Jump to content

Talk:MacGuffin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anita5192 (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 5 January 2020 (Adjusted archive parameters to keep at least five comments on page for at least one year.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MacGuffin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MacGuffins in scripture

I recently removed an addition referring to MacGuffins in the New Testament. I am opposed to this insertion for three reasons:

  1. The article defines a MacGuffin as being in fiction. Religious texts do not purport to be fiction;
  2. Readers of scriptures would argue that all items mentioned have importance, significance, and intrinsic value, whereas a MacGuffin does not;
  3. The source cited appears to be original research and promotion of a particular work of literature.— Anita5192 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I have some constructive (I hope) comments concerning your opposition:

  1. The article defines a MacGuffin as being in fiction. Religious texts do not purport to be fiction.

This is true. However, portions of scripture include parable, which New Testament scholars all accept as being story (fiction as opposed to fact). One can find examples of MacGuffins in parables such as the wedding garment in Matthew 22:11-14, as well as the example which I originally posted from the NT book, Revelation, which is apocalyptical literature, a genre that stands closer to fiction than fact in its poetic language and hyperbolic imagery. It might be good to remove the opening words "In fiction" as this is not accurate given such examples. At the least, I found it to be a stumbling block when I first read the article.

  1. Readers of scriptures would argue that all items mentioned have importance, significance, and intrinsic value, whereas a MacGuffin does not.

Readers from various traditions would respond differently to this issue. In my tradition there is respect with a critical eye given to biblical interpretation that purports to give importance to every item mentioned. Sometimes a robe is just a robe. Even Lucas and Hitchcock didn't exactly view a MacGuffin in the same way; consider the importance or lack of importance given to the actual ark of the covenant in Raiders.

  1. The source cited appears to be original research and promotion of a particular work of literature.

I'm not trying to promote a particular work but to expand and improve this article. This author is one of my standard "go to" sources for cutting edge work in narrative criticism and in full disclosure, was one of my professors in seminary, and this is a citation of a new work that I am finding very helpful. You can also find this information in his book "Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An introduction" published in 2005 by Baker Academic, which received good critical peer review. (Check out pages 106 and 253.)

I didn't realize it was so difficult to try to fill in what I noted as missing pieces of information in an article. I am now retired, but when I was teaching exegetic methods, I cautioned students against citing Wikipedia as articles might be incomplete or incorrect. I am reassured that editors are so cautious about what edits can be made and, now that I am preaching weekly, admit to using this resource for quick research. Hope you find my comments helpful. Jeanninegrimm (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeanninegrimm: Full disclosure would be that you are the cited author's research assistant. Almost all of your edits have been links to his work inserted into various articles with little or no attention to context or the sense of the article as a whole. Here, for example, the link and the 'apocalyptical literature' example from the Book of Revelation followed on from a sentence about the use of the Grail MacGuffin in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. That's a very tenuous connection. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Harold. Yes, I do serve as Dr. Resseguie's research assistant as needed ...but if you are thinking this a full time occupation (or paid) I have misled you. However, I'm pretty darn good at checking citations and finding if a work has a newer edition and do this gratis because I've been fascinated with this field since I was introduced to it through the work of Dr. Mark Allen Powell and his excellent, albeit older work, "What is Narrative Criticism?" With an undergrad major of LEM and a MATS, I enjoy digging into a topic! I have had a great opportunity to learn deeply about a particular area of scholarship from a purely academic standpoint. Now that I am retired from teaching, I am finding that this methodology has such value for active preaching and am excited to share it with others who also are learning to interpret biblical narratives. That is part of why I am bold to attempt to edit some of this Wikipedia material---it just doesn't seem to acknowledge scripture as literature. I understand if you think that I am overly influenced by one particular author, but my criticism of the truncated nature of this article in limiting it to a narrow definition of "fiction" still stands. Jeanninegrimm (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How could you have misled me? You simply told me that you were his research assistant. That was very honest, but you didn't mention it in your full disclosure above. There is more to WP:COI than whether or not you are full-time or get paid. Your MO of adding links to Dr Ressiguie's work to multiple articles, without concern for context or coherence of the article, combined with the fact that that is all you are doing on Wikipedia, gives the impression of WP:Spam, even if that is not the intention. You are doing the right thing by making arguments for inclusion on the talk page, but you will need to convince other editors to make the changes you want. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change from "in fiction" to "in a story"

I have proposed a change from limiting the discussion of MacGuffins "in fiction" to their use "in a story." The edit was refused. Dictionary.com defines story as "a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader." An alternate would be "in a narrative."

The way the article now reads, a user might assume that MacGuffins are found only in fictional narratives. This is not supported by the Merriam-Webster definition of MacGuffin as a device found in either film or story. Fiction, while often interchanged with story, is a very limited range within story or narrative (which are equivalent). (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) My attempt to edit comes from the awareness of MacGuffins in scriptural narratives. One of the editors of this page, Anita, seemed to discount the identification of MacGuffins in that genre because it was not fiction. Perhaps my concern could be dealt with by a footnote that informs the user that MacGuffins are also found in all forms of narrative? Or by the creation of another page that addresses MacGuffins in non-fictional narratives? Jeanninegrimm (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the first line of the lead because I think it is about time someone cited the definition accurately. The sources indicate the term originated in film and was extended to fiction in general. This is a relatively recent term and has not yet been applied to nonfiction.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unimportant?

The opening of the article seems too bald and imprecise to me. You can't just say a MacGuffin is "unimportant" in itself. The Maltese Falcon, one of the examples given, is supposed to be worth a fortune. That's important to the characters, and would be to me if it was mine. The definition needs to be fuller, so that it can be more precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbown (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC) (Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment to sign please.)

Currently the first sentence says:

In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is an object, device, or event that is necessary to the plot and the motivation of the characters, but insignificant, unimportant, or irrelevant in itself.

What would you suggest we change it to? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is the definition in the sources. Second, the Maltese Falcon may have been important to the characters, but its specific nature was not important to the plot. If it could have been replaced by something else, it was a McGuffin; if it had been truly important to the plot, it was not a McGuffin.—Anita5192 (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we would hear what changes the OP would like to make before we going on the defense or offense. You mention in above the conversation above you recently changed the lead sentence. for consideration here is what it was before:

In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The MacGuffin's importance to the plot is not the object itself, but rather its effect on the characters and their motivations.

I do see your point about the difference between importance to the characters vs importance to the plot. But if the OP did not get that difference from the sentence as written, perhaps we should see if it can be made more clear. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sentence is unclear, it is just that the concept itself is somewhat difficult to grasp. The OP argues that the Maltese Falcon is worth a fortune and therefore is important to the characters, but the sentence he is criticizing specifically says that a MacGuffin is "necessary to the motivation of the characters", so that is simply a mistake on the OP's part, not a lack of clarity. The object is always important to the characters, but its specific nature in itself is not important. That is, the Maltese Falcon could have been 'the Peruvian Condor', or 'the French Sparrow', or 'the English Lesser Spotted Grebe', or 'the Norwegian Elephant', and the movie would have been essentially the same, as long as it had the same significance to the characters, although admittedly the title would lack a certain mystique in the last two. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:MacGuffin&oldid=934159889"