Talk:Hamlet/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review, part the second[edit]

Wow! This article is so much better than when I last read it. I'm so impressed with the work that the editors have put into it. I think that with just a little polishing, it will be far and away one of the best articles we have on Wikipedia.

Layout and organization:

  • Too many pictures in "Synopsis" - they overpower the reader. Also, I never like it when pictures bleed into the next section - it looks unprofessional in my opinion.
    • I cut out two of them. I also thought there were too many. Wrad (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good! I've said this article has too many pictures so often in edit summaries. My home computer has a high-res monitor and my work computer a low-res monitor, so I've constantly had to move pictures around to make them fit. AndyJones (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, by the way, someone should probably check the captions for punctuation - there shouldn't be any periods if there aren't complete sentences. It says that at WP:CAPTIONS (or somewhere in the WP:MOS). Awadewit | talk 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the artists' names italicized in some of the image captions? It seems a bit odd, but if this is the style, it should be followed on every image caption (I also think dates for the images are useful for the reader).
    • I agree. Indeed, I find the "artist bit" of the captions a bit confusing sometimes. Would it be possible to prosify them (painted by ...) or sub-caption them (Artist: ...)? I won't make any edits like that until it's been discussed, here. AndyJones (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I'll amend then to read Artist: etc following the style of the existing Photographer: --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Full names. Unitalicised. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Sources" section doesn't seem to need the subsections - they are small.
  • Psychological aspects of Hamlet's character as a theatrical representation returns in the staging section - perhaps decide whether that subject is best explored in the "Psychoanalytic" section or the staging section.
    • Roger has already made this decision, I think. AndyJones (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

Synopsis section could still use some work - at times it offers too much detail and at times not enough. I also felt that there was a desire to adhere too rigidly to the timeline of the play, to the detriment of actually explaining the plot. The synopsis is most useful to people who have not read the play or have not read it recently. Explaining the plot in order is not strictly necessary. In fact, the beginning of this synopsis is quite confusing, as it jumps back and forth between the ghost scenes. Examples:

  • The central character in Hamlet is Prince Hamlet - What do we think about "protagonist" instead of "central character"?
  • Prefer protagonist of the above three options. AndyJones (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claudius and Gertrude hold court, sending ambassadors to avert a possible attack by Prince Fortinbras. Hamlet seeks leave to continue his studies in Wittenburg but Claudius and Gertrude refuse and instead try to persuade Hamlet to end his mourning. - Is this even necessary to include?
  • I'm not sure if you know that I've given detailed thought to the synopsis and my comments can be seen at User:AndyJones/Hamlet Synopsis. My thought process in foregrounding Fortinbras was partly to ensure that his appearance at the end doesn't come as an unexplained surprise. Fortinbras is often cut in performance but his presence is important in the play that Shakespeare wrote, and I think it's important that our synopsis gives that its proper weight: it would be wrong to use the cutting logic that a director can. I added the Laertes comment at a time when I thought I would have more words available than it turned out that I did. However I would caution that in removing this you also remove my foregrounding of Laertes, which needs to be added at his next appearance. As to whether the whole passage is needed, then yes it's an important and lengthy scene, which Shakespeare put in his play for a reason: if he thought these plot points were important then we have to think so too. Sorry, I've started rambling haven't I: I'll look at it to see if I can fix it, today, but even if I don't I agree trimming is appropriate. Forget I spoke. Looks like someone's already fixed it, and in pretty-much the way I would have done. AndyJones (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a general reference to the threat from Fortinbras is necessary. This could go into the preamble as this would then clarify the reference to him in the last paragraph.--ROGER DAVIES talk 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowing Hamlet has courted his sister, Ophelia, Laertes warns her off him - "him" grammatically refers to Laertes
  • Agree, but I have a related question. Is "warns her off" too colloquial? It was the best expression of the idea I could find, but I'm wondering if that's "just me". Is there a better way of saying this in more conventional English? AndyJones (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was alright (sic). The "him" should go though. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamlet berates Ophelia for her immodesty and dismisses her to a nunnery—a cruel double entendre as nunnery was Elizabethan slang for brothel—causing her great distress. - Tidbit best left for later in the article, not for the synopsis.
  • As you'll see from my comments, I liked this bit: I agree though that we could cut it so as to read "Hamlet berates Ophelia for her immodesty, causing her great distress" if we want to tighten it. AndyJones (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation of the pun will work well in the language section.--ROGER DAVIES talk 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thinking: it's already mentioned there, so it will just need a bit of expansion. AndyJones (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamlet directs the actors' preparations. The court assembles and the play begins; Hamlet provides a running commentary throughout, renaming the play "The Mousetrap". - Again, a tidbit not necessary for a synopsis.
  • Don't disagree, if we feel the need to tighten further: it could become just: "Hamlet directs the actors' preparations. The court assembles and the play begins." Or even just "The court assembles and the play begins." FWIW, the wording was there because a previous version of the synopsis provided links to the major soliloquies, so "Hamlet directs the players' preparations" was there for the link to "speak the speech...". That idea got abandoned along the way. AndyJones (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are removing the Mousetrap comment, I'd recommend also cutting references to the title "The Murder of Gonzago". Saying one but not the other will inevitably lead to editors feeling the need to crowbar-in the other. AndyJones (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the Mousetrap and the Murder of Gonzago from the synopsis to a play-within-the-play paragraph in Hamlet#Dramatic structure. I'm not sure it adds anything at all. Keep or cut? --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment when the Player King is poisoned, Claudius rises abruptly and leaves, proof positive for Hamlet of his uncle's guilt. - Guilt of what? Not all readers can be presumed to remember this. Remind them.
  • I'll work in specific references to poison in the ears to the Ghost's explanation and the play. That's memorable enough. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorted in new draft. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back at Elsinore, Hamlet recounts to Horatio how pirates had attacked their ship and how he had escaped from Rozencrantz and Guildenstern. Hamlet had discovered that they were carrying a letter requesting his execution but he amended it so that they be executed in his place. - Is this necessary?
  • As you'll see from my subpage I almost edited this out, but I changed my mind. It now seems to me this is a very important plot point: it may happen offstage, but consider its importance to the afterlife (Stoppard and all that); consider what it tells us about the relationship to the sources; consider what it tells us about Hamlet's character (his callousness towards his two former-friends who come not near his conscience). I think it should be there (abridged a bit, if you must). As for the pirates, of course they need a brief mention somewhere or the plot doesn't make sense: our hero was on his way to his death in England, and suddenly he's back. AndyJones (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise version in new draft. It says he explains how he escaped without going into detail. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts[edit]

Having given this some thought, I agree with Awadewit that it would be better to loosen the synopsis up so that it follows the story chronology less closely. For example, the preamble should really explain who Polonius, Laertes and Ophelia are. And it makes sense to reduce the amount of jumping about with the Ghost's appearances and disclosures. This will also reduce the amount of choppiness. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your thinking, broadly, is that instead of a strict chronology, you deal with the opening act-or-so in this kind of order (I've moved-around the existing words below, without contextualising):

Background

The protagonist in Hamlet is Prince Hamlet, the son of the recently deceased King Hamlet, and the nephew of King Claudius, his father's brother and successor. Claudius has married King Hamlet's widow, Gertrude, who is Hamlet's mother.

Ghost

The play opens on a cold winter night at Elsinore, the royal castle. Two sentries—Marcellus and Barnardo—are trying to persuade Hamlet's friend Horatio that they have seen King Hamlet's ghost, when the Ghost appears again. Hamlet meets Horatio and the sentries, who tell him of their encounter with the Ghost. He resolves to join them on the platform, that night. Later, Hamlet encounters the Ghost, who reveals that Claudius poisoned him, and urges Hamlet to avenge his death. Hamlet agrees and, to avert suspicion, decides to feign madness.

King and Queen

Claudius and Gertrude hold court, sending ambassadors to avert a possible attack by Prince Fortinbras. Hamlet seeks leave to continue his studies in Wittenburg but Claudius and Gertrude refuse and instead try to persuade Hamlet to end his mourning. Claudius and Gertrude send two student friends of Hamlet's—Rosencrantz and Guildenstern—to seek out the reason for his madness. Hamlet greets his friends warmly, but quickly guesses their purpose. When a group of players arrive, Hamlet resolves to stage a play—The Murder of Gonzago—in which he will re-enact a king's murder, and determine Claudius' guilt or innocence by watching his response.

Polonius' Family

Laertes, the son of Denmark's chief counsellor Polonius, is leaving to resume his studies in France. Knowing Hamlet has courted his sister, Ophelia, Laertes warns her off; Polonius forbids the courtship too. Ophelia—disturbed by Hamlet's "madness"—confides in Polonius, who blames an "ecstasy of love". Polonius has revealed his theory to the King and Queen, and they arrange for Ophelia to meet Hamlet in the lobby, where Claudius and Polonius may eavesdrop. Hamlet berates Ophelia for her immodesty and dismisses her to a nunnery, causing her great distress. AndyJones (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the general idea. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Awadewit | talk 12:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started working on this, which I'll post here in draft shortly.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This'll be tomorrow now. Tying up plot ends is like trying to herd cats :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft replacement synopsis[edit]

~STARTS~

The protagonist of Hamlet is Prince Hamlet of Denmark, son of the recently deceased King Hamlet, and nephew of King Claudius, his father's brother and successor. Claudius hastily married King Hamlet's widow, Gertrude, Hamlet's mother. Denmark has a long-standing feud with neighbouring Norway and an invasion led by the Norwegian prince, Fortinbras, is expected.

The play opens on a cold winter night at Elsinore, the Danish royal castle. The sentries try to persuade Hamlet's friend Horatio that they have seen King Hamlet's ghost, when it appears again. Hearing the news, Hamlet resolves to see the Ghost himself. That night, the Ghost appears to Hamlet and tells him that Claudius murdered him by pouring poison in his ears. The Ghost demands vengeance from Hamlet, who agrees and decides to feign madness to avert suspicion. However, Hamlet is uncertain of the Ghost's reliability.

Busy with affairs of state, Claudius and Gertrude try to avert an invasion by Prince Fortinbras of Norway. Perturbed by Hamlet's continuing deep mourning for his father and his increasingly erratic behaviour, they send two student friends of his—Rosencrantz and Guildenstern—to discover its cause. Hamlet greets his friends warmly, but quickly guesses they are spies.

Polonius is Claudius' trusted chief counsellor; his son, Laertes, is about to resume studies in France and his daughter, Ophelia, is courting Hamlet. Neither Polonius nor Laertes approve the match and both warn her off. Shortly afterwards, Ophelia meets Hamlet secretly but is so alarmed by his strange antics that she tells her father. Polonius blames an "ecstasy of love"[1] for Hamlet's madness and informs Claudius and Gertrude. At their next tryst, Hamlet rants at Ophelia, accusing her of immodesty and dismissing her to a nunnery.

Hamlet remains unconvinced that the Ghost told him the truth, but the arrival of a troupe of actors at Elsinore presents him with a solution. He will stage a play, re-enacting his father's murder, and determine Claudius' guilt or innocence by studying his reaction. The court assembles to watch the play; Hamlet provides a running commentary throughout. At the point when the Player King is murdered, with poison in his ears, Claudius abruptly rises and leaves the room, proof positive for Hamlet of his uncle's guilt.

Gertrude calls Hamlet to her bedchamber to demand an explanation. En route, Hamlet passes Claudius in prayer but hesitates to kill him, reasoning that death in prayer would send him to heaven. In the bedchamber, a furious row erupts between Hamlet and Gertrude. Polonius, spying hidden behind a tapestry, makes a noise and Hamlet, believing it is Claudius, stabs wildly, killing him. The Ghost appears, urging Hamlet to treat Gertrude gently but reminding him to kill Claudius. Unable to see or hear the Ghost herself, Gertrude takes Hamlet's conversation with it as further proof of madness. Hamlet hides Polonius' corpse before Claudius, fearing for his life, banishes Hamlet to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Demented by grief at Polonius' death, Ophelia wanders Elsinore singing bawdy songs. Her brother, Laertes, arrives back from France, enraged by his father's death and his sister's madness. Claudius convinces Laertes that Hamlet is solely responsible; then news arrives that Hamlet is still at large. Claudius swiftly concocts a plot. He proposes a fencing match between Laertes and Hamlet with poison-tipped rapiers, with poisoned wine if that fails. Gertrude interrupts to report that Ophelia has drowned.

Two gravediggers discuss Ophelia's apparent suicide, while digging her grave. Hamlet arrives with Horatio and banters with a gravedigger, who unearths the skull of a jester from Hamlet's childhood, Yorick. Ophelia's funeral procession approaches; led by Laertes. He and Hamlet grapple but the brawl is broken up.

Back at Elsinore, Hamlet tells Horatio how he escaped and that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. A courtier, Osric, interrupts to invite Hamlet to fence with Laertes. With Fortinbras' army closing on Elsinore, the match begins. Laertes pierces Hamlet with a poisoned blade but is fatally wounded by it himself. Gertrude accidentally drinks poisoned wine and dies. In his dying moments, Laertes is reconciled with Hamlet and reveals Claudius' murderous plot. In his own last moments, Hamlet manages to kill Claudius and names Fortinbras his heir. When Fortinbras arrives, Horatio recounts the tale and Fortinbras orders Hamlet’s body borne off in honour.

~ENDS~

Comments? Omissions? Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WOW! I'm blown away. Excellent work, a very smooth piece of prose. I'll think about making detailed comments later, but definitely a huge improvement over the existing one. AndyJones (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway, a couple of thoughts:
      • Not sure about "Ophelia wanders Elsinore witless".
      • Even less sure about "a cup of poisoned wine as refreshment".
      • Still think the deaths of R&G need a mention.
      • Reading at speed, could the "they" of "Laertes, in his dying moments, reveals Claudius' plot to Hamlet, and they are reconciled" be misinterpreted as meaning Claudius and Hamlet?
      • It bears re-reading extremely well. I think abandoning the strict chronology has helped far more than I had imagined it would. It makes the plot very clear, and sticks to the main points without unnecessary details. AndyJones (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your helpful and kind comments. I've addressed all the plot points and explained more clearly that Hamlet has escaped PRIOR to the gravedigger scene. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Just so that everyone on this page knows, I'm on a wikibreak for about three days. So be bold while I'm away, and I look forward to picking things up in the new year. AndyJones (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made some changes to the summary - I was bold. :) Awadewit | talk 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical history[edit]

  • The broad "Critical history" section doesn't quite make sense to me yet. It is not clear, for example, just when Hamlet's madness was significant and when it wasn't - it looks like it was significant throughout Hamlet reception, however the language of the section suggests that something about the reception of the madness changed. I am also not clear on the difference between the 18th century's response to Hamlet the hero and Romantic era's response to Hamlet the hero. This section needs more specificity and clarity. (I'm sure this section is very clear in everyone's mind, but that in condensing it, that clarity was lost. I really do understand the horror of having to describe something so complex in such a small space. However, I think we haven't quite achieved it yet. Perhaps looking at other authors' attempts to do so would help.)
    • The not-so-summarized version is available at Critical approaches to Hamlet. Future copyeditors should refer to that as they fix things so meaning doesn't get confused. Wrad (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a long look at the sub-article and it really needs quite a lot of work. I've started by putting it into chronological order (it jumped around, with lengthy digressions) though I can modify the summary here to resolve Awadewit's points fairly easily. The question here, I suppose, is the extent to which Critical history section is helpful to the main article, and whether it could go altogether. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A related comment is that the article uses, without explanation, phrases like "nunnery scene" "flower scene" and so-forth. Rather than messing with the article text, does anyone object to me putting a <ref> after each of those with the text "The nunnery scene in this article refers to Hamlet 3.1.87-160" etc.? AndyJones (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. OK, done that: although I did so doing a FIND on "scene" so I might not have caught 'em all. AndyJones (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Roger that possibly merging anything essential from this Critical History subsection into other parts of the section may be a better way of dealing with this objection than rewriting it. I think Wrad was the main writer on this bit,and might have some other ideas?? AndyJones (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. He has done good work on it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See what you think now it's been re-written. If we think merging is still a good idea, it's easily done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've re-worked this considerably, following the Critical approaches to Hamlet sub-article. I believe this has resolved the problems that Awadewit commented on. In particular, I think the new version suggests that criticism was more about changes of emphases than abrupt about-turns (which the earlier version implied). --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some much-needed page numbers and changed a bit more from my reading. I think connections are easier to see now. Sorry it's been so long, I just couldn't remember where I'd put the book. Wrad (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your excellent work. I've fiddled a bit with it for flow and brevity. Do revert any bits that I've broken! --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is much improved. Here are a few minor issues:
  • By the 19th century, Romantic critics viewed Hamlet as an internal, individual play - To me, it sounds awkward to describe a play as "internal" and "individual".
  • This focus on character and internal struggle carried itself into the 20th century - I'm not really sure who the agent is here - how can a focus carry itself?
  • I'm not very comfortable with: By the 19th century, Romantic critics valued Hamlet for its internal, individual conflict reflecting the strong contemporary emphasis on internal struggles and inner character in general - seems repetitive. How about: By the 19th century, Romantic critics valued Hamlet for its internal struggles and inner character reflecting the strong contemporary emphasis on these qualities. ? --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • when criticism branched in several directions, discussed in context and interpretation below - If the other centuries can be summarized, so can the twentieth. Awadewit | talk 04:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed everything but the last one. Why summarize twice in one article? The later sections cover it very well. Maybe the answer is to move the Critical history section so that it is at the top of the context and interpretation section. Wrad (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps simply handle it the way it was before, with specific linked refs to two notable new directions psychoanalysis and feminism instead of a generic link to the section heading. The earlier version didn't seem so bereft somehow. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, historical context is a 20th century product as well, called New Historicism. Everything in that section is 20th century, and to sum up the century with just feminism and psychonanalysm is to skip over New Historicism, which is a huge piece of the puzzle. Wrad (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point, Wrad, which had not occurred to me. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other sections that need work[edit]

  • Last paragraph of "Religious" section may be unnecessary. It seemed to go off on a tangent about religious history that was interesting but not strictly necessary for this article (if you're looking for anything to cut).
    • Can anyone suggest a merge target for this? I agree with Awadewit's conclusion - if we're looking to prune this is a likely candidate - but it's good material that someone put some effort into researching, and I wouldn't like to see it lost to Wikipedia, completely. AndyJones (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually in the Critical Approaches sub-articles so I've cut it from here. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "Shakespeare's day to the Interregnum" under "Performance history" could flow a little better.
    • There was some discussion (now in Archive 5) of removing this comment and placing an equivalent at the start of the "Influences" section. I'm reluctant to try a fix until Roger has had a chance to comment, here, on whether he thinks that should be done. AndyJones (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now worked on the flow a bit. Are you okay with it staying here or would you prefer a further re-write anmd a move? (I don't see much benefit in that though.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something to consider: I thought that the lead did a nice of job of following the guidelines of WP:LEAD. However, I was wondering if this wasn't a time to WP:IAR and write a brilliant, eloquent introduction. The lead is a bit stilted since it is trying to cram so much into such a limited space. Acknowledging that such a thing is not possible and saying, for example, "let's forget about some parts of the reception" or "let's forget about some parts of the sourcing and dating" (all highly explosive, I know) might make the lead a bit more coherent. This is entirely possible. The lead to Mary Wollstonecraft, for example, contains barely contains a mention of half the article (it certainly doesn't follow WP:LEAD) - to the reader's great benefit, I think. The trick is to figure out what would make a stellar lead. Just a thought. Awadewit | talk 01:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be curious to see an example. Wrad (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mary Wollstonecraft. Awadewit | talk 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh. I think that one's great, I'd just be curious to see a Hamlet example and compare and see what we want. Wrad (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, sorry. I must be brain-fried from listening to academic papers all day. Awadewit | talk 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not wild about this. Partly because one (wo)man's eloquence is another (wo)man's purple prose and partly because of the huge potential for slipping into contentious original research/synthesis. Hamlet is much higher profile than, for instance, Mary Wollstonecraft and we may not get the same tolerance from the legions of editors aching to correct mistakes. I do think the intro can be improved however but conservatively. That's my 2/100 anyway. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem here is that Awadewit has a vision. Any of the rest of us grasping that vision has a 90% chance of failure. Any of the rest of us realising that vision has a 99% chance of failure. I think, Awadewit, you'll either have to have a go at this and produce something as good as the Mary Wollstonecraft one, or we'll have to settle for a WP:LEAD-style lead. At least, that's MY 2/100. AndyJones (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you guys can hang on until 2-3 January, I'll see what I can cook up. I'm at the MLA convention right now, which is not conducive to much inspired writing. (I've seen lots of interesting Hamlet books, though.) Awadewit | talk 14:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed the intro significantly. I think this is probably closer to what you proposed, and I'm much happier with it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you "happy" or "much happier" with it? Big diff in those diffs. :) Awadewit | talk 15:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both :) I changed it 'cos I thought "happy" sounds smug and complacent. Which collides with my view that everything can be almost indefintely improved. I thought the first was serviceable but needed polishing. I think the second is much better, covers all the WP:LEAD bases and it is pacier and more enthusiastic. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small content issues:[edit]

  • Hamlet is the longest play—and Hamlet is the largest part—in the entire Shakespeare canon. - Why is this in the lead? Is this that important?
    • Seems important to me. It's one of the well-known facts about the play, and its length has substantially affected its afterlife since most productions cut the text in different ways from one another, sometimes heavily, leading to productions which favour one aspect of the story (e.g. politics or psychology) over others. My vote is to keep that in the lead. AndyJones (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. Though it would be better at the beginning of the following paragraph than where it is. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reference in "F1" to "little eyases"[26] is believed to date the play to 1601, when the War of the Theatres was raging and Globe players toured the provinces - Best explain this a bit more explicitly.
    • How about: The phrase "little eyases"[26] in "F1" is believed to refer to the Children of the Chapel, whose popularity in London forced the Globe company into a tour of the provinces. This event became known as the War of the Theatres, and supports a 1601 dating. (A bit rough: please tweak as appropriate). AndyJones (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I'll work this in later when I start me edits :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one moment, the play is Catholic and superstitiously medieval; at the next, it is Protestant and consciously modern. - Why Catholicism was associated with the medieval and Protestantism with the modern in 17th-century England probably needs to be explained.

Influences[edit]

  • For instance, Henry Fielding's Tom Jones, published about 1749, merely describes a visit to Hamlet by Tom Jones and Mr Partridge. - Um, actually, this is no mere visit to the theatre - it is often pointed to as a central scene in the novel. At least, I have often heard it described that way in my classes and at conferences. It is true that the whole novel doesn't revolve around Hamlet, but the scene is a "revealing" scene - we learn a great deal about the characters through their reactions to the play. Sound familiar? :)
  • I'm just letting you know that it rings false to anyone who has studied or read eighteenth-century literature, but how many of us are there, really? :) I guess I would just eliminate this altogether, then. Focus on the works that use Hamlet as an integral part of the plot/theme. Awadewit | talk 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Novy also suggests Mary Wollstonecraft as an influence on Eliot, critiquing "the trivialisation of women in contemporary society" - This doesn't seem relevant for the Hamlet article - more for the Eliot article.
    • (See my longer comment on the next bullet) AndyJones (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 1990s, feminist critics investigated "women writers' responses to Shakespeare …but Hamlet has played a relatively small role in this drama". - Um, wow. Do you have any other scholars who back up this statement, because I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Mary Wollstonecraft quoted Hamlet more than any other Shakespeare play and that she quoted Shakespeare more than any other author (might be close with the Bible or something like that).
    • I've looked up one of the cited sources on this, Thompson & Taylor's section entitled "Hamlet & Women Novelists" in 2006a 126-131. This does, indeed, contain the "Hamlet has played a relatively small role in this drama" quotation, although the text goes on to make clear that that is "relative" to plays such as King Lear and The Tempest which have strong father/daughter themes. The section goes on to discuss the critics Marianne Novy, Kate Chedgozy and Julie Sanders, and the novels of George Eliot, Virgina Woolf, Angela Carter, Gloria Naylor, Iris Murdoch, Carol Corbeil, and Margaret Atwood (whose Gertrude, speaking of the murder, has the wonderful line: "It wasn't Claudius, darling, it was me"). There's certainly plenty of material, and the "relatively small role" comment may not be the best we could pick. The question may be how much we want on this. I'd be against expanding by more than a sentence or two, I think. AndyJones (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote in the article makes that it clear that the paucity is relative to the canon as a whole. Many of the writers/critics discussed in the subsequent article are concerned with the canon not Hamlet. Thus, much of it is tangential to this article as the second paragraph would be about feminist critics reactions to women novelists. I think the solution is to remove explicit references to feminism and simply discuss major works by major writers in chronological order. I omitted Joyce and Murdoch earlier, largely on grounds of space. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree with you, I think, that the best solution we have is to simply remove the sentence that begins "During the 1990s..." altogether on the grounds that it's a negative comment of the kind we could fill the article with if we wanted to: "very few horror films have been based on Hamlet", "Hamlet has had very little impact on the Danish fishing industry" and so forth. We can then consider replacing it with something specific and positive about feminist approches to Hamlet, if we've got something. The section is a bit short, but of course the article as a whole is running long so I'm worried about expanding. [...CONTINUED AFTER A BREAK...] I've just re-read (at least, re-scanned) the relevant bits of Thompson & Taylor and Laurie Osborne, and I don't really feel I have anything to add unless we want to go into some detail, such as listing and describing specific works. AndyJones (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about something on the following lines:
Hamlet has played "a relatively small role" <ref>Thompson and Taylor (2007, 127)</ref> in the appropriation of Shakespeare's plays by women writers, ranging from Ophelia, The Fair Rose of Elsinore in Mary Cowden Clarke's 1852 The Girlhood of Shakespeare's Heroines, to Margaret Atwood's 1994 Gertrude Talks Back, in which the title character sets her son straight about Old Hamlet's murder: "It wasn't Claudius, darling, it was me!"<ref>Thompson and Taylor (2007, 126-132). ''Gertrude Talks Back'' appears in Atwood's 1994 ''[[Good Bones and Simple Murders]]''.</ref>
...? AndyJones (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a pretty specific tradition of women novelists - it is not "women writers". Note the essay is even titled "women novelists". It seems that the essay focuses on 19th- and 20th-century novelists? We are skipping over the 17th and 18th centuries, which had plenty of women writers - best to restrict the statement to "19th- and 20th-century women novelists" and mention something about Hamlet being less important than other Shakespeare plays so that readers don't get the idea that Shakespeare plays weren't important. Does the article make a nationalistic distinction? (I have no time to read it right now, I'm afraid.) Awadewit | talk 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've been bold and limited this section to the novel. It was in danger of sprawling and being added to by well-meaning itinerant editors :) I've created a sub-article Literary influence of Hamlet which is narrative rather than the list-format of References to Hamlet to home Andy's Osborne paragraph and the addition on plays. I hope no-one minds. This means we have here a straightforward chronological list of notable novels, including three lady novelists, which balances up the blokes. I've left Osborn in as a final paragraph for the moment but he doesn't really fit there. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good one. FWIW, I think Osborne's comment still belongs. Saying A did this B did that C did the other may be an encouragement to other editors to consider the section incomplete, and start adding D to Z. At least Osborne saying "there are lots of others and these are the forms they take" allows the section to cover all the cruft, without going into detail about it. AndyJones (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, conceded :) Though Osborne talks about four categories and I bet the urge to list all of them will prove irresistable to WikiOgres. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small prose issues:[edit]

  • Overall, there is a problem with redundancy in the article. I tried to fix some examples of it and I listed some here. However, I was hesitant to copy edit too much as I know that this article is the work of consensus and I didn't want to disrupt anything that had been carefully discussed. I hope I didn't do so.
    • If you feel there's anything more you can fix, I suggest you be bold and do so. We can always unfix if need be. Speaking for myself, I've got a quite redundant style, so I'm always glad when another editor comes along behind me to clean it up. AndyJones (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I have quite the redundant style myself! Awadewit | talk 04:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It tells the story of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark—who takes revenge on the current king (Hamlet's uncle) for killing the previous king (Hamlet's father) and for marrying his father's widow (Hamlet's mother)—and it charts the course of his real or feigned madness. - So inelegant with all of the parentheticals.
  • Yes though exceedingly clear. The brackets could be replaced with commas, but they'd also be parentheses. I've been thinking of breaking it into two sentences: the first dealing with the sex, the other with the violence. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps two sentences would be better. Awadewit | talk 12:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamlet is derived from elements in several sources. - I'm blown away - really, it is? Seriously, though, why not combine some sentences or say something a bit more substantial here.
    •  Done. I agree. The opening sentence is kinda empty. I've just made it: Hamlet's sources include a Danish legend, preserved in a 13th-century book by Saxo Grammaticus and retold by François de Belleforest in Histoires Tragiques (1570); and a now-lost Elizabethan play known today as the Ur-Hamlet. AndyJones (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its depth of characterisation has enabled a wide range of analysis and interpretation. It starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge and ends, more than three hours later, with its fulfilment. - The "it's" start to become ambiguous here.
    •  Done, I think. Made the middle "its" "the play". AndyJones (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even during Shakespeare's lifetime, Hamlet was one of his most popular plays. - Why "even"?
  • It has provided inspiration for writers from Goethe to Charles Dickens and has been extensively adapted for cinema, most recently with The Lion King. The role was almost certainly created for Richard Burbage, the leading tragedian of Shakespeare's time. - It almost sounds as if the role of the "The Lion King was created for Burbage. :)
    •  Done. I see someone's removed The Lion King from the lead, so the problem has gone away. Another problem with the sentence was that I doubt that Lion King really is the "most recent" adaptation. AndyJones (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several possible ultimate sources of the 'hero as fool' story that is central to Hamlet are known, but no definitive candidate has emerged. Hamlet-like legends come from many ancient sources (Roman, Spanish, Scandinavian and Arabic) and some surmise that the core theme may be Indo-European in origin.[11] Several very early Hamlet-type stories can be identified. - It feels like this wording could be reduced. (For the sake of FAC, best to say "some scholars" or some such identifier.)
  • This was also available in Elizabethan London. - inelegant - find a way to integrate this kind of information into the surrounding sentences.
    • I don't think the comment is really needed at all. We've said we think it was a source. The reader will assume we think it was available for Shakespeare to read unless we say otherwise. I've just removed it. AndyJones (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done??? AndyJones (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another theory holds that "Q1" is an abridged version of the full-length play intended especially for travelling productions. Kathleen Irace develops this theory in her New Cambridge edition. - Can be condensed or reworded more concisely
    • Do you have in mind something along the lines of: Another theory, considered by New Cambridge editor Kathleen Irace, holds that "Q1" is an abridged version of the play intended especially for travelling productions. ...? AndyJones (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [by Andy] --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing during a time of religious upheaval, Shakespeare uses metaphors drawn from the two main competing ideologies. - Protestantism and Catholicism are rarely referred to as "ideologies".
  • Others have observed that knowledge of the play's Catholicism can reveal important paradoxes in Hamlet's decision process. - point of the sentence is buried
  • Hamlet's father being killed and calling for revenge thus offers a contradiction - wordy
  • One of the more famous lines in the play related to Protestantism is - weak sentence - has no real substance - perhaps move some of the material from after the quote to before the quote?
  • Do you have in mind something closer to: When Hamlet speaks of the "special providence in the fall of a sparrow",[2] he reflects the Protestant belief in providence, the will of some divine power controlling even the smallest of events. ...? AndyJones (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm here, I'll ask a question: does the average Protestant believe in "some divine power"? Or does she believe in "God"? AndyJones (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To their minds, the two are one and the same. Wrad (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the sentence may be better again if it becomes: When Hamlet speaks of the "special providence in the fall of a sparrow",[3] he reflects the Protestant belief in providence: the will of God controlling even the smallest of events. ...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholars have detected similarities between this speech and passages from Michel de Montaigne's Essais (1580), though Montaigne may simply have been reacting to the same atmosphere of the time in the same way that Shakespeare did. - The logic of the "though" clause is not apparent. It is not clear what is being argued against (the "though" clause is also wordy).
  • Connection between two halves of sentence is not clear yet. Awadewit | talk 12:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger has reworked this bit again, if you'd like to take another look, now. AndyJones (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carolyn Heilbrun published an essay on Hamlet in 1957 entitled "Hamlet's Mother". In it, she defended Gertrude, arguing that the text never hints that Gertrude knew of Claudius poisoning King Hamlet. - combine sentences to avoid rather tepid first sentence
    • Do you mean something more like: Carolyn Heilbrun's 1957 essay "Hamlet's Mother" defends Gertrude, arguing that the text never hints that Gertrude knew of Claudius poisoning King Hamlet....? AndyJones (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [by Andy] --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Showalter points out that Ophelia has become the symbol of the distraught and hysterical woman in modern culture, a symbol which may not be entirely accurate nor healthy for women. - Why the hesitation? Why the "may"?
  • As such, it has proved a pervasive influence in literature, with some references more superficial than others. - Obvious - find something a bit more substantive to say
  • Academic Laurie Osborne identifies the direct influence of Hamlet in numerous modern narratives, and divides them into four main categories - Should Hamlet be italicized here?
  • Caption: Thomas Betterton as Hamlet during the Restoration (Nicholas Rowe) - This makes it look like Rowe did the illustration, which I don't think he did. He just published the edition with the illustration in it, right?

MOS and other:[edit]

  • Inconsistent use of quotation marks - some single and some double.
  • There are several footnotes without page numbers; if the notes refer to entire articles, please list all of the pages of the articles. Some notes seem to refer to whole books, though. Is that the intention?
    • Being fixed, see below section. Wrad (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal opinion: In the bibliography, I think it is better to list all of the information for an article and the book it came from rather than saying "in" and referring the reader to another listing. It is a courtesy to readers. That way, they don't have to hunt for another listing.
    • Well, when the article was written, most footnotes did take that form. However the reorganisation in this way by User:DionysosProteus has been much praised, both here and at other pages within the realm of WP:BARD, and has subsequently been adopted on other articles. I strongly favour retaining it. AndyJones (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd have to agree with Andy. The project loves this ref system as compared to the one on the Shakespeare page. It's a lot easier to find the information on an alphabetical list than to hunt for its first instance in the numbered footnotes. The only thing I can think of that would improve these refs is a harvard links system, where you could click on the short footnote and it would take you to the more complete note in the Bibliography section. But, then again, I'm not sure that's what Awadewit is talking about... I think she's referring to referencing articles located within books. Wrad (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not referring to the footnotes (which I think are great) - I am referring to the section entitled "Secondary sources". Readers have to look twice for some sources since some list chapters as being "in" another book that the reader then has to hunt for. I would suggest listing all of that information. Awadewit | talk 03:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let me say how very good I think this article is. Awadewit | talk 01:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! An excellent review. I saw it a couple of days ago, but I've waited to read it until now since I knew I'd need time to respond. My comments are interspersed above. AndyJones (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you found it helpful. I've had so much fun reading and commenting on this article. Awadewit | talk 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecise footnotes[edit]

In the peer review above, User:Awadewit identifies the following problem:

There are several footnotes without page numbers; if the notes refer to entire articles, please list all of the pages of the articles. Some notes seem to refer to whole books, though. Is that the intention?

I agree that we need to do better than referencing a whole book (except in rare cases where you could argue for it) so here's my list of the problem ones. Feel free to chip in. AndyJones (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See Shapiro (2005) and Crystal and Crystal (2005, 66).
    • Do we think that we could just delete Shapiro from this one, and let the other source cover the (uncontroversial?) statement that Hamlet tops the RSC's list, by number of performances? AndyJones (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his 1936 book The Problem of Hamlet: A Solution Andrew Carincross asserted that the Hamlet referred to in 1589 was written by Shakespeare; Peter Alexander (1964), Eric Sams (according to Jackson 1991, 267) and, more recently, Harold Bloom (2001, xiii and 383; 2003, 154) have agreed. This opinion is also held by anti-Stratfordians (Ogburn 1988, 631). Harold Jenkins, the editor of the second series Arden edition of the play, dismisses the idea as groundless (1982, 84 n4). Francis Meres's Palladis Tamia (published in 1598, probably October) provides a list of twelve named Shakespeare plays, but Hamlet is not among them (Lott 1970, xlvi).
    •  Not done. I think this is fine as it is. Jackson (1991, 267) is good enough to cover Alexander and Sams. AndyJones (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MacCary suggests 1599 or 1600 (1998, 13); James Shapiro offers late 1600 or early 1601 (2005, 341); Wells and Taylor suggest that the play was written in 1600 and revised later (1988, 653); the editor of the New Cambridge edition settles on mid-1601 (Edwards 1985, 8); the editor of the New Swan Shakespeare Advanced Series edition agrees with 1601 (Lott 1970, xlvi); Thompson and Taylor, tentatively ("according to whether one is the more persuaded by Jenkins or by Honigmann") suggest a terminus ad quem of either Spring 1601 or sometime in 1600.
  • Jenkins (1955) and Wilson (1934).
    •  Done. T&T (2006a, 78) says the same thing. AndyJones (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thompson and Taylor published "Q2", with appendices, in its first volume (2006a) and the "F1" and "Q1" texts in its second volume (2006b). Bate and Rasmussen (2007) is an edition of the "F1" text with the additional passages from "Q2" in an appendix. The New Cambridge series has begun to publish separate volumes for the separate quarto versions that exist of Shakespeare's plays (Irace 1998).
    •  Not done. I think this is a case where the footnote is fine as it is. AndyJones (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duthie (1941).
    • CANNOT FIX. Note to self: check T&T 2006b at next opportuntity. Might be something there. Otherwise, someone will have to look at the original source, if possible.  Done. Have re-sourced the sentence from MacD P Jackson. AndyJones (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irace (1998).
    •  Done. In this case I let "Irace (1998)" stand, since her book is mentioned in the sentence reffed. I've added a specific supporting reference: Thompson & Taylor (2006a, 85-86). AndyJones (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wofford (1994) and Kirsch (1968).
    • CANNOT FIX. Can whoever added these to the Critical History section do so? Alternatively, maybe someone at a University can look these up. They're not whole books - they make about 30 pages altogether. AndyJones (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done except Kirsch. It's an article that's only about five pages long. Wrad (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wofford (1994).

 Done

  • Knowles (1999) and MacCary (1998, 49).
 Done. Yet again, the Arden editors have come to my rescue. I've made it: Knowles (1999, 1049 & 1052-3) cited by Thompson & Taylor (2006a, 73-74);MacCary (1998, 49). AndyJones (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Patterson (1984) and Marcus (1988).
    • SECOND OPINION NEEDED. The above gloss the following paragraph. I cannot see what it really has to do with Hamlet, or why the section shouldn't begin with the stuff about Burghley which begins the next paragraph. I'm tempted to say just cut it rather than trying to re-source, but would like other views, please. AndyJones (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the early 17th century, political satire was discouraged and many notable playwrights were punished for "offensive" works. Ben Jonson was jailed for his participation in the play The Isle of Dogs and it is thought that Thomas Middleton was banned from writing for the stage after the Privy Council closed his A Game of Chess after nine performances.[68]
    • Disagree. The opening sentence provides needed context for the section so I think it is important and should stay. Also - without it, the closing sentence makes little sense. I'll restore work on sourcing this.Smatprt (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still needs page numbers for Marcus and Patterson though.--ROGER DAVIES talk 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked at this more closely, the Thomas Middleton statement is almost entirely supported by the Globe article. I'll tweak the Middleton statement, remove Patterson and Marcus as cites and as sources, and just use the Globe theatre one. This means we're no longer stuck for page numbers :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ogburn (1988).
    • SECOND OPINION NEEDED. This is Charlton Ogburn, the authorship doubter, and it glosses the sentence: These arguments are also offered in support of the authorship claims for the Earl of Oxford, which remain unproved.[75]. Assuming we really need to mention the authorship controversy on this page (my negative views on this are well known) I imagine this will be quite easy to source, since the Burleigh=Polonius therefore Oxford=Hamlet argument is one of the more prominent authorship arguments. AndyJones (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm on my hobby horse, I hate that phrase "remain unproved". It suggests the theory is correct but no-one has proved it, yet. AndyJones (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The authorship article covers this with page numbers (pp 84-86) but in the 1984 US edition. Cite both editions? Or convert UK to US citations? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see a problem with either solution, since the footnote two above this one gives a page-number citation to the 1988 edition. Unless someone wants to borrow the book itself, the only solution I can think of is to add the 1984 edition to the sources list as well. Of course it would be better to cite just one. AndyJones (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no problem with a two edition cite. Just added it. Otherwise, I've ordered the updated edition of this and will probably re-source this lot from that when it arrives. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A related question is that I see that in the same footnote I just mentioned we cite http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/essays/polonius/corambis3.html for the Corambis interpretation. I'm never keen on linking to authorship-doubters' websites. I wonder if the comment should be there at all. If it should, can it be better sourced? I appreciate the comment is in a footnote not in main text, but I'm not sure that's a good reason for the standard to be lower. AndyJones (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't believe citing a researcher like Alexander is lowering the standard of the article. He provides the best research on the topic and is up to date. I believe this is the same argument that Andy used when he fought to keep a reference to an authorship debunker's website (Kathman's) in another article. I would hate to see a double standard applied to these pages.Smatprt (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Showalter (1985).
    •  Not done. I think this is fine as it is, since it glosses the sentence: Ophelia has also been defended by feminist critics, most notably Elaine Showalter.[87]
  • Hamlet has 208 quotations in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations; it takes up 10 of 85 pages dedicated to Shakespeare in the 1986 Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (14th ed. 1968). For examples of lists of the greatest books, see Harvard Classics, Great Books, Great Books of the Western World, Harold Bloom's The Western Canon, St. John's College reading list, and Columbia College Core Curriculum.
    •  Not done. Another one which I think is acceptable as it is. AndyJones (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burnett (2000).
    • I could argue for this one. It's an article on the general subject of Almereyda's Hamlet, sourcing a very general sentence about that film. I'll have a go at re-sourcing and see how I get on, but I'm not too worried by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highest-quality[edit]

I'm not sure how to fix this, and should be grateful for any thoughts. The 19th Century section opens with:

In the Romantic and early Victorian eras, the United States was toured by leading London actors—including George Frederick Cooke, Junius Brutus Booth, Edmund Kean, William Charles Macready and Charles Kemble—providing the highest-quality Shakespearean performances.

Whereas, as originally written, the word order was different - more like:

In the Romantic and early Victorian eras, the highest-quality Shakespearean performances in the United States were tours by leading London actors—including George Frederick Cooke, Junius Brutus Booth, Edmund Kean, William Charles Macready and Charles Kemble.

Do you see the change in meaning of "highest-quality" from one version to the other? In the original version it means "it was the best we had" whereas in the current version it means "...and they were just great!" I think it is the first of these two meanings the source had in mind. Is there any objection to me losing "highest-quality" altogether and just saying:

In the Romantic and early Victorian eras, the best Shakespearean performances in the United States were tours by leading London actors—including George Frederick Cooke, Junius Brutus Booth, Edmund Kean, William Charles Macready and Charles Kemble.

...? AndyJones (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mildly disagree about the change of meaning but agree with the change you suggest. However, the Romantic period included the early Victorian era so perhaps actual years might be better. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Have made it: From around 1810-1840, the best Shakespearean performances in the United States were tours by leading London actors—including George Frederick Cooke, Junius Brutus Booth, Edmund Kean, William Charles Macready and Charles Kemble. AndyJones (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best? Sounds pretty subjective. How about "the best known"? or "the most well known"? or "the most notable"?Smatprt (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most notable sounds right. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraph[edit]

Current king...previous king....current king's - all in one line. Repetitive words and pretty clunky. Anyone care to fix?Smatprt (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bugger, I thought I had fixed that. Sorry! --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Hamlet 2.1.99
  2. ^ Hamlet 5.2.197–202
  3. ^ Hamlet 5.2.197–202
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamlet/Archive_6&oldid=1136273819"