Talk:Just So Stories/Archive 1

evolutionary just-so stories

Added Charles Darwin's discussion of how the bear could have become a whale sized creature with references and links.DLH 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biology

Some consider evolutionary biology as presenting origin accounts similar to Kipling's Just-So Stories. e.g., in On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin gave an example of a bear growing transforming into a whale sized creature.

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.,

Because of the stories' extravagant nature, burlesquing the Lamarckian theory of heredity, the "inheritance of acquired traits", the phrase "just so story" has acquired the meaning, in evolutionary biology, of an unnecessarily elaborate and speculative evolutionary explanation that, while it may fit the facts, lacks any shred of empirical support. e.g.,

Wade’s explanations commit various well-known errors, such as equating correlation with causation and extrapolating from individual traits to group characteristics….The book has many internal inconsistencies, and one can easily find contrary evidence or readily construct alternative ‘just so’ stories that invoke the same genetic scenario and the same kind of reasoning.

And I removed it because we already have an article on this usage, referenced in this very article. Please move it to that article if you wish but remove the unjustified description of the story as Lamarckian, as Darwin explicitly alludes to natural selection as the mechanism, not Lamarckian inheritance. Thanks. alteripse 09:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Alteripse, please point out the previous article with that usage. I did not see it on that Just-so story page, so moved it there. The Lamackian description was left over from a previous editor. I changed it so it did not refer to Darwin. Moved the material to the Just-so story page. Added summary of the previous materal here to point readers to that page.DLH 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You found the right article and put the material where it belongs. We now have 3 separate pointers on this page to that article. My taste would be for a single pointer to eliminate redundancy and reduce the distractions for those interested in Kipling's stories, but if your sense of style insists on hitting the reader three times, I won't argue any more. alteripse 02:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

woodcuts

Are Kipling's illustrations actually woodcuts? It looks unlikely to me, as they have tone. Can anybody who knows the difference confirm the point? Thanks Johnbod 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My copy says they are woodcuts, and so did the site I copied this image from (but I'm not a woodcut expert). This one seems less tonal Image:Justso_crabplay.jpg, so I'd guess it is just shaded to give the illusion of tone. Yomangani^talk 03:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

- see what you mean. The large areas of white on black suggest they might be too. ThanksJohnbod 03:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now used the crab at Woodcut, so thanks for that. Is there a Commons category for these? I could not see it. Johnbod 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find one either - the three I loaded were Image:Justso rhino.jpg, Image:Justso_crabplay.jpg, and Image:Justso elephantchild.jpg Yomangani^talk 23:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thxs - ive stuck the rhino on the article alsoJohnbod 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Practically a stub!

How is it that this classic, one of the most widely read and admired children's books ever written (certainly in the top five), gets little more than a stub here, while an overrated kid-lit stinker like Ruskin's "The King of the Golden River," which no one's even read, gets a bigger and far-better researched Wiki article? Inquiring minds want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.214.204 (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the stories in the book?

Did Kipling adapt all of the stories from preexisting myths? Or were some of them Kipling's own inventions? There is scant reference to these issues in the article. --Sungmanitu (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Origin Story" link in the head

The origin stories link in the header links out to the article on pourquoi stories, not origin stories. Perhaps either the text should be changed or the link? Many apologies for the chatter if this is already addressed or an intentional mis-match. Thank you very much for your time and efforts to maintain this page. 129.118.128.41 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point. In Wikepedia articles, piped links are supposed to follow the Principle of least astonishment; Easter Eggs in piped links are not considered good style. In this case, it gets tricky: Origin story is an article about the back stories of comic book characters (e.g. Superman arrived on Earth as an infant in a rocket from his home planet Krypton...) The article on pourquoi stories says right in its first sentence that they are also known as origin stories. While the link does not go exactly to "origin stories," its target is related so closely that I don't find it a bit astonishing. In my opinion, that link is not broken enough that it needs fixing. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)