Talk:1066 and All That.html



	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Since the United Kingdom didn't exist until 1707, your statement is a bit odd. As I recall -- and it is about twenty years since I last read it -- it was mostly a spoof on British history until the formation of England, followed by English history. History of the other countries of the UK was scarcely touched upon. -- Derek Ross

Fair point. I was just restoring the previous wording. It's anglocentric, in that Wales and Scotland are not memorable ;) The Scots ("originally Irish, but now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; ... " etc) get a few mentions, as well as Welsh kings. Best thing to say it's a history of Britain I suppose. We should mention the test papers too... -- Tarquin

my copy says "first published 1930 by Methuen" -- which would imply that it was serialized in Punch earlier than the 1930s. -- Tarquin

didn't it mention the Second World War? -Adrian Hobbs

No. Even if Sellars and Yeatman had been clairvoyant, when America becomes Top Nation (end of WWI) history comes to a . - Bth

I've added a mention of '1984 And All That'. --Townmouse 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"in english schools"

What is the context of the paragraph that starts with "in English schools"? It seems just stuck in there at random, moreso because it's in a box. Is it a quote from something, or is there some other reason for it being boxed and having serious grammatical errors? I would gladly turn it into a normal paragraph, but I want to be sure that the boxing isn't intentional... --LostLeviathan 22:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reatman or Yeatman?

Amazon.com lists this book's authors as W. C. Sellar, R. J. Reatman, and Frank Muir as a contributor. Link However, other sources I've found list it as Yeatman. This recently came up in a crossword clue, so I'm wondering if anyone knows which is correct. --Psyk0 10:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The copy of 1066 and All That that I have before me proudly states that the authors are Walter Caruthers Sellar and Robert Julian Yeatman. Grstain 11:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, fair enough. Guess I'll contact Amazon then! Thanks for clearing that up. --Psyk0 12:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Illustrations

The cartoons are memorable. Are they out of copyright? --Townmouse 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Fukuyama reference

Hi there,

This article's Fukuyama reference, while apt, has the potential for confusion due to its phrasing, which I feel implies (states?) Fukuama argues the USA will attain domenence, and history will end.

As the End of History Wikipedia article states, Fukuyama did not argue that American democratic ideals would cover the world, but rather: liberal-democratic ideals, combined with liberal economic policies, have been/are the only robust ideology, and in the long-term the sole surviving ideology. Also, he seems to believe the ideals from the French Revolution are the epitomee of human philosophical development, but his comments led me to suspect that he feels the current application of these ideals is not, well, ideal.

Further, while Sellar and Yeatman were before Fukuyama, they did not forsee or predict Fukuyama's work (though the similarity is amusing)

Currently: As such, Sellar and Yeatman anticipated Francis Fukuyama by six decades.

Perhaps:

Interestingly [or similarly non-commital adjective], this conclusion resembles some interpretations of Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History", published six decades later.

Anyway, thanks for listening to my little spiel,

Max Way (Renaissance College student, currently analyzing Fukuyama) Max Way 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Fukuyama reference worked in earlier versions of the article, but no longer does, for reasons that have already been made. As such, I have boldly removed it. If people feel strongly enough, they can boldly revert this - Grstain 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nameunknown - my comment on TSSAAT on the 'End of History' page is still there as a footnote, with a little editing by the maintainer to show that he doesn't agree (but at least sees the funny side). 'The End' was also possibly parodied in one of the Star Trek movies (Star Trek IV : when Kirk states “Some people think the future means the end of history...")

Non Campus Mentis

Should we mention Non Campus Mentis? It's the non-fiction version (so to speak), and mentioned 1066 as a predecesor. -67.180.56.14 06:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Unmemorable Dates

Re this extract from the article:

the book's preface (which is compulsory) mentions that originally four dates were planned, but last-minute research revealed that two of them were not memorable. The two dates that are self-referenced in the book are 1066, the Battle of Hastings and the Norman invasion of Britain, and 55 BC, the first Roman invasion of Britain under Julius Caesar. However, when the date of the Roman invasion is given, it is immediately followed by mention of the fact that Caesar was "compelled to invade again the following year (54 BC, not 56, owing to the peculiar Roman method of counting)", thereby adding the extra two dates that clearly are not memorable.

Positing that 54 and 56 BC are the two unmemorable dates mentioned in the intro seems to be an illogical bit of original research by the editor. My guess, for what its worth is that the two rejected dates are 43 AD - the date of next invasion of Britain by the Romans and 1666 - the date of the Great Fire of London. Colin4C (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always assumed the two "not memorable" dates were simply a humorous device which never had any actual reference. In the absence of actual evidence, it's amusing but pointless to speculate. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

. . . vague . . .

Not really. But I know there's an original buck-boarded copy of this article left somewhere. Along with Jhams and Jhelhies. 68Kustom (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (Aegrot, Oxon.)

In-Universe style

Too much (i.e. "some") of this article is written as if it was part of the book (mentions of Broody Mary and Venemous Bead, etc.). The article needs to be written in an encyclopedic style. I'd like to simply remove all the fictional or humorous bits, but because the article is interspersed with in-jokes from the book and other unnecessary fluff, I would likely remove the good with the bad. I'm actually prepared to do that, and will do it if someone knowledgeable about the topic doesn't trim this into shape; I'd rather have a stub than this mess. Matt Deres (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good article. Your personal preference to reduce it to a stub contradicts wikipedia policy. Colin4C (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt was just trying to make a criticism... I can see where he is coming from; the article does quote the book a lot to explain the concepts. However, I think this is a pretty effective and encyclopedia way to cover it. If quotes must be removed, the ideas they demonstrate should remain. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a risk of articles like this being written by fans so enamoured of the subject that they include in-jokes incomprehensible to a general readership. I removed the parenthetical "(which is compulsory)", referring to the preface, as it seemed to me a clear instance of this problem. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to be as economic with words as possible in the article. I don't think that it is necessary to give long involved explanations of what jokes or puns mean. I assume that most people in the world know what a joke or a pun is - from an early age - without the neccesity of some clever clogs coming along and explaining it to them. Hopefully the article gives a fair and accurate description of the book's (humorous) contents. Accurately describing the contents of this book of necessity brings out its inherent absurdist nature. Let the reader judge. Colin4C (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just found this article and I don't think it is too bad. Could still use a bit of improving, but it is far from urgent. Cheers Greglo (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Weeny, weedy and weakly"

I read that this phrase (a rendering of "vini, vidi, vici") was a dig at the contemporary manner of speaking Latin in England/the UK, and contributed to a change in usage. Is this correct? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)