Talk:The Emperor's New Clothes

Some criticism of style

It's hard to tell someone that they "don't get it" but this story is not a euphemism (look up the word) or a zen koan. The story is a folktale of a recognized type. The phrase is a metaphor or an allusion, but not a euphemism or a koan. A principal folktale theme, if not the principal point, is the "truth seen by the eyes of a child" and spoken by a person too naive to understand the group pressures to see something in a way contrary to obvious appearance. Secondary themes are how vanity makes one vulnerable to being conned, and how rarely a dependent minister or courtier will tell a ruler the truth if it's potentially bad news. And--- style tip, here--- never, never, never use "impacted" as a verb unless you want to knock 30 points off your perceived IQ-- it's bureaucratese at its worst and does not belong in a witty folktale. Wiki-linking "no clothes" to "Naked" is like sniggering at the word-- how old are you? I like my concise version better, but I am of course biased. How about letting it live here for awhile?

Now, here's an editor after my own heart. As for me, I particularly enjoy "This remark impacted everyone's mind" because it is so transparently a second-thought improvement on the writer's original: "This remark blew everyone's mind." This entry has been written without rereading Andersen's tale, apparently. Compare what similar boobies are up to at Rapunzel. If I sound peevish, it's because a good edit is an improvement, not simply a change in the text. A good rule at Wikipedia is Avoid unnecessary interference.--Wetman 03:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I personally think one should present many interpretations of a story and allow the reader to choose for themselves and not interpreting it for the reader, especially for stories with a pith as these. Though looking back, I suppose my Zen koan stuff (or as Nuhh-huh no-quite-subtly calls it, "crapola") was a bit excessive. I would argue however that my writing of "impacted" is merely de-idiomisation of "blew mind" for any non-native-English speakers dropping by. -- Znode 2004-11-08T21:46-08:00 If someone is tone-deaf, how do you explain they hit the wrong note? Your language sounds like it would if I tried to play the piano, but if you can't hear it I don't know how to convince you. Alteripse 13:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Previous better version

The Emperor's New Clothes was one of Hans Christian Andersen's children's fables (Danish title Kejserens nye klæder) published in his fairy tale collection in 1837.

An emperor was too vain of his clothing. Two swindlers claimed to be able to make a suit of cloth so fine that it was invisible to anyone "unfit to hold his office or unpardonably stupid." One after another, his advisors, the emperor himself, and most of his subjects refused to admit they could not see the clothes. When the emperor paraded naked in his new clothes, only a naive little boy in the crowd exclaimed aloud that he was wearing no clothes. Even after he said this and some in the crowd began to whisper that he was right, the emperor and his courtiers continued to pretend they could see the clothes.

"The emperor's new clothes" have become a metaphor, especially in political and social contexts, for any obvious truth denied by the majority despite the evidence of their eyes, especially when proclaimed by the government.

In practice, the phrase is often used as persuasion by partisans when in fact it is not obvious that their position is correct. Example: " They've assured us that there are no side effects to (nuclear energy, tobacco, auto emissions, silicon, etc.), but let's face it, the emperor has no clothes (on)."

Similar tales It has been claimed that Andersen's original source was a Spanish story recorded by Don Juan Manuel (1282-1348). This story of the little boy puncturing the pretensions of the emperor's court has parallels from other cultures, categorized as Aarne-Thompson folktale type 1620.

Links Original story in English translation (http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html) Another version and some similar tales and links (http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1620.html)

Different Theme?

I don't know how to put this into encyclopedic terms well, but I always got a different idea out of this story. I thought it was sort of pointing out that people will sometimes pretend to understand something, or otherwise deceive, in order to look better to others. That sounds vague, so I'll use an example. // On the playground, Joe tells an inside joke to a group of his friends. Tom, who has just started to hang out with this clique, laughs along with everyone else as if he understood the joke, lest he feel alienated. // Can anyone do anything with that? :/

I agree that it's pretty juvenile to have a link to the "Naked" page here. If anyone wants to read up on that, I'm sure they can.

And I definitely think the original Danish title of the story should be included. --BDD 01:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I think this is a much better interpretation of the story.

It also shows that the we can learn something from the innocent courage of a child, who does not fear and does not rationalise the clothes, but simply tells it how it is.

These interpretations and the one mentioned in the first line of the Analysis should be given equal weighting with the group think interpretation.

11:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)~Graham.

Reference to Wallace and Gromit

This concerns an edit made by User:Silverfish. Why remove the comparison to The Wrong Trousers? I didn't see anything wrong with the analysis. --Steerpike 15:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a few points. Firstly, much of it seems to have very little to do with The Emperor's New Clothes, but about other references and alleged references in The Wrong Trousers. For example, the mention of The Republic, or the supposed references to immigrantion and class. Also, what remains is presented in a POV way in asserting that they are references, whereas it doesn't seem clear to me that they are references. In the case of Wallace drying his hair, this seems likely to be just either a humorous image, or a reference to Wallace's vanity. The apparent reference embedded in them both having the names of types of clothing seems very stretched, especially as the trousers of the title are not illusory, but are just put to an unsuitable end. Similarly the claim that any allegory (for no particular one is cited at the end), is a reference to Animal Farm, itself referencing The Emperor's New Clothes, seems even more stretched.

Given this, I think the POV approach would be to cite particular critics who favour these interpretation, assuming that it is a notable enough POV. Otherwise, as it stands, it seems to be one person's interpretation, and so POV, and quite possibly original research. Silverfish 16:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Good point. --Steerpike 16:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What's with the link to Shadow (psychology)?

I don't understand why we have, under "See also", a link to Shadow (psychology). I would be grateful if someone could explain the relevance of this link. Otherwise it shouldn't be there.

I have added a link to Conformism, which IMO clearly is relevant.

Ireneshusband 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article of Shadow (psychology) also links back to The Emperor's New Clothes with this quote: "In Jungian psychology, the shadow or "shadow aspect" is a part of the unconscious mind which is mysterious and often disagreeable to the conscious mind, but which is also relatively close to the conscious mind. It may be (in part) one's original self, which is superseded during early childhood by the conscious mind; afterwards it comes to contain thoughts that are repressed by the conscious mind. The shadow is instinctive and irrational, but is not necessarily evil even when it might appear to be so. It can be both ruthless in conflict and empathetic in friendship. It is important as a source of hunches, for understanding of one's own more inexplicable actions and attitudes (and of others' reactions), and for learning how to cope with the more problematic or troubling aspects of one's personality. (For example, See The Emperor's New Clothes.)

And now from this article: The story is also used to express a concept of "truth seen by the eyes of a child", an idea that truth is often spoken by a person too naïve to understand group pressures to see contrary to the obvious. This is a general theme of "purity within innocence" throughout Andersen's fables and many similar works of literature.

So the way I interpret this, the child in Andersen's tale would still act mostly by the impulses of the shadow aspect of his mind, and therefore is the only one who blurts out the emperor has no clothes. The adults in the tale have largely learned to replace that shadow aspect with rational thought. The child senses this. I should note however, that in the context of Andersen fairytales, a link to Shadow (psychology) might have been more appropriate at The Shadow (fairy tale) :) --Steerpike 09:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Logic?

I love this fairy tale, as it provides such a useful metaphor about gullibility, but I still want to point out lapses of logic in the story. (1) The emperor should have sent his “trusted men” in to look at the cloth “blind” (in the sense of scientific trials) without first telling them the theory about the cloth. He would then have to decide whether his men were stupid or the cloth merchants were swindlers. (2) If the cloth was invisible to stupid people, he could be sure that he would be seen naked by some of his subjects when he wore the clothes in public. (3) Who “allowed [the emperor] to be dressed in the clothes for a procession through town”? The “trusted men,” who couldn’t see the clothes themselves? Were the cloth merchants still around? They should have expected to be found to be swindlers when the clothes were seen by a large number of people. (4) No underwear? (5) No sense of touch? – Espa, 9 October 2006

You'd have a point if the story literally referred to non-extistent clothes. The major flaw in my mind, when the kid rumbles the game, everyones eyes are suddenly opened to the obvious... I think not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.11.199 (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

It's not just about gullibility... it's also about pretentiousness. How many people turn a blind eye to something just to "look good"? That, to me, is what this story is about. It's about , among other things, allowing yourself to pay $700 for a pair of trousers just because the fashionista tell you they will make you "cool" if you wear them.68.148.153.28 (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)James Birkbeck

Logical fallacy?

Is there a logic fallacy associated with this story? It sounds like it may be a type of ad hominem argument ("it was invisible to anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position") --George100 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)