Talk:James and the Giant Peach

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Novels: Roald Dahl Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Roald Dahl task force (assessed as High-importance).

Synopsis

Synopsis: The description of events aren't what the book says... The bag didn't contain ingredients for a magic potion, it contained little green rice-sized things that were the result of the magical recipe. In addition, he wasn't running back to hide it; he was running back to mix it in water and drink it. I'm certain of the first point, and can easily check the second.

Rhinos are herbivorous, aren't they? Scorpionman 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are in reality, but the book does state that one ate the parents. Probably to add to the ridiculousness of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atten69 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That’s right. They are not carnivorous, but then, can insects grow large and talk? Rambam rashi (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they mite be

They are, which is what makes James's parent's fate a bit funny... --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the magic potion ingredients - the crystals - has been corrected. Ellsworth (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN list

The long list of ISBN's seems like overkill. Do they all hit at Amazon? There must be a better way. -- Fplay 09:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

i think there should be pictures of the character

I agree Makgraf 18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed, theres only so much you can say about, for example, the silkworm - no point in having seperate articles. Bodil 19:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but who has the cajones to delete them? Czolgolz 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the 1980 edition of the book since I was ten. I always thought that the old man in the illustration on p. 151—the only one in that picture whose face is turned towards the viewer—could be the mysterious old man from the beginning, now feeling proud over what he has accomplished by giving James the bag of tongues. That is why I changed 1996 to 1980. Rambam rashi (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most Frequently Challenged Books

Why is it one of the most frequently challenged books? The intro mentions the book's content, but what specifically? Anyone care to elaborate in the article, perhaps in its own section? -- Mason13a 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I came to the talk page to point that out. I'd like to know what was controversial about it. I've read the book more than once and granted, that was a decade ago, but I don't remember anything subversive about it. --Stevekl 04:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this link...

An interesting fact about the book is that it has been censored in some parts of the US. It was challenged at the Deep Creek Elementary School in Charlotte Harbor, Fla. (1991) because it is "not appropriate reading material for young children", and at the Pederson Elementary School in Altoona, Wis. (1991) because the book contains the word "ass" and "promotes" the use of drugs and whiskey. TerraFrost 21:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the objection to ass, which is an animal not a profanity in Commonwealth English. According to this page the problem may have been 'defying parental authority'. I'm not going to look into this any further myself, or not just now, as I'm too amazed at the whole business.... Hakluyt bean 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly some people may be disturbed by the portrayal of child abuse, and the child who more or less murders his caretakers (a theme that showed up repeatedly in Dahl's books, even if it was hopelessly romanticized). And squashing his aunts flat is pretty violent. Of course, if you ban Dahl on those grounds, you'd have to ban most of the classic fairy tales too. But still, some people do get upset over these sorts of things. marbeh raglaim 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't an independent section been created on the article detailing its challenged status, all of the notable challenges made against the book by various institutions, and the responses (if any) from the author/publisher to these challenges? So long as it is mentioned briefly in the lead section, I feel that a pieces of literature that has been challenged should be recognized for those challenges such that we present all information on its reception objectively. Otherwise how could others begin to make informed opinions on the book's status? Dma90 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the reason is the same reason that most "Why hasn't X been put on Wikipedia" questions get: because you haven't written it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration?

Was this story inspired by that of Momotarō? They bear a striking resemblance. --zandperl 08:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They both involve a peach, that's the only similarity I can see.

I always thought of it as a variant on Jack and the Beanstalk. marbeh raglaim 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does no one point out the obvious debt this story owes to Cinderella, complete with the exchange of a pumpkin coach for a giant traveling peach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.141.198 (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Age

I don't know exactly what the proper ages of James-with-his-parents and James-with-his-aunts are, but they're definitely not 8 and 7 respectively (as this article states) because he lives with his aunt -after- his parents die, not before.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

James age

James's true age is four. I know that because I am reading the book for literature circles. lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superkittydance (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Here is James Henry Trotter when he was four years old." Thus reads the opening line of the story. The second chapter begins after he had been living with his aunts for three years, bringing him to seven. And that, says the narrator, "is where this story really begins." Rambam rashi (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading James and the Giant Peach in literature circles, and for me that doesn't seem right to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.21.120.192 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the plot section is stating he is 4 years old while the character section states he is 7 years old. Kap 7 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stone?

I haven't read this book in years and can't remember a lot of the details. Is "stone" another word for "peach pit"? --7 2.54.44.153 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. In the UK, anyway. "Ladybug" is also "ladybird" to us, and alterations like this may explain why it is, if not the most frequently censored children's book, then certainly one of the most frequently edited. Not050 (talk)Not050Not050 (talk)

Charity Reading

Is it worth, perhaps including the a record of the Charity recording/adaption done for children during lockdown by Taika Waititi? https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/taika-waititi-james-and-the-giant-peach-reading-covid-19-1234609224/ Frederick Schröder (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References to Movie

I removed the references to the movie version. There is already an established page for that, so information pertaining to the movie does not belong on this page. SkittlzAnKomboz (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mbrnbrbnrtgpbnrob[[klslslsos--70.72.157.46 (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ladybird/Ladybug

I'm not going to change it, as I know it'd just get reverted, but I can't believe that Roald Dahl wrote about Ladybugs. He's bound to have called it a Ladybird, shouldn't the article reflect the original book (I'm sure there's an American version saying ladybugs, but that's hardly the point).144.32.126.12 (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should - ladybird is the one he'd have written, and also the more accepted scientific term. Changed the ones I spotted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.235.251 (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Knopf edition with the Burkert illustrations used Ladybug in place of Ladybird. Yip1982 (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silkworm character?

I may be wrong but wasn't there a silkworm character in the book? Why isn't the character mentioned in the article? Evilgidgit (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- --

Is this article about the film or the book?? Hmm? Then eliminate the ridiculous references to the movie. Please.

-- -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.12.211 (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot points and locale

Does the book make references to location at each stage of the peach's journey across the sea? I was surprised to see the word Azures in the article and I don't recall seeing it in the book. (My copy of the book is the British Puffin edition with the Blake illustrations.) Yip1982 (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James and the Giant Peach. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204014801/http://www.close-upfilm.com/features/Featuresarchive/roalddahl.htm to http://www.close-upfilm.com/features/Featuresarchive/roalddahl.htm

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) 16:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not reflect world view

I've added this template in reference to the third paragraph of the introduction - such controversy is generated entirely by the United States. 109.158.179.154 (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]