Talk:The Minister's Black Veil

Novels: Short story / 19th century Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

[Untitled][edit]

Edgar Allan Poe is unlike any writer you may be exposed to as a kid, but yet he is unique in a good way! His thrilling, straight-to- the-point stories are well written with no contest. You will not confuse him with another writer.

Apparently you did confuse him with another writer seeing Poe didn't write "The Minister's Black Veil."

Purposeful Ambiguity[edit]

The Minister's Black Veil is often cited as "ambiguous" literature. The author intentionally made it open to interpretation. As such, the section claiming that the veil represents secret sin should be removed, as well as the statement that Mr. Hooper committed adultery. Nowhere does it say that he committed adultery. It is pure speculation, and it is falsely stated as a fact. The Edgar Allen Poe quote proves nothing, since he is not the author, as has been stated.

I think the entire "Symbols" section should be removed, or rewritten to make it clear that it is one of many opinion.

This whole article could use lots of help. The specific section you refer to even has a clean-up template on it, so you are not the first to notice it. Even though there are many interpretations, these articles need to make some attempt at summarizing generally accepted ones. The idea that Poe's quote proves nothing is quite true, but it is quite clearly attributed to him as speculative and does not at all imply that his was the only interpretation. His reviews of Hawthorne are important, he was one of the most important literary critics of his day, so his interpretation is worth including. His name is also worth spelling correctly in the future. :) But, again, the section is worthless by Wikipedia stanzas because, as the template over that section shows, nothing there is attributed properly. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on February 13 2014[edit]

Added a wikilink to the article "Puritan".

TheInformativePanda (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]