Talk:Mythology of Carnivàle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hometheaterinfo.com

I was trying to find more third-party sources that I could use in this article, and I found this: http://www.hometheaterinfo.com/carnivale_season_2.htm, written on 6/30/06: IT might help in your understanding of the series if you go to Wikipedia and look up the series. They have a listing of all the internal rules Knauf’s mythology depends on. Hmmmh :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-deletion rationale

In case that the notability guidelines for fiction change so dramatically in the next few months/years that a ban or mass deletion of all fictional concepts ensues, I'll just make clear a few things clear now. I've already had a somewhat bad experience with a Carnivàle article dealing with the fiction side of things, so I'll repeat what I already said in the AfD there:

• This article is basically the whole mythology of the show, which happens to be basically unified by the Avatars in the series. It could also be renamed to Mythology of Carnivàle, but I fear this invites too much editor violation of WP:PLOT and WP:OR for the content of the article, and also screams for AfD much more than the under-the-radar Avatars (Carnivàle) does.
• The article Carnivàle has no plot section, just a two-paragraph "Plot introduction" in order not to spoil the reader. I.e. this article here is a deliberate content fork.
• In case you have never watched this TV series (you wouldn't be the only one ;-)): Carnivàle might be the most complex show out there. (Even Ronald D. Moore thought so in a Season 1 DVD feature). Think of Lost starting with Season 2, being cancelled after Season 3, and not really having the advantage of flashbacks to explain what the heck is going on there. I feel this article is a prime example of "helping the reader to understand the TV series." Which is what encyclopedias are for.
• Show creator Daniel Knauf posted online to explain what Avatars are all about and what the show never got to tell, which makes up a significant portion of this article. And it wasn't just a fan impersonating him. The clues apart from the obvious: DK said "I read virtually every posting there is" in an official HBO interview, and everything the fan and Carnivàle mythologist Michael Strang said in the Carnivàle Season 2 DVD documentary "Magic & Myth: The Meaning of Carnivàle" happens to be a rough summary of the posta by alleged DK, sometimes even quoting him.
  • Update: I asked on Yahoo Carnivale HBO for some help regarding the FAC of the Carnivàle article, and Daniel Knauf (or the account claiming to be him ;-)) replied: ...I've been very active with the fan base. I preferred this forum to HBO's, because it was closely monitored, something impossible over at HBO's site due to the volume of posts. Plus, the HBO site was kind of a "corporate" thing, whereas this was more a "grass roots" effort. [...] It would be a shame for Wiki to rule out my posts here, because I've addressed and answered many issues, details and fan questions that simply don't come up in magazine interviews. If they have any questions about the authenticity of my posts here, than they can write me via my agent, Pete Stone, at International Creative Management and I'll be happy to verify that I'm me...
• I guess I have added enough third-party sources now to prove that the subject of this article is notable. But just to be on the safe side... :-)

– sgeureka ^t•c 22:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite my earlier intentions, I did move this article to a new name (Mythology of Carnivàle) because the whole Interpreation in the media section is now big enough to show notability of the subject. Some restructuring is still necessary, but there is no urgency or exact plan. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems this discussion is moot now. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 12:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tattooed Man stalks the cornfields.jpg

Image:Tattooed Man stalks the cornfields.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The great war between heaven and hell referred to in the quote is more or less documented in Judeo-Christian scripture, as it refers to the fall of the Devil. The exact timing of this fall is open to question, but there are probably more people who think that it happened before the creation of man than after, so there's no real conflict there. The references to the single Avatar of each side for each generation is to the best of my knowledge more or less completely new to the series. The Jews have the tzadik, who are probably the closest parallel, but there's more than one of them at a time. I know of no Judeo-Christian myth referring to an incarnation of a "Creature of Darkness" or equivalent per generation, however. The great armies clashing by night is probably more or less original as well. It could be argued that the multitudes of demons and angels, particularly guardian angels, clash like that, but that would be day and night rather than just night, but I'm not aware of anywhere where similar terms are used. I hope that helps a little. John Carter 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This helps in as that I know now I shouldn't link it and therefore leave it open to the interpretation of the reader/viewer. Thank you very much for the quick reply. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of The Gospel of Knaufias in this article

See permission at Talk:Mythology of Carnivàle/Gospel of Knaufias. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs Some Work

I think this page needs some real work. The "Gospel According to Knauf" section which used to appear on the main page for Carnivale was clearer. There needs to be a clear delineation of 1) What Avatars are 2) how the generations work 3) how succession works 4) the various vectori and 5) What the heck the Avatars and all this MEANS in practical terms (powers etc). As it is the explanation takes what's already a fairly confusing concept and makes it even more confusing. Also, the continued attention to "reviewers" and what they thought of the mythology, the continued references to their "confusion", and the repeated assertions that "only Knauf and the Pitch Document confirmed" etc etc just seems overwrought. Some of this makes sense as part of a discussion of the status of all of this as potential fanon but it just seems to be too much here and the way that it's sprinkled throughout the whole article just clutters it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I worked some of your suggstions into the article, but I'll explain the points were I could not (or would not) incorporate your suggestions:

• The "Gospel According to Knauf" section which used to appear on the main page for Carnivale was clearer - You probably mean this list when it was still on the main page. (There is a similar but more sourced version here, but that's when the info was no longer on the "main page".) Since list sections are discouraged on wikipedia, I put all sourced facts into prose (my last version). When thalidar allowed his real "Gospel of Knaufias" to be used (which I consider superior in prose), I replaced my text with his. The current version is the result.
• I also checked both the old list and the current prose: Everything of the old list (except "Injuries from such a weapon never fully heal") also appears in prose. I merged the former subsections Terms and Avataric Blood for obvious reason under Terms and order of succession; the former section Wild Card Avatara also appears there, but is still logically separated from the rest (i.e. first and last paragraph now). I removed the original research of the former section Avataric Nature, and this section is now called Characteristics. (I see that lists force one to have more "mental" breaks before a new bullet begins. But as studying complex science shows, prose format does not mean that you'll get everything at first read. And I'd consider Avataric rules an almost complex science, so you can't hold that against the prose.)
• Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a fansite to explain fictional concepts. Per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICTION, a wikipedia article does not replace watching the show; real-world information, preferably from third-partly sources, is what matters. The wikipedians who judge this article will ask why I didn't use more third-party sources (we both know the reason is because they didn't get it in the first place), and I felt I needed to assert that only Knauf and the Pitch Doc know for sure what's going on. But I trimmed the use of such statements though per your suggestion.
• What the heck the Avatars and all this MEANS in practical terms (powers etc) - I rewrote the Characteristics' section somewhat to state why the powers matter at all (read: the battle between good and evil). I'll see whether I can lay this out a little better, but since all of this is source-based research, I first have to find sources before adding it to the article (Wikipedia:No original research), and unfortunately, both Knauf and the Pitch Doc weren't really eager to really share the deeper meaning.

– sgeureka ^t•c 12:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• On second thought, the sub-section "#Characteristics" could be moved before "#Terms and order of succession"; maybe even merge it with the intro of "#Avatars". But that requires some copyediting, and I don't have the time right now. But it's certainly an idea to keep in mind and try to incorporate. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I wish to make the Carnivàle articles a Featured Topic. You may leave comments for possible improvement of these articles as a group at Wikipedia:Peer review/Carnivàle/archive1. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Quibble

>>>>The screen turns red when Justin murders Scudder, implying Scudder had red blood, but Scudder's real blood is never shown in the series.

First, something like "a red-tinted shot is used when J murders S" might be more appropriate than the word "screen". Second, I don't necessarily agree with the implication in bold; imo, it's more a trick for dramatic effect, like the post-coital rain, than an indicator of Scudder's blood. Mdiamante 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is speculative and probably should be cut.--Opark 77 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion. Yes, this sentence can stand without the speculation. I've replaced it with "The scene of Justin murdering Scudder uses a red-tinted shot". – sgeureka ^t•c 09:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-comment for GA review

Dear GA reviewer, to prevent a quick-fail based on the reasoning that forum posts are unreliable sources, I'd like to point out that the used forum posts are by the creator of the show and that no better sources are available (as you will probably notice once you read the "Reception, interpretation and legacy" section); no companion books were ever published for this TV show, and useful DVD extras were scarce.

Furthermore, the "Avatars" section is pretty much a sub-article of Characters of Carnivàle (which in turn is a sub-article of Carnivàle), whereas the "Historical and cultural allusions" section is a subarticle of Carnivàle and a little of List of Carnivàle episodes. So, in the event that some of the things in this Mythology article seem completely confusing, it is likely that you will find the context in the "mother" articles (although I tried to keep this context problem to a minimum). If there are any other issues with the article that you would like to see fixed, please put the article on Hold instead of Failing immediately. I'll try to address any concerns as fast as humanly possible. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-GA review notes to self

• -- 7 images used:

1. Image:Sanmichele satana raffaello.jpg from Commons
2. Image:Dust-storm-Texas-1935.png from Commons
3. Image:Carnivale Knights Templar Symbol.png from Commons
4. Image:Trinity tower.jpg from Commons
5. Image:Tarot Moon Brown Dye.jpg from Commons
6. Image:Gospel of Matthias Carnivale.jpg fair-use with detailed rationale on image page
7. Image:Carnivale Tattooed Man Sketch.jpg fair-use with detailed rationale on image page

The images check out okay. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 12, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Written pretty darn well, considering the extremely complex subject material. I strongly suggest WP:LOCE and WP:PR as next steps, to make sure to clarify some bits of in-universe language/context, but overall it's pretty comprehensible.

2. Factually accurate?: Extensively well-sourced. And I agree with the "Pre-GA" note above - comments that are verifiable to Daniel Knauf would seem to be appropriate, similar to something like a hosted online chat. (As long as this is indeed verifiable.)

3. Broad in coverage?: Very thorough.

4. Neutral point of view?: Wording is written in a neutral manner.

5. Article stability? Edit history checks out going back four months. Good civil discourse on talk page and edit summaries.

6. Images?: As noted above, 7 images used - 5 from WikiCommons, and 2 with very detailed fair use rationales.

Great work. Again, I'd suggest WP:LOCE and WP:PR - and get some additional people to read through the article, perhaps some non-Wikipedians - to just be an extra check for comprehensibility and in-universe language. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The in-universe bits are just some leftovers from a very recent major copyedit, which happened after another GA reviewer (User:Ling.Nut) had hinted at in-universe prose problems in another Carnivàle GAC. I've already organized a copyedit with a fellow editor to straighten out the remaining issues, which will probably happen next week. Again, thanks for your thorough review and your time. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Belated FAC review

Pretty good so far, very detailed. I would suggest a copyedit from several uninvolved editors. Here's a first batch of comments.

• In the lede: Show creator Daniel Knauf did not respond to questions about the mythology so that many of the intended clues remained unnoticed by viewers. Knauf provided hints about the mythological structure to online fandom both during and after the two-season run of Carnivàle. I'm thinking rephrase to: Show creator Daniel Knauf did not respond to questions about the show's mythology but did provided certain hints about the mythological structure to online fandom both during and after the two-season run of Carnivàles; many of the intended clues remained unnoticed by viewers. Or something like that because there appears to be a contradiction in "did not respond to questions" but "provided certain hints".-BillDeanCarter (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why use the Internet Archive for some of the references (themidway.org is still online, as are the articles there; it doesn't really matter, but was the web site down for a while or occasionally?)

• Is there any mention archangels in reviews or other documents? (I'm thinking of the radio message to the prisoner, with some wording about archangels) Perhaps you could write a sentence about them if appropriate and wikilink to archangel?

• Free choice allows the story to have Avatars refrain from using of their powers or even act contrary to their nature; an Avatar would however still have to put consistent effort into not lapsing back into his defined moral behavior. This sentence needs a copyedit.

• Ben can heal and resurrect beings at the cost of others' life, perhaps... at the cost of another's life?

• in Ben's and Brother Justin's continued shared dreams chasing Henry Scudder in a cornfield, perhaps... in Ben and Brother Justin's common recurring dream of each of themselves chasing Henry Scudder in a cornfield, ...

Following comments review part of the Historical and cultural allusions section.

• Samson's monologue in the pilot episode is based on a segment in the facing sheet of the Pitch Document that was initially not planned to be performed. is the facing sheet the cover sheet? I would rephrase this sentence to be more clear about what this segment was? several scenes, or a monologue or something in between?

• He however thought that the visions made Brother Justin feel on a righteous mission of God until late in the first season. use another verb other than feel.

For the Terms and order of succession section:

• Daniel Knauf made the Avatars of the fictional universe succumb to an elaborate order of succession by blood, similar to... why do you use the verb succumb?

Thank your for the thorough review and your copyedit. I'll try to implement your suggested changes when I am finished with my current wiki task so that my mind is free to do this right. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional tarot card in "Carnivale"

In "Carnivale" episode "Ingram, Tx" Ben finds a card from the burned Tarot deck. It is "Le Passeur" (French word which can be translated as "The Usher") - a Major Arcana card with number 23 (Tarot has twenty-two Major Arcana but they are numbered 0-21, so the number is most probably connected with so called "23 Enigma" of numerology. It would be great if someone added a note about it to the Tarot part in Mythology of Carnivale - I'm not sure if my English is good enough to do it myself. (JeRzy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.179.34.7 (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research does not allow the addition of analysis without a reliable source with that analysis. This article is currently a Good Article, so it might lose its status if we included your suggestion. But don't feel discouraged to make other suggestions for improvement. A pair of fresh eyes always helps. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Good Article Nomination, but....

I still think there's some problems with the article. I expressed these in a general sense in an earlier version of the talk page but I'll express a few points here. First, I'd rework at leas the opening of the "Terms and Order of Succession" section. As is, that part is needlessly confusing. There's an extensive section comparing real world terms for royalty with the various terms from Carnivale. That seems unnecessary. Just talk about the succession within the show. Second, there's several references to viewers "not being sure" which character was good and which was evil. Now maybe I'm either smarter or dumber than other viewers (or maybe I've just got the benefit of seeing Carnivale on DVD after it originally aired) but to me it was always apparent that Justin was the Creature of Darkness and Ben was the Creature of Light. It doesn't seem that there's much ambiguity there, certainly not to the point which merits repeated reference in the article. Thirdly, and related to my second point, there's several bits of info that repeated several times throughout the article (the good vs evil nature of the Avatars, the blue blood, etc). While some these, such as the mental illness of many women who have borne avatars, are worked into the article well, others just stand out awkwardly and seem to have no reason for being repeated. Why not condense these into one section? Finally, I again take exception to the lengthy, and somewhat puzzling, "reception" section. To start with the section is very oddly written with phrases like "Reviewers of the first three episodes interpreted Carnivàle's story as being full of myth and allegory." But the story WAS full of myth and allegory. So I'm not quite sure what this sentence is trying to say. While strictly factually accurate, in that the reviewers DID interpret Carnivale and DID, presumably, see it that way, the meaning is just odd. After all we wouldn't say "reviewers of the first three episodes interpreted Carnivale as being performed in English" or "interpreted Carnivale as being set in the Depression." Much of the language in that section is similarly confusing. Overall I think the section suffers from not being able to answer the "so what question." Why is this section even here? Why do we care that reviewers saw it as "cloudy", "unconventional" and filled with "convoluted symbolic interpretations"? Or that they "quoted and commented on Samson's prologue"? I'm unsure what purpose this serves in the mythology article. Is it to highlight that these elements of mythology might be considered fanon? If so then that needs to be MUCH clearer in the article. If not I'd say just delete that whole section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is a real-world encyclopedia, so it needs some real-world perspective instead of just diving into the fictional mythology.
2. You are probably smart, because it was not obvious to me at all who was good and who was evil until I listened to the audio commentaries, never mind knowing that the show was about good and evil in the first place. Many reviewers have felt the same, so that's what wikipedia reports.
3. "Reviewers of the first three episodes interpreted Carnivàle's story as being full of myth and allegory." But the story WAS full of myth and allegory. - Point taken. The reasoning behind such wording was that just because someone thinks that it is, doesn't mean it is.
4. Why do we care that reviewers saw it as "cloudy"... - because otherwise the article would not have any third-party references and would be deleted for being WP:CRUFT without established WP:NOTABILITY. So even though reviewers were dumb (like me), I'd rather have that stupid section than no article. Curse wiki politics.
5. WP:SOFIXIT.

– sgeureka ^t•c 08:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)