Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 18 October 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Theatre High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Elizabethan theatre (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elizabethan theatreWikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreTemplate:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreElizabethan theatre Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Shakespeare High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Untitled

"It could be argued though that the play's heritage of violence could be traced as far back to Seneca, by whom Shakespeare was influenced and imitated to good effect."

This sentence is written as though it's supposed to contest something in the previous sentence, but it fails to do so - it seems like a non-sequitor. And no one "argues" that Shakespeare was drawing on Senecan tradition because everbody agrees that Seneca was the inspiration for this type of play. I'd rewrite the sentence, but I can't figure out what the original author was trying to say.68.118.61.219 00:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also??

Should we tie to Andronicus I Comnenus which may have been a historical reference for the play? WBardwin 08:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the play is based on him? The Singing Badger 13:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my university Shakespeare teacher/and my memory. There's probably a book reference with the theory out there somewhere. WBardwin 21:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov argues pursuasively that the play has no direct connection to any historical figure. For example, it is clearly part of pre-Christian Rome, because the whole cycle of revenge starts with the burial-sacrifice of one of Tamora's sons. Andronikos I Komnenos OTOH was 12th century, definitely Christian era. The play's theme of revenge piled upon revenge could have drawn upon many sources ... it's a popular theme! rewinn 06:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, there is a very strong argument that Lavinia is based on Philomel in Ovid's Metamorphoses. But that's more of a literary foundation than any sort of historical tie-in. The Jade Knight 10:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In my Penguin edition of Shakespeare, the 'unknown' boy is called "young Lucius". Rintrah 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I just looked again, and "young Lucius" is in the stage direction opening Act IV. Also Marcus says "Stand by me, Lucius, do not fear thy Aunt". Later the boy refers to Marcus as "Uncle" and Lavina as "Aunt". Perhaps these terms are being used a little loosely; if Lavinia were his aunt, Marcus would be his great-uncle. But anyway, at least the boy has a name! thanks. rewinn 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reputation

I have changed the text so that "consider it childish, juvenile, or believe that it is populist trash written only to make money" now reads "consider it childish, juvenile, or believe that it is low-brow trash written only to make money." "Populist" has political connotations that are certainly irrelevant, and "popular" would probably be the correct word to use EXCEPT that many of WS's plays were popular and so condemning one of his plays for being popular is tantamount to condemning pretty nearly all his plays for the same reason. (Shakespeare wrote for people and audiences and not for the desk-drawer, as someone or other once remarked!) However, it seemed to me that that sense intended was not to condemn it for being popular but for being low-brow, and so have changed the text conformably.

This entire section strikes me as rather awkward. It doesn't read clearly, and much of the writing strikes me as unnecessarily complex to the point of confusion. I've made some edits, but I'm still not very happy with how it reads. Anyone with better ideas on how to rephrase some of the more glaringly clumsy sections, please do so. --CurtisSchweitzer 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to justify any Shakespeare play as "low-brow" or "trash", since the language, classical references, and themes are always above the low-brow or trashy level. Even the notorious scene in Hamlet, with the obvious genitalia reference, is too subtle to fit the modern definition of low-brow or trashy theatre. Anyway, Titus Andronicus is far more enjoyable than Silence of the Lambs. Rintrah 07:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with you but I can understand someone slagging this particular play for the cited reasons, although I personally do not agree with them. I think that it is a valid opinion, and might as well be left in; my only concern was that the choice of that particular word "populist" was problematical and wanted to change it to one more fitting. Hi There 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just get annoyed at the insidious criticism which insinuates itself into the reputation of Shakespeare's plays. Rintrah 14:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the Bloom comment necessary? I understand why criticisms of the play are described, but this opinion, from a pompous scholar, seems extraneous and annoying. Rintrah 12:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is incredibly one-sided and subjective. "Generally uninspired verse" is not presented as an opinion but as a fact. Only unfavourable, even mostly derisive, opinions about the play are reported. In The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare (possibly a better authority than whoever wrote this section), Anthony Davies writes, "The play is currently very popular . Critics now tend to regard TA as at very least an interesting precursor of the mature tragedies." Both recent editors of TA in major editions (Jonathan Bate for Arden Third Series and Eugene Waith for The Oxford Shakespeare) do take the play seriously. I take it they are complete idiots since Harold Bloom's opinion is the only one worth taking into account. S.Camus (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate Character Pages

Its seems that none of the characters in this WS play have a separate page. Are they not notable enough to do so. I am no expert on WS, but if people think these pages could do with being created I am willing to give a hand. Cheers --81.111.69.221 19:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC) aka user:Lethaniol

It's a wiki. If you want to do separate pages then BE BOLD and do it. For what it's worth, though, if I were in your position I would expand the characters here in this article, then only break them out when and if this article got too long. AndyJones 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's really not necessary. AFAIK, the characters of the play aren't archetypes that have been repeatedly used by Shakespeare, nor have they been adapted into other works (Like Rosencrantz & Guildenstern in Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead). I'd recommend just creating a "Characters" and "Minor Characters" subsection with a blurb for each.

Okay I agree with you two - I will (when I get time) write up short summaries of each of the major characters and a list of the minor ones. If they become article worthy on their own then they can be made. By the way this is WS we are speaking about, and although I try to be bold, mucking about with these sorts of pages is a bit scary - oh well I am quite new. Cheers Lethaniol 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no abuse to WS that hasn't been used by some academic. Others will amend your mistakes, if there are any. Rintrah 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just added a section, copied from my complete works, for a character list. Most other Shakespeare plays on Misplaced Pages seem to have such a section.--King Hildebrand 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word 'hack'

I've noticed a few uses for 'hack' in this article...are they meant to be there? I'm going to edit them out, but if anyone disagrees with my decision let me know and I'll unedit them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebluelagoon (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed extraneous links

I've deleted a good number of pointless links on this page: specifically ones that were redundant (pointing to articles articled linked to only a few paragraphs above) or extraneous (pointing to common words like revenge, murder, gore, and so on. Can we try to keep the links in an article only to subjects that will expand the reader's understanding of the article itself? How likely is it that someone reading this article doesn't know what the word "murder" means?

Fabulous Creature 19:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary spoiler tags

Most of the articles about Shakespeare plays have a clearly marked section labelled "Synopsis" in which the plot is discussed. It's really unnecessary, and quite insulting, to put a further warning directly beneath that. These are well established plays and people come to read about them. When they see that the article contains a synopsis, they're not going to be surprised because this is an encyclopedia. If they read on and find out the plot of the play, then we have done our job correctly. Pandering for some imaginary people who may not realise that encyclopedias tell you about stuff, or that a plot summary inevitably contains a summary of the plot, is not productive, and certainly no justification for unnecessary duplication of information. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine where headers clearly show that plot-related material is present (such as under the "Synopsis" heading). The Jade Knight 10:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the dead emperor have a name?

Does the dead emperor have a name or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.119.112 (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

April 9 edits

Hi guys. Well, as y’all can see, I’ve made a couple of minor changes to the page!!! Now, I know the first thing everyone is thinking – it’s far far far too long. Far. Yep, I totally accept that, but it won’t be for long. I’ve earmarked three individual sections to be taken out and put on their own pages, but I wanted to get some opinions about it before I went to the trouble of creating pages that people may think are a waste of time. The three sections are The Peacham drawing, Authorship and Themes. Removing these three sections would bring the article down to an acceptable length. I think they’re the most logical ones to move (obviously, I’ll need to write brief intros and whatnot, and add links, but that’s no biggie), as the Text, Sources, Language, Performances and Adaptations sections wouldn’t really stand on their own as individual articles. That’s my thinking anyway, but I wanted to get some feedback before I did anything. The other thing I wanted to ask about is names; obviously the Peacham drawing will be at Peacham drawing, and I’ll redirect link Longleat manuscript and The Peacham drawing. But what should I call the other two: Titus Andronicus authorship question or Titus Andronicus (authorship question) or Titus Andronicus (authorship) and Titus Andronicus (themes) or Titus Andronicus themes or Themes in Titus Andronicus. Any advice on this is very much appreciated, as is any general feedback on the article itself. Bertaut (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_9#File:Laura_Rees_as_Lavinia.jpg

All opinions welcome. victor falk 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Stratford Festival productions

The performance section makes reference to productions at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival:

"It had been set to be staged at the festival in 1929, as the only play in the canon not performed since the festival's origin in 1879, but it was replaced by Much Ado About Nothing when ticket sales proved poor."

This is clearly wrong as the Stratford Shakespeare Festival was established in 1953, but I don't have the resources at hand to straighten it out. -Dhodges (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Nice spot. I double checked my source (Dessen), and he says it was scheduled for the jubilee season in Stratford in a section where he talks about the 1978 production. Obviously, I misread it and conflated the jubilee season with the festival. I've deleted the inaccurate info. Thanks for pointing that out. Bertaut (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• • it's still a little muddled, 1879 would refer to the Royal Shakespeare Company. Doing some Googling, it seems they toured a production of 'Much Ado in what would have been their golden jubilee. Incidentally, it could only have been a tour, as their old theatre burned down and the new theatre opened in 1932.

What I'd suggest is moving that material up to the paragraph which refers to the 1955 Peter Brook production. again, I hesitate to do it myself as I don't have your source. -Dhodges (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not fully sure what you mean - move the cancelled 1929 info to the Brook section?

• Here's the exact quote from Dessen. He's talking about box office and unwanted laughter and whatnot, and he says "For the 1929 jubilee season in Stratford, Titus was proposed and even announced (as the only play that had not been done there in the fifty years since 1879) but box-office logic prevailed and its place was taken by Much Ado About Nothing." That's all the info he gives. Bertaut (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm inclined to remove it altogether. This is a general interest encyclopedia, too much detail isn't going to help the average reader. The main thing is not to put information about one Stratford in a paragraph that's primarily about the other.

• Yeah, fair point. I've removed it so. Bertaut (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

bot botch-ups

I noticed two places in Section Titus Andronicus#Television where dates like "1 January 64" were given in places where verse numbers were expected (1.1.64). I assume this was due to a bot that was out to detect malformed dates. I've changed them back. I haven't found any other occurrences in this article, but of course there may be some in other articles. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Radio

In 1923, extracts were broadcast on BBC Radio 1, performed by the Cardiff Station Repertory Company as the second episode of a series of programs showcasing Shakespeare's plays, entitled Shakespeare Night.

Now, are we sure about that? When, precisely, in 1923? And could someone please confirm that BBC Radio 1 was broadcasting in 1923. My understanding is that it first came on air in 1967. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.166.126 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually BBC radio was established October 18, 1922; and experimental transmissions were going on as early as 1920. So it is quite possible that they were doing Shakespeare broadcasts in 1923. In 1967 the BBC established BBC Radio 2, renamed the existing BBC Radio station as BBC Radio 1. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

BBC Radio was established in 1922. It was not called BBC Radio 1. To digress a little: the then 3 national BBC Radio stations "Home Service", "Light Programme" & "Third Programme" were replaced by respectively Radio 4, Radio 2, & Radio 3 and a new service "Radio 1" in 1967. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.166.126 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the link with the info: There is a citation in the article itself, right at the start of the radio section, it says "All information is this section is taken from...". Regarding the name of the channel, the source is vague, so feel free to change it. Bertaut (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of non-free files

Do not re-add or I will take this to ANI and request that the user is blocked. If you want the removals reviewed file a request at WP:NFCR until that is closed the files say out. Werieth (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Theatre articles
• High-importance Theatre articles
• WikiProject Theatre articles
• B-Class Shakespeare articles
• High-importance Shakespeare articles
• WikiProject Shakespeare articles
• C-Class fictional character articles
• WikiProject Fictional characters articles