butler and Dune's Butlerian Jihad
Are there any indicators or have there ever been any suggestions that the Butlerian Jihad of Dune may have been, in name, a reference to the suggestions in this and Butler's letters that machines might evolve over time and pose a danger? -&#61;Worloq&#61;- (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)