Talk:Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson

I'm unclear as to the usage of 'firewall' toward the top of the article. None of the links on the firewall disambiguation page clarify it for me... Could someone explain this to me or correct it? --JECompton 07:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I expect (I did not write the entry) that the term 'firewall' refers to a secondary function of the text; a means to separate those Gurdjieff considered not prepared or unfit for 'the work' and more likely to be a unrepaid expense of energy than an aid or example.

The text is long (more than 1000 pages) and complex by current fiction standards. If someone showed up at his door who did not 'have something to offer' he could simply point them to the book and say 'come back when you are done (with the three prescribed readings)'. Should they return they would have to demonstrate their mastery of the material. Rise and repeat until the unsuitable become suitable or seek attention elsewhere and go away.

Thus 'Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson' is a firewall performing a separating function in either the construction or networking sense. The comment acts as a nice and understandable shorthand for some but is not helpful for most. I expect it should be made clearer for the general reader. Or not, and let the comment perform a similar function. Tino Myan 21:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Can somebody please cite a source that BT was "intended to be a firewall"? Although I can see the logic of the statement, I don't know that Gurdjieff had this as an intention. If no source can be cited, I propose changing it to read, "Perhaps intended to be a firewall, owing to its complex structure..." or something similiar.

"The complexity and the length of this book limited the readers to only those who are deeply interested in Gurdjieff's idea's. Thereby it also eliminated criticism towards it."

Andries 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the contrary, your comment is the funny thing here. You obviously don't know this book. Aeuio 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe the quoted sentence is 100% true. Andries 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You kinda lost me there. Aeuio 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe the quoted sentences concisely wrote the truth and that is why I think they are so funny. Andries 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok then, sorry for the misunderstanding; its just that you have a funny way of expressing yourself. (And thanks, I wrote those statements.) Aeuio 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It remains original research. Andries 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it remains a fact, since there is noone who would diagree with the statement. Aeuio 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That does not contradict the assertion that it is original research. _-_meco (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You guys are meta funny. Zezen (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

BorgQueen, I appreciate your clearing up on this article, as well I saw your request to have this article improved. What exactly did you have in mind? Aeuio 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would love to see this article become a FA someday - but we will need more details and citations in the article to pass the criteria. --BorgQueen 01:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Concerning the details, I could myself provide them for this book.

http://www.toutley.uklinux.net/BEELZEBUB/beelzebubportraits.htm - This site describes the characters that are mentioned in the book. Although I think that this site may be the only good source, this site was done tremendously well. Aeuio 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, the site is quite good! Thank you. --BorgQueen 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The book is not what you thought it was? (counting that you read the site). I am very willing to improve the article but I think that featuring the article is a bad idea. Aeuio 03:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well I wouldn't insist to nominate this article for FA if you are concerned that it might attract wrong attentions, but if the article gets improved enough, sooner or later someone will eventually come and nominate it, even if I do not. I would say it is better if we go through the process while you are here, rather than someone with far less discretion does it in a distant future, because you might not be around then. I sympathize with your concern and I do respect others' spiritual beliefs/philosophical thoughts, but, here in Wikipedia, we all live in glass houses. As soon as an article is created here, its privacy is over. --BorgQueen 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright, since you know wikipedia far better than me we'll give it a try. Although, I still believe that this article won't become FA due to one reason, and that's the book's plot. There's no way that it could be properly summarized in one article (I suppose that therefore we have to give a more broad overview).

So, can you give me some instructions on what would improve this article and what parts you feel should be improved. Aeuio 14:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree that we could write a broad description of the book's content. The Illuminatus! Trilogy gives a good sample format, especially since it also does not have a conventional plot but the the contributors managed to describe its contents. And we could include the "characters" section like the site you recommended, although we obviously should not copy the site verbatim, for the copyright reason.

I think Beelzebub's Tales is a truly monumental work with a power to influence its readers' mind, whether positively or negatively, depending on each reader (if they are willing to work through the dense, obscure allegories, of course). I was hooked up with the work, actually by the Theta-Delta allegory. Gurdjieff tells in the book that the Greeks assigned the letter Theta with a Holy nature and Delta with an evil one (I am only quoting from memory, so the exact words might not be accurate) since Theta was the beginning of the word Theos (God) and Delta Daimonos (Daimon). I have always been fascinated with isopsephy, or Greek Qabalah, and that was an interesting viewpoint to look at the Greek letters. Perhaps Gurdjieff meant entirely different things in this allegory and I wasn't acquainted enough with his works to figure it out, but that was the start anyway.

There is no need to hurry - and Gurdjieff certainly wouldn't want us to :-D We can slowly start by creating the characters section, and it will be desirable to include what others like Martin Seymour-Smith said about the book, if we can find any. --BorgQueen 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I began to improve the article and to add details. The Summary section is going to have to be rewritten (I didn't focus on it now).

As for the Delta-Theta that you were talking about, besides of the history of the Greek letters which you mentioned, that's where it was being explained how the human pronunciation capabilities degenerated from hundreds of sounds to only thirty today. And the fact that Russians(I think) have huge trouble pronouncing the sounds theta and delta when they learn the English language. Aeuio 22:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wrote the characters section and I think that it is fine the way it is. (Just in case you are wandering, I would be very against creating separate pages for the characters. As Gurdjieff went to great lengths to harden the book I would be opposed to making public summaries on it (if the other site already didn't do what it did I wouldn't have even done this) - if you weren't thinking of that then nevermind my comment). Although I'd be fine with writing some of the minor ideas of the book I would not go into much detail. I don't mean to be discouraging or mean with this and I hope you don't take it rudely (But I think you already would know this).Aeuio 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh my, I discovered your last comment just now. (And I am really being honest.) I already expanded the characters section a bit, with citations from Sophia Wellbeloved and John Shirley. Is it okay from your viewpoint? The citations I've added are already available publicly, so I don't think it went too far. And no, I am not interested at all in creating any separate page for characters, since I don't think much could be written on them - they will remain as stub and be merged to this article anyway.

Also, I don't think we need a separate plot summary section - the characters section would tell enough. We are not writing a Reader's Digest edition of the Beelzebub book and I do not intend to go into excessive details; this is discouraged in any Wikipedia article. But those commentaries written by Wellbeloved and Shirley can safely be cited, I think. What would you say? I won't insist my view here. --BorgQueen 08:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am perfectly fine with what you did, and I encourage you to do it. That's a great idea to have the plot explanations in the character profile.

One thing tough, I was thinking of putting a section called "Allegorical Meanings", or something similar, where we could site some of the interpretations of Belzebub, Hassein and others (instead of putting them in the profile). But your way looks pretty good too, so I'll leave it up to you in whether we do that or not - I just think that this way some profiles will be a lot larger than others. And thanks for your contributions. Aeuio 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is now twelve years after the above was written -- and I'm disappointed that the attitudes of the above editors prevailed. One of those editors admits his only reason for deliberately withholding a synopsis was that to do so offended his spiritual sensitivities, he says "As Gurdjieff went to great lengths to harden the book I would be opposed to making public summaries on it... if the other site already didn't do what it did I wouldn't have even done this" says Aeuio. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Many religious people are offended by facts, Wikipedia does not, on that basis, omit those facts. Some religions don't believe their holy books should be discussed or translated, but if they exist, and are significant, Wikipedia will contain an entry on them anyway. A synopsis or plot overview of this novel is factual information that is, to most people, of greater importance than the light philosophy found in the article -- it does not matter that "spiritual" people think the light philosophy is more "spiritually important" than the plot. The book does have a plot. The editors' attitude seems to be "You should live by our standards, and if you did, you'd understand why we won't provide the encyclopedic information people look for in this encyclopedia." Ridiculous. I am beyond baffled by BorgQueen's assertion when she says "I don't think we need a separate plot summary section - the characters section would tell enough. We are not writing a Reader's Digest " - don't novels' entries summarize plots? And are those summaries not particularly important when the book is extremely long, and full of digressions? Again, they themselves admit that their reasons for not summarizing the plot were religious rather than practical, though there are certainly practical challenges as well. They are entitled to their point of view, but I don't think the rest of us should allow that point of view to determine the shape of the article. TimeHurts (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think a little more detail on this will be helpful for readers. Why is it considered as a degeneration - a wrong translation, perhaps? And it will be excellent if we could cite a reference for it - specifically, who said it, and where. You know, citations are held at the highest esteem on Wikipedia :-D --BorgQueen 22:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This translated Beelzebub's tales was made after Gurdjieff's death and its purpose was to make the book easier readable and less complicated - which complication Gurdjieff struggled to make. For citation - last paragraph on page 5 [Moveable Feasts" at http://www.gurdjieff-bibliography.com/Current/20_link-to-pg23.pdf]. I think that James Moore left fourth way groups on account of this article. Aeuio 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that this article has enough detail and that now all that's left is to clean it up a bit. And if you think that something needs to be cited, ask me cause I am sure that I can cite most of the things (Other than the Andries discussion up there).Aeuio 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Really. I was hoping for some more expansion in the unknown words section, but if you are so worried then nevermind. I think citations are enough for now. --BorgQueen 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I meant in terms of big additions. What exactly did you wanted expanded in the Unknown Words section? Aeuio 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

About their etymology - while I am aware that Gurdjieff laughed thinking about those who will conjure up etymologies for his invented words, it seems that he drew inspirations from already existing words in many cases. John Shirley says there are more than six hundreds new words in the book and it will be fascinating to look at their roots. --BorgQueen 01:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

As it seems that you are fascinated by those things, I suppose that you are the most suited person to add that stuff in.

I am just wandering if you think that adding a mini bio of Gurdjieff would be a good idea? Aeuio 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is a good idea to explain his teachings and philosophy as long as they are directly relevant to this book. And we could give a brief background on the period of his life when he was writing and revising the book - like they described Hemingway's life in The Old Man and the Sea, for example. --BorgQueen 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added the first paragraph of Gurdjieff's article (I think that its pretty good), and moved some content from publishing up. If you think that this should be expanded/changed let me know as I am not sure. Aeuio 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I glanced through the article and, other for maybe a slight lack of pictures, it's as good as I hoped it would be. I am not willing to go through the FA, but if you are, feel free to do it. And thank you for contributing to this article BorgQueen. Aeuio 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Image:Beelzebub's tales.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody know if the Hollywood Writers' Strike has permanently derailed the Belzebub's Tales film project directed by Peter Jackson, and starring Tom Cruise?Dawud (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's nonsense. Vitalask (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's hilarious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.184.74 (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

(Prof?) Charles Tart - a well-known transpersonal psychologist, and long-time Gurdjieffian - mentions in a number of his books having been told by (experienced?) Gurdjieff followers that Gurdjieff himself later on decided that his experiment in deliberately making this book somewhat impossible to read had turned out to be a mistaken tactic, a failure - presumably as it turned out that few of his students ever reached the hidden 'bone'.

I don't have Tart's books to hand to check exactly what he says.

The books to look in are 'Living the Mindful Life' and 'Waking Up'.

This seems like an interesting and relevant documented claim to include in this article...

What do you think?

It's great how it muddies the waters ;-)

M

--

I know that Gurdjieff wrote an initial draft that he considered failed, and he rewrote everything. I would be interested in this source, since my understanding is that Gurdjieff authorized publication of this book 8 days before his death, despite great difficulty moving around. There does seem to be a pattern with Gurdjieff (even in the story arcs in this book) of attempts at increasing the enlightenment of humanity ultimately failing.

There's also his desire to have people avoid his teachings, and his propensity for saying non-factual things for whatever reason (I have my opinions, which are largely moot). There is for example the story of G being pursued by a rich woman who wanted him to teach her. He required a great deal of money from her, after which he told her he was from outer space. 108.83.178.154 (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I tried to neutralize the Revision section, it was obviously two warring points of view plugging their opinions; the facts should be reported regarding each side's opinion & leave it at that. Ntwarne (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think this section could use more work, and that this would make it more useful. To start with, I would suggest noting that there was a private printing in 1931 (several reliable sources can be noted). I believe Gurdjieff's comments (that he made in his Third book of the All and Everything series) actually referred to this edition. It was the 1931 edition that was the starting point for the many public and private readings, and was continually revised until the publishing of the 1950 edition.

In terms of the revision, there are actually two editions of the revisions. Noting the various editions (1931, 1950, 1993) could be kept separate from the controversy over the revisions. Let's tell people the facts, then introduce the discussion. Also, while John Henderson has indeed criticized the revisions, it's worth noting at least two direct students of Gurdjieff (Annie Lou Staveley and John Bennett) directly questioned the revisions. Mr. Henderson is actually a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the discussion (though he did provide the line-by-line analysis).

If this sounds reasonable, I can draft some updates and post in the Talk section for review. Xmarc999 (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson. 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/20070310181548/http://www.toutley.uklinux.net/BEELZEBUB/beelzebubportraits.htm to http://www.toutley.uklinux.net/BEELZEBUB/beelzebubportraits.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) 11:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply