Talk:Three Men in a Boat

	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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force.

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

Shouldn't the Genre be related to Travel

I guess the genre should be related to travel as the book actually was intended to be in it. Sayamsethi (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something of the Dog!

How is the name "Montmorency" correctly pronounced? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mont-more-en-see. Techo (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could someone provide an IPA transcription? --Jtir (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Basis for the Trip?

Wikipedia's biography of Jerome claims that his Thames trip was in fact made in the company of his new wife, but re-worked for the book (to maximize its comic potential) as if he had traveled with his friends George and Harris (and the fictional dog). The present article on the book gives the impression that the three men had indeed undertaken the Thames trip together. Can we achieve clarity and consistency on this? Nandt1 (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. The wording is so ambiguous that it could be interpreted as saying that, while Jerome based the characters on his friends, they may or may not have made the trip with him. I have tagged it with {{clarifyme}}.

There are also some unsourced POV statements in the lead, so I have tagged one with {{fact}}.

"The jokes seem fresh and witty even today" sounds like it could be from an introduction, so this may be a simple sourcing problem.

--Jtir (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exclamation mark in title

This 1889 edition does not have an exclamation mark in the title:

Three Men in a Boat (to Say Nothing of the Dog).

If a few editions have one, a note can be added mentioning the variants.

--Jtir (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jtir - interesting point. My two copies both have the exclamation, but they are both modernish paperback (UK-published) versions. Not feeling inspired right now, so can't think of an elegant/succinct way of mentioning the variants. Any suggestions? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Who are the publishers? AFAICT, the 1889 ed. used parens and no exclamation mark. The Penguin ed. has no parens and an exclamation mark. I have no idea why there is a difference. Anyway, I have added an image of the 1889 title page and a note. Could you take a look and let me know what you think? --Jtir (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both my editions are Penguin (1980 & 1994) and neither of them use brackets/parens. But I do actually have vague recollection of the parens in an older version I've got somewhere (needless to say I can't find it) but it would also have been a Penguin - from early 60s. As for your edit - looks good. Anyone interested in further details can check out this talk page. Personally I'd have used the hyphen to convey that continuity instead of the colon, but it's your edit :) Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the Penguin eds. seem to be consistent, anyway. The way that libraries catalog the title is inconsistent.(worldcat)

WP doesn't mandate a particular citation style, but the The MLA Style Manual would probably be applicable, because it is used "in the humanities, especially in English studies".

I don't know what the MLA manual says, but I believe that the colon is often used to indicate a secondary (sub?) title. The colon is consistent with the bibrec in the Refs section, though.

--Jtir (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the rule in this guide for citing sources following the MLA Style Manual:

"Use a colon and space to separate a title from a sub-title unless the title ends with ?, !, or −."

Thanks for inspiring me to look into this further.

--Jtir (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for sharing it with us! I wasn't questioning your use - off the top of my head, it coincides with APA and Chicago MoS. It's just that I love that little dash (I used the incorrect term hyphen above - sorry!) and if the case in point had been a sentence as opposed to the title of a book, the following beaut. from The Economist Style Guide would have applied nicely:

Use it to introduce a paradoxical or whimsical ending to a sentence.

Unfortunately I never seem to get to use it! Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted good faith edit

Have deleted the following comment from the article (leaving the wikilink intact), as it has no bearing on the book itself:

- by "joining" the river at Teddington Lock, and following the succession boxes upstream, it is possible to follow the journey over each reach.

Their journey (on the river itself) starts at Kingston and the first lock upstream from there is Molesey (spelt Moulsey in the book), some 4-5 miles away from Teddington Lock. --Technopat (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a description of the stretch of river above every lock, and there are succession boxes between the locks - so the power of wiki can be used to treat the reader to a virtual version of the "Three men in a boat journey". Kingston is on the reach above Teddington Lock as is clear from the article so it is best to start a virtual journey from there even if the book started about a mile upstream. That is why "joining" is in quotes. Motmit (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! So Technopat gets to ~~put 'is foot in it~~ catch yet another crab at this article. Not quite sure whether Motmit agrees or disagrees with my wiping Teddington off the map (that "there" above is just too ambiguous), but I suspect he/she wants it back where it was (for effect? atmosphere? poetic licence?), even if it ain't mentioned in the book - or is it? I can take it or leave it. What's more, I publicly state here that from now on I will not argue a technicality with anyone who a) enjoys (re)reading 3 Men in a B; and b) enjoys messing about in boats... I'll just go with the flow. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

type of boat

The article says their boat is a "Thames camping skiff" and links to Thames skiff, yet the book itself says it is a "double sculling skiff". --Jtir (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jtir, Both a single skiff and a double skiff can be fitted with hoops and a canvas. The Thames skiff article shows pictures of both & maybe someone can post a picture of a skiff fitted with a canvas. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We won't take a tent," suggested George; "we will have a boat with a cover. … You fix iron hoops up over the boat, and stretch a huge canvas over them, and fasten it down all round, from stem to stern, and it converts the boat into a sort of little house, and it is beautifully cosy, though a trifle stuffy …"

Three Men in a Boat, Ch. III.

Thanks. I now understand that the number of rowing positions and whether or not it can be covered are separate properties. Although Jerome never uses the term camping skiff, he gives a good description in Chapter III. There is an illustration of the covered boat in the 1889 edition.

I omitted the mother-in-law joke from the quote, but am wondering if the full quote might be useful in the article for describing the boat and illustrating Jerome's style of humo(u)r.

--Jtir (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working together with user technopat

Technopat undid my edit here. This good faith edit is an improvement to the article by addressing the "citation request" tags using sources from the Oxford World's Classics edition of the text. If Technopat has specific issues or concerns I hope he/she will take a moment and outline on this page so that we can work together in improving the article. I look forward to working together with Technopat. I am sure that we can make this a great article! Thanks! 71.191.40.106 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to User 71.191.40.106 for reverting his/her good faith edits. I mistook them for vandalism. I'm sorry. (Apology also being posted on corresponding user page.)--Technopat (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of irrelevant expression

Being bold & have removed the following because it is neither relevant to the novel nor referenced:

Other meanings Among US troops in Iraq, "Three Men in a Boat" is slang for "stop", because of the shape of the Arabic word وقف‎ for "stop!": see List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions#Field slang.

--Technopat (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some doubt

Few days ago I wrote an article about Three Men... for the polish Wikipedia (it's there). I was verifying informations from english version and I have problem with one of them: The use of slang was condemned as "vulgar" and the book was derided as written to appeal to 'Arrys and 'Arriets - then-common sneering terms for working-class Londoners who dropped their Hs when speaking. Punch magazine dubbed Jerome " 'Arry K. 'Arry". There is a note, in which as the source is said Jerome's autobiography, which unfortunately I did not have in hand. Most of the websites with this informations looks like the clones of en.wiki... I looked to the other books on books.google.com and I didn't find any confirmation of it. Moreover, in Jeremy Lewis' Introduction to the Penguin's edition (s. xv-xvi) this fact is linked to the earlier novel of Jerome (The Idle Thoughts...), not to Three Men.... I believe, Lewis had Jerome's autobiography in his hands...

In addition, if someone would be nice, and found some outside confirmation that Waterloo Station has been the object of jokes, I would be grateful. Regards, Grzegorz B. (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned in London Waterloo station, though unreferenced. I've got somewhere an annotated edition of Three Men which I think confirms this, though I'd have to find it to check this.Catsmeat (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not really witty or very brilliant; nay, in parts it is distinctly vulgar; but we can forgive Mr. Jerome K. Jerome till seventy times seven for all these drawbacks for the sake of the irrepressible laughter he causes us to enjoy" – Morpeth Herald, 14 december 1889 Hexmaster.se (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abridged editions

I see from various bibliographies that there exist abridged editions. I'd be interested to know which bits are typically cut in those editions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.28.145 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, all the pubs and inns named are still open.

Unfortunately no longer true as the Crown at Marlow is now a kitchen shop. This needs re-wording to be 'most of the pubs and inns' [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robosb (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Women in a kitchen

May I respectfully point out the Punch article "Three Women in a kitchen" by Libby Purves, reprinted in Pick of Punch (1986)? ISBN 0246130563

Purves, along with Merrily Harpur and Mandy Rice-Davies recreated the journey in a somewhat girly but equally hilarious 80s-Punch manner. Bluedawe 08:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ola

ola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberchu (talk • contribs) 12:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein's "Have Spacesuit - Will Travel"

The text says: "In Have Space Suit—Will Travel, by Robert A. Heinlein, the main character's father is an obsessive fan of the book, and spends much of his spare time repeatedly re-reading it.[citation needed]"

How is that supposed to be cited? The first page of the book contains the line: '"Certainly," he answered and looked back at his book. It was Jerome K. Jerome's Three Men in a Boat, which he must know by heart.' The next page has the father saying "Reminds me of this passage I'm reading. They're trying to open a tin of pineapple and Harris has left the can opener back in London. They try several ways." He started to read aloud and I sneaked out-I had heard that passage five hundred times. Well, three hundred.

For what it's worth, Heinlein's "Rocket Ship Galileo" also has a reference to that can opener scene. After they launch, Morrie is worried that he may have left the can opener behind on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.200.74 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance?

Colonel Montmorency, the frustratingly undersupplied organiser of a corps within the Home Guard, is the protagonist in Noël Coward's WWII song, "Could You Please Oblige Us with a Bren Gun?".

I can't see how this relates to the book, except that it happens to include the name Montmorency. Valetude (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Jerome remember their first trip up the river?

) 223.223.148.123 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence which makes no sense

The country stay is rejected because Harris claims that it would be dull, the sea-trip after J. describes bad experiences his brother-in-law and a friend had on previous sea-trips.
— Summary section

"Dull, the sea-trip" doesn't make sense (at least to me). I haven't read the book so I don't know what it's supposed to be, but please fix it. Illuminati42 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Illuminati42 it means " ... and the sea-trip is rejected after ...". It's good English but could be made clearer, obviously, as you found it opaque. You could have a similar structure of sentence "Jane bought coffee, Anne tea". PamD 08:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]