Talk:Fable/Archive 1

Fantasy genealogies
My question is: What do these "Fantasy genealogies" have to do with the topic? -Gerdthiele 09:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Any details that help a reader—— such as Fact fan, for instance—— recognize the characteristics of a fable are useful in the article. The "fantasy genealogies", though fictional, are not fables and need to be dropped, as Gerdthiele suggests. --Wetman 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a moral message in such genealogies, usually a message that says "they come from the gods" or like, and usually an inference to such consequences as losses, death and unsuccess if they are not obeyed as well as promises of success, wins, life etc if their reign is upheld; they contain fable creatures, such as gods, or others (even totem animals), as ancestors; they are fables. What has made you to think otherwise? ObRoy 08:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See Myth. Not every fictional narrative with a "moral message" is a fable: compare Allegory and Parable. The workings of inexorable fate with "such consequences as losses, death and unsuccess" are the material also of epic and tragedy. I recommend Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (1957) if the analysis of genres interests you. --Wetman 14:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
The contents of this article's current "Definition" and "History" sections overlap and require reorganization as well as stylistic cleanup. logologist|Talk 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have restored discarded text and cleaned up the article. The autonomous appended section titled "History" needs to be incorporated into the central text. The "oral transmission" of Aesopica is secondary; the primary transmission is through texts. --Wetman 21:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fabulists?
Perhaps someone who knows more about this than I, could comment on the appropriateness of including as fabulists ("Notable fabulists") the three Hindu authors listed before Aesop, and the subsequent authors from Vishnu Sarma through Gaius Julius Hyginus, as well as Leonardo da Vinci and "Stoian Mihailovski." logologist|Talk 09:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Section on New Testament
I have changed the section on the New Testament, because the text I edited implied that the original author of First Timothy used the word as we do now, when it was the translators of the Authorised Version who did. I am still not entirely happy with the section, and feel it should either be improved or deleted. After all, even if improved it seems of dubious value to the article. -- Lloegr - Cymru £ ¥ 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes
My main changes were structural. I wasn't sure why a discussion of the etymology and related words was in a section about characteristics. The section on characteristics was also flawed in that it became a discussion of the Polish fabulist, so I reworded parts so he could serve as an example of more general features. I added examples from Aesop's fables too.

I also deleted the section on fables serving as a springboard to other literary forms. I'm not sure exactly what the original author meant by that. Was it a springboard for children who read fables and then moved onto lengthier forms? Was it a springboard for literary history in general, because that's assuming a lot of facts not in existence? Either way, I don't think it was useful or relevant. Feel free to restore and clarify if you disagree. (Obviously!)

Finally, I'm concerned about the amount of repetition in the article, and will think about how to fix that. It requires more time and brainpower than I have at the moment. :P

Stillusio 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong InterWiki
I found the big collection of wrong interwiki connected articles in different languages. ru:Басня, de:Fabel, de:Fee, en:Fable, en:Fairy, pl:Bajka, lt:Fėja -- it is not the same. I will try to remove mistakes I know. But how to correct all the languages? --Mykolas OK 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The de ("Fabel"), it ("Favola"), pl ("Bajka") and ru ("Basnia") interwiki connections to "Fable" appear to be correct. Nihil novi 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hindu scriptures as Fables?!
I'm wondering why Valmiki and Vyasa, scribes who wrote/compiled sacred Hindu scriptures, are listed as "Classic fabulists" when in fact Hindus do believe what is mentioned in these scriptures (that they have written) to be true? It seems as unencyclopedic and hateful to a Hindu as a Christian would feel if the Bible was listed as a fable and Matthew, etc, were to be listed as fabulists as they were scribes of the Bible, or how a Muslim would feel if Mohammed was listed here because he authored the Koran. I believe this was mentioned by User:logologist above, and so I am removing their names. To my knowledge, as well as according to the studies and research I have done (thank you Google, Ask, and all of the other search engines I used, and thanks to the library) I was not able to find any non-Hindu-scripture writings or anything at all that can be classified as a fable that was authored by either of them. 71.159.138.201 (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Further research, and as far as I know (and according to my researching) there was no 'expansion of the Mahabharata with fables' by Vaisampayana, only that he retold the Mahabharata, and so he cannot be listed as a 'classical fabulist'. I am also removing his name as well. 71.159.138.201 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lone Ranger
Someone probably thought that was a joke, but it's not. In the first TV episode, the narrator describes the protagonist as "a fabulous character" in the sense described herein. The point is that the term has evolved into something else. As far as verifiability is concerned, that DVD is readily available in stores. Baseball Bugs 19:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Lone Ranger is a fiction. If he were not an author's published invention, he could have been a legend. The Lone Ranger may be just fabulous! but he is not a fable. The articles currently make all these distinctions clear. --Wetman (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Calvino
It makes sense for Calvino to be in the list, but I don't think it makes sense for "If on a Winter's Night a Traveller" to be referenced as an example of his writing in this genre. It's an experimental novel incorporating the styles of various kinds of novels, plus sections that talk to the reader directly.... It's not composed of fables, and he has other books that are... 67.124.148.100 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you substitute a more suitable title? Nihil novi (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

abidik gubidik tüwüst tüwüst lap lup daba duma TİVİST TİVİS TİN TİN TİN TİN TİN TİN TİN TİN TİN TİN TİN TİN TİN :D:D:D:D:DD:D:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.51.188 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs more picture
Only fourteen pictures? I think we should throw another load on; hang on, I'll get my shovel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.150 (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

fy
nmlkjlkkj;ljik,jlk.ghfyturtyu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.131.75 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres
Maximilianklein (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition
I fixed the definition of fable, based on definitions by Princeton University, Encarta , and other sources. Binky The WonderSkull 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The dictionaries don't limit fables to anthropomorphized non-humans in their 2nd and later definitions of the word. Check The Free Online Dictionary . ô ¿ ô  14:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The 2nd and 3rd definitions are irrelevant to this article.  Nihil novi (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why did they delete this?
There was some general text until October 23, 2005, when someone deleted all but the present lists. Why the deletion? Consider restoring the previous text? logologist 00:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

An ignorant anonymous editor has added Apologia to the See also section. The article was subsequently blocked. When it's unblocked this error for Apologue might be removed. --Wetman 09:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Fact fan 23:24, 22 May 2006 (GMT)
 * It's rather arbitrary. Orwell's "Animal Farm" is an allegory, not a fable - even if it were, one text would not be enough to include him in a list of great fabulists? And the Lion King? Are we to include Bambi as well?


 * To the extent that the characters in Animal Farm have distinct, full-developed personalities and that plot is an essential component of the exposition, it is not a pure allegory. Few knowledgable readers would miss the fact that Bambi and The Lion King are fables. -Wetman 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The entry for Watership Down denies that the book is a fable: "Watership Down is often referred to as a classic example of xenofiction. Many editions also include an appendix of Lapine vocabulary. It can thus be considered not an animal fable like the works of Aesop but a genuine heroic fantasy."  I agree with this characterization, as there is no simple moral to the story. -- 208.219.220.6 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Animals having their own language alone does not define it as xenofiction, because talking rabbits is an anthropomorphism, regardless of the language spoken. What makes it xenofiction is that the rabbits talk AND act like rabbits, fearing other creatures, humans included. Thetrellan (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Likewise, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" seems to be more of a parable, despite its historical classification as a fable. -- 208.219.220.6 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Fabulists?
Hi, I have removed the following fabulists from the modern fabulists list as they don't have wikiarticle, and so may not be deemed notable (yet?):
 * Nico Maniquis (1834–1912).
 * Charles D. Blanchard (born 1966) author of Mourning Doves After The Fire
 * Sumiti Namjoshi (born 1941), author of Feminist Fables.
 * Merlynda LK Robinson (born 1964), author of The Tale of The Goat and The Wolf, winner 2009 The Golden Grove Poetry Award.
 * when they have an article they can go back to the list. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)