Talk:The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket

Richard Parker

Does anyone have to necessary information to add the coincidence of the cabin boy Richard Parker in the story to the real life cabin boy Richard Parker that was cannibalized many years later?

What necessary information do you need? That's pretty much of the gist of the story right there. If you're looking for a source, the comparisons between the Poe story and the real-life event are detailed in Incredible Coincidence by Alan Vaughn. Minaker 11:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it in the section titled "Major Themes," there is only information concerning coincidences between reality and the novel? This isn't anything I would remotely associate with the major themes of The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym.

Well, Minaker, it seems you've responded to a very old post. My assumption is that since this message was posted, further information was added as well as a source. So, I doubt there's still an issue here. --Midnightdreary 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hollow Earth

I've read this work and I don't see how the ideas of a Hollow Earth are tied into the novel.

I think that you can learn more about this ideas, and the way it implicitly appears in Poe's novel at this adress

Loudon dodd (french user), 15 november

Major revision

This article is in need of an urgent revision and edition. Actually it should be rewritten completely. The "Major Themes" is nothing but a collection of trivia, and there is not any plot resume, public acceptance or critical assessment. Nazroon 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is sadly true of most literature articles on Wikipedia. They are among some of the most difficult types of articles to do well. Welcome any and all help. -- Stbalbach 14:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cover image

The cover image on this article does not appear to be original, but some kind of modern recreation. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't have that 19th century feel to it. Midnightdreary 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fake title page

Image:Poe TheNarrativeOfArthurGordonPymOfNantucket title.jpg I deleted it. --Sergey Romanov 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that this image is a "fake" ? And if it is, does it really matter ?--Loudon dodd 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It was definitely a fake. It was basically a Word document and someone used an oldstyle typeface. I'd say that matters. -Midnightdreary 23:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if you click on the image to see the full-sized version, it's pretty clear that it's not a scan -- it's a replica someone typed out and put on a yellowish background. I asked the uploader to elaborate on the source a while back, but his responce on the image's talk page didn't really clarify anything. ~CS 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's currently being used on the French version of this page. --evrik ^(talk) 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have an original 1895 copy of The works of Edgar Allen Poe - Tales. This is volume 5 of 10 published by Stone & Kimball. Index of the book simply reads: Contents of the Fifth Volume Tales of Adventure and Exploration Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym (page 3) The Journal of Julius Rodman (page 257) Notes (page 355) I can reproduce the index page if anyone is interested in this version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.77.231 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Parker story

The source is some crank website. For such kind of claims hard evidence is needed. Is there any such evidence? If not, I will remove this claim. --Sergey Romanov 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I used another source, more credible, and corrected some facts, and moved the whole thing to trivia. --Sergey Romanov 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Parker story is well sourced in a number of articles on Wikipedia, see Richard Parker for the beginning of it, also covered in Life of Pi article. Also trivia should be deleted from Wikipedia per WP:NOT - I don't consider this trivia but an allusion to/from historical events. -- Stbalbach 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the story of this Parker is that it has absolutely nothing to do with Poe's novel.--Loudon dodd 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I don't really know what you call "major themes" in english, but there's nothing in this section who is in relation with the novel's themes--Loudon dodd 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC).)

Is there anybody in there ? No ? Well, I think I can delete the false informations in this article.--Loudon dodd 22:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No arguments here. Midnightdreary 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, just read the book (and if you know french the article I wrote for the french wikipedia, or the links that I gave.)--Loudon dodd 19:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I do not disagree either, and have removed yet a third section on the real-life Richard Parker. Namesake coincidences aren't notable enough to dominate this article so much. For the purposes of this page, only the section on the Yann Martel novel is relevant -- and it seems to address the entire issue on its own. There was no need for 3 sections repeating the same material, especially when much of it was speculative. Someday when I have the time to re-read this novel, I'll try to expand this article with more relevent material. ~CS 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And I would add that cannibalism isn't a major theme of the novel.

If you can find them, I think that this books can help you in doing something of this article :

• Daniel Hoffman, Poe, Poe, Poe, Poe, Poe, Poe, Poe, Louisiana University Press, Baton Rouge, 1972 (a chapter is called "journey through the body of the earth, and is about Pym)
  
• Patrick Quinn, The French face of Poe, Southern Illinois University Press, 1957 (the chaprter on Pym has been used as a source for a lot of things in the french article)
  
• Sidney Kaplan (intro.), The narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym, American Century Series, Hill and Wang, New York, 1960. (the best introduction according to the franch critics)
  

Good luck for the rewriting of this article.--Loudon dodd 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

More info needed

This article could use some help... The French version is a featured article. If anyone can translate some of that info into here, that might be a good start - their references are great, too. --Midnightdreary 14:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Great work on building this up! It's definitely getting there... is this enough plot summary or should there be more? I think the Critical reception and impact section should really go further, as well as the Analysis section. Great job to Malkinann and the anonymous IPs who have been working on it. --Midnightdreary 03:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not near finished with the plot translation.. we're only up to about chapter 14... That's not been my priority, as I figure it'd be easier for someone to read it themselves and write a summary. -Malkinann 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This plot has been found too long in the french version of the article : we kept it only because it was already written.--Loudon dodd 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A special thanks to our ambassador to the French version! That's certainly worth knowing! I've never actually read Pym beyond the first few pages so I'm nowhere near an expert myself! --Midnightdreary 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of the racist idea of the noble savage ?

It is written in the article that "Some reviewers have noted Poe's use of the racist idea of the Noble Savage." I don't know if this idea is racist or not, but I'm sure I haven't seen any "noble" savages in Pym : the inhabitants of Tsalal (and the black cook of the Grampus) are only evil.--Loudon dodd 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I was suspicious when I saw that added, but far be it from me from discouraging editors from working on this article when it needs some serious help. :) I would support its removal. --Midnightdreary 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you remember, Peters is classified as being 'partially Native American' -- a mongrel. Perhaps it is there from whence such mention came. -- 4.159.77.118 (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But say it's reference to a "noble savage" is still original research unless there's a source attached to it... though I haven't found that reference in the text myself. Way to respond to old posts, by the way. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot Introduction

The plot introduction seems quite wordy for just an introduction. It's also too short for a full plot summary, as it seems to drop off in what I believe might be the middle of the novel. 69.95.234.130 (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the editors who watch this page would unanimously agree that the entire article is in need of serious work and attention. The method in which the plot is presented is something we've chatted about before, so if you'd like to help out, jump right in. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the storyline to include the end of the novel. Hope it helps! --Syzygy (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Vive la France!

Gentlemen, the French have successfully put this article to shame. I believe that we should delete it -- replacing it with a .gif of a dithering white flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.77.118 (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds incredibly productive. I didn't realize it was a competition between different language versions of Wikipedia... so if they get an article to featured status, we're not allowed to have our own version? I never knew... --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

Midnightdreary, I'm surprised I got reverted since the "Hoffman argues" form of description seems the most neutral way of handling it. The views expressed are hardly self-evident. Some of them I'd call far-fetched. It's distorting to claim that the book is about "establishing a national American identity," for example. I just read it and in my view, that's not a major theme. Deception, the falsity of appearances, inner corruption, suffering, powerlessness, the dreadful strength and mystery of nature --- these are things the book is about. But establishing a national American identity? If I were bolder I'd feel like deleting that entirely; I think it's likewise too bold to claim flatly that that's what the book is about; the proper course is just to note that such-and-such scholar has argued this, or that, and so with the rest. Professional surveys of literary analysis, when not presenting the writer's own views, generally do the same. The second paragraph of the analysis section, in fact, tries to follow that format, though it could use better citations and some of the same problems apply: if Poe used the "racist idea" of the Noble Savage it was only ironically, as events later prove. 69.224.222.27 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, now, don't address this to me. The point of these talk pages is to open up discussion to any and all interested parties. The trick with literary analysis here on Wikipedia is to try and find what the general scholarly consensus is, regardless of our own personal opinions or whether or not we agree (i.e. "in my view, that's not a major theme"). My experience with literary analysis here has not been to use the names of the analysts unless they themselves are notable for their claims. I think everyone knows that analysis is subjective and, obviously, subject to interpretation; not sure we need to beat them over the head with disclaimer-like clarifications as to who said what. Consider the featured article I put together on "The Raven". Maybe the best thing to do, rather than name-dropping (so to speak), is to add in slightly weasel-y words like "it has been suggested" or "might indicate" et al. Thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the difference lies in the question whether any one interpretation is generally accepted, or whether there is no scholarly consensus. As long as things are clear-cut, the interpretation can be stated matter-of-factly, with perhaps a link to a more detailed reference. But as long as the work remains puzzling and mysterious (for which AGP qualifies mightily, from my point of view), different candidates of theories should be presented with their respective authors and champions. So, I think the qualifiers "Hoffman said" etc. should stay. Tallyho! --Syzygy (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's more important to start listing these interpretations, with footnotes. I'm not sure if it's as important to attribute them within the text of the article; readers can easily check the footnotes to see who has made the claim. We can try weasel words like "some say..." or "it has been suggested" to keep it from sounding so absolute. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Included weasel qualifiers. ;-) --Syzygy (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Provisions arrive to their term"...?

Sorry, what does it mean to say, in On Board the Grampus, that Pym "does not realize when his provisions arrive to their term"?TrevorX (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, to tell you the truth. It may have been lost in translation (which is how this summary came to be, as I understand it). --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to say "doesn't wake up when food is brought to him, according to the plan they had agreed upon before." I'll fix it. --Syzygy (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

More Richard Parkers

I've reverted an edit about a different Richard Parker being cannibalized decades after the book was written, because I felt it was going into too much detail. If so many Richard Parkers "have to mean something" (although personally I think it's a statistical oddity, nothing more), perhaps RP would merit an article in his own right, but here it would bloat the AGP unncessarily. --Syzygy (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely don't disagree! If the plot summary was half as long, we might be able to squeeze this sort of info in. As it is, though, it's messy enough without the added distraction. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did it... since the RP coincidences came up again here, I tried to clarify: Richard Parker (shipwrecked) --Syzygy (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Although that later cannibalized Richard Parker has only a coincidental relationship with Poe's novel, it seems possible that Poe based the name of his mutineer character on the historical Richard Parker (mutineer), who was hanged for his offense about 40 years before the novel was written. The historical mutineer is not currently mentioned in this article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That's good news. Until an editor finds reputable sources making the connection that Poe deliberately used the historical incident as inspiration, it should probably remain not mentioned in this article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

In "Sources"

I'm adding the word "possibly", as in "possibly reflecting" to the following sentence: "It is unclear if Poe and Reynolds had ever met, but legend says that shortly before Poe's mysterious death, in his delirium he called out the name "Reynolds", reflecting his influence on him." This adverbial addition allows for the other possibility that Poe was referring to Judge Henry R. Reynolds, who was overseeing the Fourth Ward Polls at Ryan's Tavern, where Poe had been found in his final delirious state, as told in this narrative. I also added a reference.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to raise the possibility that editors of this page consider citing the story of the Essex as influential on Poe. The author of In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex, Nathaniel Philbrick, makes clear that the Essex served as a large source of inspiration for Melville's Moby-Dick. I know that AGP is cited as influential in that story as well. In particular, with respect to Poe, I am thinking of the scene from the story of the Essex in which men draw lots to determine which of them will serve to feed the others. Perhaps this is purely speculation on my part, as I do not have a source to cite, but it seems that if the story of the Essex were as well known as Philbrick claims, then it is a possible influence for Poe's work. True enough, facts are not to be drawn from speculation, but certainly it may serve as a clue that somewhere someone has already addressed this matter.Infinityseed (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That's literally the opposite of what we do here. You're asking us to perform original research. Unless Philbrick or another author makes the same connection in a reliable published source, we cannot include it here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Midnight & Paine,

As a devoted reader of Poe, just let me say Thank You for the work you did on AGP lately. It's coming together to build a really, really good article, both entertaining and elucidating. Party on! --Syzygy (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Syzygy! If you think the article is missing anything, let me know. I've nominated it for GA and then, eventually, I hope to get this to featured article status! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I'm really missing is... a compelling conclusion what this conundrum of a novel is really all about. :-) But I guess this is asking a little too much. I did some refactoring of the plot (the only thing I feel at least a bit competent about); hoping the GA will work out! Fingers crossed, --Syzygy (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great work! I barely touched the plot summary section because I'm not so good at those. This one was a bit bulky, but I think you've tidied it up nicely - thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Syzygy! Glad to help.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation Standards

I'm new here, and I'm just curious. Midnightdreary, I added a reference to the line about Reynolds in the "Sources" section, and I found that yesterday you altered it. (Believe me, this is not one of those "I'm mad because you changed my beautiful and awesome editing" things. I have nothing but respect for those editors who have been here longer than I have, and who know volumes more than I do about editing.) I'm curious because you cited that the article had already been linked shortly before, and even more curiously that Wikipedia articles are not to be used as references. I took into consideration that the article had already been linked, however in the reference, I directed the reader to a specific section in that article so they wouldn't be required to hunt for it.

Focusing now upon the note about Wikipedia articles not being used as references, this directed me to go back and look at WP:CITE, because I didn't remember seeing that standard listed there. Well, not only couldn't I find that rule listed, but it was "broken" right on that page. Wikipedia articles are also used as refs. on encyclopedia article pages such as in the Augustus and Isaac Asimov articles. Even the Edgar Allen Poe article has Wikipedia links in the Notes (see refs. 112 and 125 as well as below in the References section). So really, not to be a "pain" <g>, I'm just wondering where to look for that standard, and also how widespread "breaking" that rule actually might be.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My take is that if one allowed Wikipedia links as reference, you could create circular reasoning to easily with one WP entry relying on the other and finally on itself again. IMHO WP-internal references should be avoided, while of course there are cases when they are tolerable, namely when the referenced article is independently referenced (= with external links). But this might be difficult to check in practice. --Syzygy (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as using Wikipedia article as sources, see here. The Edgar Poe page does not use Wiki-articles as sources; look again! The sources mentioned in the footnotes have links to Wiki-articles (one links to the article on the author mentioned in the source, for example). Even on WP:CITE, you say that Wiki articles are used as sources, but you'll note that WP:CITE is not an encyclopedia article, and the notes you refer to are not verifying information, unlike the footnotes in this article. Make sense? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it makes more sense to me now. Wikilinks are often peppered throughout the body of articles, so Notes and References sections ought to be reserved for reliable external links and sources. Thank you both!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  10:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• PS - You might want to consider using a second reference for the Judge Reynolds theory that's found in the Death of Poe article here (Note 12) and that's fully sourced here (John Walsh). It's just me, but I think the distressed and delirious Poe was calling out to Judge Reynolds, either for help or because Judge Reynolds was part of the criminal element that mangled the great poet.

You don't have to tell me where to find good sources - I wrote the death of Edgar Allan Poe article. ;) I think I'll just make the line a bit more ambiguous in this article, without straying too far from the subject at hand. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

With a name like "Midnightdreary" I ne'er would've guessed. <g> Anyway, it was just a thought. Onwords!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• PS: and Upwords! Kudes on the ambig! Excellent choice of words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paine Ellsworth (talk • contribs) 05:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ending

I have Edgar Allen Poe Complete Tales & Poems by Barnes and Noble Books. My ending seems to be a little different. While Arthur Gordon Pym's narrative ends with the white figure, a note is written after it that is about two pages long. This note says that Pym did indeed die suddenly. It says that Peter's was still alive, but not speaking about the narrative. It also talks in length about Tsalal and particularly the heiroglyphics. The heiroglyphics, according to the note, were from different languages and it gives translations and such.

It says that Pym died in an accident and the remaining pages of the story perished with him. Sounds like a fire or something. Maybe he spontaneously combusted or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7th guest (talk • contribs) 01:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame if you have an edition with such a terrible typo in the author's name! However, to answer your question, the "novel" has an ending, and then Poe added a sort of "post script" that explains that Pym has since died. That postscript is written in Poe's voice and is not presented as part of the main narrative. As for the hieroglyphics, this article already talks about them (and the postscript in general) - didn't you see? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It says that the story ended abrupbtly without explaining what happened to Pym. I was commenting on that section in particular, and yes I suck at spelling. I was not asking a question, I was explaining what my book says. I never said it was part of the narrative, I said it was a note, which is what it is called in the book. As for the hieroglyphics, I was just continuing to explain what was in the note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.28.81 (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not sure what your purpose was for posting here on the discussion page, which is meant to talk about how to improve the article. Everything you've pointed out is already in the article. Could you be clearer what you are saying? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess 7th guest's point is that in the current article version, it's not 100% clear that the final note is still part of the novel, rather than the "extraneous" material added later which it pretends to be? Although I'm unsure how to include this without going into too much detail. (I loath inflated synopses...) BTW, I noted that the Wikisource version of the book [1] has the end note immediately after the preface, just before chapter I. Is that a common arrangement? I think this spoils the ending... --Syzygy (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so the "tongue in cheek" nature is confusing? I think that was purposeful on Poe's part, of course. I did fix the Wikisource version, by the way. I hadn't noticed that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dutch episode?

LawyerGreg -- You just introduced the episode with the Dutch ghost ship into the plot summary. While I agree it's probably the most grisly and gruesome incident in the story, it doesn't really propel the main plot.

I tend to advocate lean summaries in general (you have to leave some motivation for people to read the book ;-); what do you think of trimming or omitting the episode...? --Syzygy (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a little bit. I don't think it does much harm to keep it as it is a very memorable part of the plot. Nevertheless, we should definitely be careful from here on: this plot summary is already quite long for such a short novel. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me! --Syzygy (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the Dutch ship episode propel the main plot? I agree that it doesn't in any straightforward sense. Many episodes in Pym are in the same boat (all puns intended). But isn't that part of the work's value? Here Poe, much like Kafka, is giving us facts which we naturally expect will later become important aspects of the plot, but often they don't. I see Poe as an early existentialist presenting narratives in such a way as to emphasize the fragmented, disconnected nature of human existence. For this reason I think it appropriate to include these in the plot summary. [[[User:LawyerGreg|LawyerGreg]] (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)]

Analysis/Race

Editor WongLee found this section to contain unreliable sources and libelous accusations, etc. I reverted WongLee's deletion of the section; however, perhaps this possible WP:NPOV issue should be discussed?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand WongLee's deletions. It's pretty obvious that there are racist tendencies (to call it mildly) in AGP, and the section was/is well written and referenced. Explaining the existance of racist notions is surely not the same as embracing a racist attitude, so I don't see what's POV in the section... Would WongLee care to comment? -- Syzygy (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How would anything here be libelous? Against whom? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And, as far as the question of unreliable sources. J. Gerald Kennedy is one of the accused sources; he's considered among the most important living Poe scholars today. A search on Amazon will reveal that he has edited many collections of Poe studies and authored a couple books solo. Another source is Toni Morrison, a Pulitzer Prize-winner who needs no defense. The last was Scott Peeples, the current president of the Poe Studies Association and editor of the Edgar Allan Poe Review. Care to explain why these are unreliable? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence

A detailed description of a real life event in which a cabin boy named Richard Parker is cannibalized on the high seas many years after the publication of Poe's novel can be found at http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/warehousea/id42.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.114.221 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That was in this article some time ago, before it achieved good article status. The coincidence has nothing to do with Poe's novel. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

books also inspired by The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym

Also inspired "The Hollow Earth: The Narrative of Mason Algiers Reynolds of Virginia" by Rudy Rucker. (July 1990 ISBN: 0688094139) And "Pym: A Novel" by Mat Johnson. (March 1, 2011 ISBN: 0812981588) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.180.127 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

influence/inspiration

This book appears in Rene Magrittes forbidden reproduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.232.233 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reynolds and the hollow Earth

I've now added a citation specifically on Reynold's and the "Hollow Earth" theory. The relevant quote is, "Again through Reynolds, Poe became familiar with John Cleves Symmes's Symzonia and his 'holes at the poles' theory, which postulated the earth's hollow core... a theory that could account for Pym's disappearance into the 'embraces of the cataract'". Since Reynolds was probably Poe's direct source (this isn't the only book I've seen indicate this), it ought to be mentioned here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some more books available on Google Books that reiterate this: [2][3][4]--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm seeing this connection. Even this source says Poe referred to Symmes, not Reynolds (even if Reynolds directed him to Symmes in the first place).

Just for future reference, not every sentence has a footnote. The sentence you altered was footnoted with the sentenced which followed it (in other words, the footnote was the source for two sentences). --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of how footnotes are used; I added it to include a source that specifically discusses both Symmes and Reynolds, as the other evidently does not. My point is, the theory was originally put forward by Symmes, but it also appears in Reynolds' writings, and this is likely where Poe picked it up (according to this and other sources). I think it's worth mentioning him in this regard.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries; I haven't touched the source you added. Just making a response to the suggestion that something was previously left unsourced. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My edit summaries weren't very clear; it's my bad. On another note, I'm going to add a few things to MS. Found in a Bottle, in case you think some of these sources might be useful.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Only Completed Novel?

The very first sentence of this article states that "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket" was Edgar Allan Poe's only completed novel. Then toward the bottom of the article, in the section entitled "Literary significance and reception," it states that "Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque" was his only completed novel. Which is it? Obviously, they are not both right. How has this been overlooked or allowed to remain unchallenged in the article? I've been pondering this till I was weak and weary. HaarFager (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You are reading the sentence incorrectly, although I agree it's poorly written. "Poe's next published book after this, his only completed novel"... "This" is described in the clause "his only completed novel". The clause does not describe Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out! HaarFager (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)