Talk:The Monkey's Paw

Cultural Impact

At the very least, there ought to be a section devoted to criticism of the story's cultural impact. There is a reason people keep remaking, parodying and referencing The Monkey's Paw: because we all fear death, and above all we fear the deaths of our loved ones, particularly our children.

But the most terrifying thing is, that we all know that if that was our child, we would make the second wish, and not wish it away afterward; because nothing is worse than losing your child, and you would give anything to have them back, back from the gates of death, even looking like that!

And after two world wars, and a broken heartful of industrial accidents and drug overdoses and car crashes and deaths-by-misadventure, and young people going through life like they think they're immortal; it has proven to be a very recurrent theme, for the most tearful of reasons. Nuttyskin (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If you have sources that have discussed it then, go for it. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Be bold but only if you find a good source or two; otherwise it's just original research. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I've always thought that it is primarily a cautionary tale about greed. Morris warns about wishing on the paw in the story. If you gave some people the paw today, they would immediately wish for a large sum of money, it is just human nature.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure enough to post this for sure on the actual page(s), but I am wondering if this story, originally, was not an inspiration for Charles Addams' character, eventually named Thing. I posted this theory on Thing's talk page as well, but without confirmation from a reliable source, I am not sure it belongs on either wiki page. It did come out early enough in the 20th century that Charles Addams could have been aware of it. The story, according to the page, was first published in 1902, and Charles wasn't born until 1912. 32.212.102.239 (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote

I have removed an enormously long hatnote that said "This article is missing information about the story's development/inspiration, publication history, response, themes, and legacy. Please expand the article to include this information." Hatnotes are visually distracting items that exist to alert readers about issues that they may need to keep in mind - e.g., this article doesn't have enough references, so be cautious! - they're not long notes to editors. That's what the Talk page is for. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Simpsons parody

There is a subset of wikipedia editors who think that no article is complete until it lists something from the Simpsons cartoon. I've lost track of how many times some has added the Simpsons parody from their annual Halloween special to the list of versions. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is verifiable, and can be listed under something like "other media" or "cultural impact", then doesn't it qualify for mention? 32.212.102.239 (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You'd need a source that discusses it in more detail than merely verifying its existence per WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

wonder woman

The already long section titled "Notable versions in other media" is about places where "the story has been adapted" not merely referenced, and not a similar somebody-back-from-dead story. Wonder Woman 1984, the latest edition, is not a version of The Monkey's Paw although it references it; its got a "dreamstone" that has different powers than the paw and a different story. Ergo, I would say, it doesn't belong in what is already a section that borders on a trivia list. That's why I removed it and unless many object will remove it again. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No response, so out it goes! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Does Pet Sematary really belong here?

Under Notable versions it says: "A 1983 Stephen King novel, Pet Sematary, is a retelling of the story." But I'm not sure the source supports that [1]. The source says "And then, if that family's two-year- old son were to fall victim to another passing truck. . . . The book would be a conscious retelling of W.W. Jacobs' "The Monkey's Paw," that enduring short story about parents who literally wish their son back from the dead. After King completed the first draft, the book [...] was put away." So:

1. the reporting seems to be conjecture in Washington Post's voice, not King's
2. it appears to refer to an initial draft, not the final novel
3. it is set up as a hypothetical if, then the book would be a retelling...

Having read the plot summary at Wikipedia here, it seems the novel may share some elements with, and/or have been inspired by "The Monkey's Paw", but the published result seems to stray very far from the narrative, enough that it cannot really be considered a version of the story. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)