Talk:The History of King Lear

Rating

I think it's great and close to GA. My main concern is the first section. There has to be a better way to compare the two... Wrad (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I, too, think this a very interesting article. I would add however that we don't really know if Shakespeare's Lear was truly absent from the stage for 150 years. Thousands of performances went unrecorded and the article seems to make a few unverifiable statements in this regard. Softening some of these statements would be one suggestion. I also agree with Wrad that the comparison section needs to be rethought. An excellent start, though! Smatprt (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, both of you. Regarding the comparison section, I agree, and am thinking of possible alternatives. Regarding the sweeping statement, I'm not beside my any books at the mement, but I seem to recall that the sources were pretty dogmatic about it too. I'll try to attribute the statement or think of a softer wording. Cheers. Cowardly Lion (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice reply. Regarding the sweeping statements - it's true, many sources do make sweeping statements themselves, but there are plenty of sources that will also tell you that the records of the time are so incomplete that we really can't verify what "didn't" happen - we can only verify what did. Remember - so much was lost in the great fires. There may be only 3 recorded productions of Lear, but it would be impossible to say that there were no more. Same with saying that Lear was not performed for 150 years - how can any scholar really verify that? I think the same would apply to the statement about Lear not being well received because of a lack of comments. Without actual negative comments from the time, this too is truly conjecture. Again - it's basing a statement on what "isn't" in the record. As we have discussed many times on the various WS pages, we are not obliged to repeat the assumptions of earlier scholars. And if those scholars were pressed, they too would admit that many statements are actually assumptions - good assumptions in many cases, but assumptions none-the-less. Sometimes it's better to actually reference the source by name, instead of "critics believe", followed by an acknowledgment that records are incomplete, or some such language. Even "some critics believe" is a bit better so as not to imply that "all" critics believe something. Thanks for listening to me babble on!Smatprt (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's great to see people showing up after I started linking to this article from other pages. The "scholars believe" statement came from Boyce (full source given in the footnote), who didn't say who these scholars were. Regarding the other problem, of whether the language is too dogmatic in the statement that Shakespeare's version was never acted for 150 years after Tate's appeared, I'll post something more on that later. I think the best way out of it is to attribute the statement to various scholars, which I've done (and it's not just Bradley and Wells who state that), without wording it in such a way as to imply that lots of scholars believe there were performances of Shakespeare's version. More later. Cowardly Lion (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant to post here, but it's quite late, and I'm going to bed. No problem with undoing anything I've added, especially with regard to the moving round of images, and indenting of text, as it may show up differently on other people's computers. I agreed with the editor who moved Lamb to the right, so that he'd be facing the text, but I don't like three images all on the right, one on top of the other. I've scanned an image of Lamb facing right from a printed edition of his works. Quality isn't great, but I think the article looks better with a less than excellent quality image well placed than with a better image in the wrong place.

I'll (hopefully) post tomorrow on other matters. I was very pleased it was accepted for DYK. Cowardly Lion (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi CL, I'm glad you found an image facing the other way, because my moving the images meant it was a bit crowded. The convention in publishing is that people's faces shouldn't look away from the text. The reasoning is that the reader's eye tends to follow the direction of the face, and therefore reading a text with a face pointing away from it is apparently distracting. I think it looks better now you've found a right-facing image. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about that convention, but it certainly makes sense. Cowardly Lion (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we assume Shakespeare's Lear disappeared from the stage if scholars say so?

I've looked through various books, and I constantly find the statement that Shakespeare's version was not seen again on stage for over a hundred and fifty years after the first performance of Tate. Nowhere have I found a scholar suggesting that there might have been a few public performances of Shakespeare, of which the records were lost, or a few private performances. For example, after mentioning the appearance of Tate's version, A.C. Bradley says (emphasis mine) "From that time Shakespeare's tragedy in its original form was never seen on the stage for a century and a half." (p. 199.) Later, Bradley wonders if the Fool was an old man or a youth, and says that the only obstacle to the theory that he was a youth is that he is not known to have been presented as a young boy until Macready produced King Lear. Bradley then adds in a footnote, "This is no obstacle. There could hardly be a stage tradition hostile to his youth, since he does not appear in Tate's version, which alone was acted during the century and a half before Macready's production. I had forgotten this." (p. 261.) Now, admittedly, Bradley was writing in 1904, and they were the texts of lectures he had given earlier, so new information might have come to light since. Also, Bradley is known to have been interested in what it must have been like for Cordelia to grow up with Goneril and Regan for sisters, and whether Lady Macbeth had a child by a previous husband, and whether Desdemona, in Cordelia's place, would have been able to make Lear feel he was loved. He wasn't an expert in the history of stage productions. But I think Stanley Wells, in addition to being a well-known scholar of Shakespearean texts, is also a scholar on issues of theatre, and is very up to date. He says, on p. 63 of the Oxford Edition of King Lear, that Tate's version "supplanted Shakespeare's play in every performance given from 1681 to 1838"

I know I've only mentioned two scholars, but really there are many more. I just don't want to spend time looking for and typing dozens of quotations. But I read lots of sources when I was working on the article, and I never found any "generally", or "but there may have been some that there are no surviving records of". I'm not that happy with the addition of "generally". If I knew nothing of Tate's play and read this article as it stands now, I'd take "generally" to mean that scholars know of a few performances of Shakespeare's version. I'm happy to look for a less dogmatic way of stating that Tate replaced Shakespeare - for example, that scholars believe that Shakespeare's version was not produced again in English theatres for 150 years. (I wouldn't even like "some scholars" there, because I've read so many that make that claim very, very firmly, and they don't mention any that suggest otherwise, so I think we'd be introducing doubts where we shouldn't.)

Since the article says that Tate replaced Shakespeare "on stage in whole or in part", I don't think we need to regard any possible unknown private performances in houses (if there were any) as exceptions. Nor should we regard Kean's production in 1823 as an exception. Kean restored the tragic ending, but he was still using lines from Tate. The reason Macready's production is the one that scholars consider to have marked the end of Tate's reign is that it was the first that didn't have any Tate in it. (Garrick had previously restored some Shakespeare, but didn't by any means purge the text of Tate.) It's true that Macready's version was abridged and rearranged, but it was entirely free of Tate, so even though Phelps produced the real thing and Macready didn't, Macready's production was the end of Tate replacing Shakespeare.

As a rather extreme example to illustrate my point, if scholars generally state quite firmly that Charles Lamb never married, and there are no known examples of scholars questioning that, we wouldn't say that he might have secretly married, and we wouldn't alter his article here to say that some scholars believe he never married. I think if something is stated as a fact by several scholars, and is not known to be questioned by any scholar, we shouldn't introduce doubts here at Wikipedia. Cowardly Lion (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is extreme. I guess I have come to expect, here on Wiki, that common sense might come into the argument. Can you honestly tell me you believe that every production in every university, township, ocean-going vessel, foreign translation, etc, has been surveyed in this regard? If you can honestly say that you believe this, then I must truly question your sense of logic. I am not trying to be rude or difficult, but I just don't think your thinking this through. At this point I will just walk away from this article and save my comments for when the article goes through a review process. Thanks for engaging though and staying polite. Smatprt (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think you're being rude or difficult. But I just think your wording introduces an implication that there were performances of Shakespeare's version, and that scholars know of such performances. For example, if I read the article with your "generally", having no previous knowledge of Tate's version, and then started to research it from mainstream books on Shakespeare, I'd expect to see mentions of known performances of Shakespeare's version, even if only a very few. You know, that it was produced in Drury Lane in seventeen hundred and something, and in Duke's Theatre in seventeen hundred and something else, but that these versions failed, and that Garrick, Kemble, Kean, etc. reverted to Tate. That's not the case. As I said yesterday, I don't think Kean's performance of 1823 can be counted as an exception to the statement that Tate replaced Shakespeare in whole or in part, because Kean's production, even with the tragic ending, still had Tate's words juxtaposed with Shakespeare's in the earlier scenes.

Can I honestly say that I believe that "every production in every university, township, ocean-going vessel, foreign translation, etc, has been surveyed in this regard?" No, and I have no objection to a wording that makes it clear that we're talking about productions in theatres in England. I haven't researched foreign translations, but since Schlegel, writing in German, complained about how a happy ending had been added to stage productions in England, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that it was performed in Germany, in a translation from Shakespeare, not from Tate. In fact, I know that Schlegel translated Shakespeare's works into German. Nor do I see that the possibility that Shaekespeare's version may have been produced on an ocean-going vessel and that there may be no records of such a production contradicts the statement that Tate's version replaced Shakespeare's in theatres.

I agree with you that we can't know for sure that there were no private, amateur performances that slipped through the records. I disagree that we should make the wording suggest that there were, when scholars overwhelmingly state that there were none, and in language much stronger than what is used here, and when I haven't been able to find any published source that suggests otherwise. In the following sentence, the words in bold were added by you:

The theatres were closed during the Puritan Revolution, and while records from the period are incomplete, Shakespeare's Lear is only known to have been performed twice more, after the Restoration, before being generally replaced by Tate's version.

I'm very happy with stating the records are incomplete, but I feel that the "generally" contradicts all mainstream scholarship that I've seen on this matter, and, even if there had been a few known reverts to Shakespeare, I don't think that the words "before being replaced by Tate's version" would be untrue. Even if Garrick had played Shakespeare's version a few times in the 1750s, which he didn't, it wouldn't contradict a statement that Shakespeare's version was known to have been played twice, after the Restoration, before being replaced by Tate's. Cowardly Lion (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What scholars say

I have been thinking about this problem a lot in the last few days. I want to emphasize that I am not trying to deny or to make the article deny that there is any possibility that there were some amateur performances of which no records survive. I'm just unhappy with the article making suggestions that are contrary to what all the mainstream scholars seem to say, and to what no scholar that I've come across has seemed to doubt. The "generally" seems like "most". If we say that Tate was generally used, or was used in most performances, that's not implying that all known scholars say Tate was always used, but that we must remember that some records may not have survived; it's implying that we know that there were some performances of Shakespeare during that period. I've typed out a list of what the scholars that I've looked at say. I haven't found any that cast it into doubt. If we can make it less dogmatic, great, but not if it means that we imply that there are known to have been a few performances of Shakespeare's version during that period. Here are the sources I found:

• Samuel Johnson in his notes on the plays in his edition of The Plays of William Shakespeare (1765) wrote, "In the present case the public has decided. Cordelia from the time of Tate has always retired with victory and felicity." (Reprinted in Volume 5 of Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage edited by Brian Vickers, 1979, page 140.)
• A.C. Bradley in Shakespearean Tragedy (1904) mentions the appearance of Tate's adaptation, and then says (emphasis mine) "From that time Shakespeare's tragedy in its original form was never seen on the stage for a century and a half." (Macmillan edition, 1974, p. 199.)
• Bradley wonders if the Fool was an old man or a youth, and says that the only obstacle to the theory that he was a youth is that he is not known to have been presented as a young boy until Macready produced King Lear. Bradley then adds in a footnote, "This is no obstacle. There could hardly be a stage tradition hostile to his youth, since he does not appear in Tate's version, which alone was acted during the century and a half before Macready's production. I had forgotten this." (p. 261.)
• Charles Boyce, in the Encyclopaedia of Shakespeare (1990, Roundtable Press), wrote, "It was replaced in 1681 by an adaptation, Nahum Tate's History of King Lear'. . . Not until 1838 were Tate's words completely removed, in Charles William Macready's production. (p.350)
• Stanley Wells says, on p. 63 of the Oxford Edition of King Lear (2000) that Tate's version "supplanted Shakespeare's play in every performance given from 1681 to 1838"
• Stanley Wells and Michael Dobson, in the Oxford Companion to Shakespeare (2001) write that Shakespeare's King Lear "was acted after the Restoration, but from 1681 to 1838 in England, and to 1875 in America, all performances adopted or modified Nahum Tate's adaptation." (p. 247.)
• Grace Ioppolo, in William Shakespeare's King Lear: A Sourcebook (Routledge, 2003), writes, "The psychological and emotional complexities of the play for both actors and audiences kept King Lear off the professional London stage beginning in 1681, when it was replaced by Nahum Tate's sentimentalised, tragicomic adaptation, in which Lear survives and betroths his daughter Cordelia to Edgar at the play's conclusion. Shakespeare's version of the play remained off the stage for 150 years." (p.4)
• Ioppolo, in her introduction to the Norton Critical Edition of King Lear (2008, p. xii) says, "Tate's revision was so comforting in its easy sentimentality, or Shakespearee's original was so intimidating in its intellectual force, that Tate's tragicomedy replaced Shakespeare's tragedy on the London stage for over one hundred and fifty years. . . All the while King Lear on stage remained Tate's for those one hundred and fifty years, it remained Shakespearean on the page."

And there are more examples. . . . Cowardly Lion (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Great research, man! And I don't deny it. I just want to reiterate that Shakespearean scholars are notorious for making grand statements that defy logic. I mean - how many books have we all read that said that Shakespeare died on his birthday? Or died after a drinking bout with Jonson? Andy and I got into it over whether Burbage was definitely the first to play Hamlet. He probably was, but if some scholars are right about Hamlet perhaps being written earlier, then there is some doubt. Thus "probably" or "almost certainly" was added (I don't recall which, but I remember that eventually I was satisfied, as were the less passionate editors. These scholars latch on to one statement, repeat it and repeat it and then it becomes accepted "fact". It just drives me nuts. So I typically ask for just a wee bit of logic, and some softening of these statements. Eventually - I think the articles are better for it and sets Wiki apart from so much of the "scholarship" that is out there. Heck, even Wells has let some unsupported statements into the books he edits. Another oft repeated fable has to do with Merry Wives - How many times have we read that Queen E was so taken with the part of Falstaff that she asked Shakespeare to write a play about him being in love? Total fantasy - but it just gets repeated, picked up in play programs, etc. There are so many examples. I suppose you can start sprinkling "scholars assume that...", which would be the truth, and use "probable", "almost certainly", etc. - but in this case, I just found it so distasteful to say "every production" or the like, I mean - how can anyone really know that? Same with Mere's list - how can anyone say that it is a complete list - Mere's didn't even say that - but many scholars just assume that if a play is not on the list, then it wasn't in existance. Knowing busloads of playwrights, I do know that many plays are kept in a drawer and come back to - it's just part of the creative process to let things perk sometimes, or to hit a block, or to put something away because of a current event - so many reasons. Well, now I'm babbling so I'll go back to the theatre and get ready for another opening....another show (feel free to hum the tune...). Thanks for the understanding. Smatprt (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about Mere. Only yesterday, I was reading something about the dating of Julius Caesar which warned that we shouldn't assume that Mere mentioned every play in existence, but still claimed that Julius probably hadn't been written then, as it was such a popular play that it's unlikely it would have been omitted if it had been staged at that time. I have no problem with writers making such conclusions and giving a little warning. I find it helpful. But I don't think we can do that here, unless we can attribute it to some published source, as it would be inserting personal opinion into the article. And when I was starting this article, I found even some generally reliable books giving some clearly wrong information (that all three sisters are unmarried at the beginning of Tate's Lear, that Tate's Lear omits the blinding of Gloucester, for example). But, while I agree with you that there are some things that we can't know for sure, I think that adding "as far as is known" or "believed by some scholars" too frequently weakens the style - we should keep such phrases for issues over which there is a genuine doubt (a doubt among scholars, not among Wikipedia editors!) - and I think that if something is generally stated as a fact by mainstream scholars, and if we can't find any scholars who dispute or even question it, we should beware of over-softening the language. And the "generally" does not just suggest that the Shakespeare version may have been produced despite the lack of records. It seems to suggest that we know it was produced a few times. Cowardly Lion (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the first "generally" to "believed to have", and have given six scholarly sources. We don't know of any sources that question it, so I don't think should weaken it to "believed by some scholars to have". I removed the second "generally" altogether. The whole article is peppered with sources that show that scholars believe that a Tate-less version of Shakespeare was not seen in theatres in England until 1838, and even if one or two had been, it would still be accurate to say that "Shakespeare's Lear is only known to have been performed twice more, after the Restoration, before being replaced by Tate's version." Cowardly Lion (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The truth is, Wikipedia only can say what the sources do. If the majority of sources say it wasn't in theaters, then that's what we should say. whether that is logical or not isn't really for us to decide. Wrad (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the new language that Cowardly Lion has adopted. And as evidenced by the recent changes to R&J, logic can play a place here on Wikipedia. In that case, lack of of logic made Wikipedia look idiotic. I'm glad it was fixed and I'm glad to see this article shaping up the way it is. Thanks Smatprt (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say it made it look idiotic. It still says basically the same thing, it is just a bit more balanced. I just wanted to chime in and say that we shouldn't have so many "some think"s "maybe"s, and "we're not sure"s that there's nothing left of the article, when the scholarship says otherwise. Both articles have improved because more sources and people have come to weigh in. Wrad (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - when sentence 1 says the play was becoming popular by 1595 and then sentence 2 says it might have been written in 1596, well, for me, that defines idiotic. Again, I'm happy with the current language - thanks for "chiming in" but sometimes I just wonder why you avoid the meat of the argument and come it with the last word on a conversation you haven't really participated in. Must we blindly follow "scholars" who make statements that are so obviously unverifiable without at least tempering those grand statements? I still say we can be better than that. Smatprt (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Cowardly Lion (love your screen name by the way) found an example of some great language in Ioppolo (Norton Critical Edition of King Lear (2008, p. xii)) - "...Tate's tragicomedy replaced Shakespeare's tragedy on the London stage for over one hundred and fifty years." In spite of the sloppier language of past scholars, she clarified the most likely (and logical) scenario by saying the "London" stage. This appears to be the most current reference and demonstrates (i believe) the more careful scholarship of many modern editors.Smatprt (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Production history

I moved information from the section on Recent Productions to the section on Background and history. I think the information is interesting and relevant, but I felt (a) that it was too short to justify a whole section, and (b) that the paragraph about Tate disappearing from the stage and critics gradually forgetting their indignation (so that he's mentioned, if at all, only as a historical curiosity in most modern criticism books) was a more suitable final paragraph for the whole article than the section about the 1985 production. Cowardly Lion (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tate's Image

Merry Christmas! Here is that image of Tate you were looking for:

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~lanes/english/laureate/tate.htm

I imagine it's in public domain, but that is not my specialty so I'll let you sort it out. Best Regards.Smatprt (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it will be great if we can use it. I think the image guidelines are fairly strict, so the more information we can get, the better. I'm sure that image was taken from somewhere else, or copied from some book. If we could get a more authentic source, with the name of the artist, that would be very helpful. Cowardly Lion (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The role of Arante in Tate's Lear is significant; don't cut it!

Moved here from my talk page so that others can weigh in. Cowardly Lion (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cowardly Lion, after again praising you for creating the site for Tate's Lear, I want to argue the value of Arante in that text, the reference to which you recently deleted. You argue that Arante only speaks 10 lines. But in staging the play, you'll find that she is present on the stage at key moments in Cordelia's story, even when not speaking. Tate may write bad verse, and we scold him today because we live in a much darker world than his (and the 18th century world that prefered his Lear to that of Shakespeare's), with no Sam Johnson as our moral compass, but Tate's theater is still very stageworthy, and he knew the importance of adding a confidant for the central woman's role in his play, Cordelia. One might also argue that in Shakespeare's original text, Gonderil and Regan are, in balance, more dominant than Cordelia - they're usually who we remember; whereas in Tate's play, Cordelia moves (should we say, "is restored to her historical role at") center stage, as in the original legend of Lear. Cordelia is more dominant in Tate's Lear - she has more to do - and therefore needs a confidant, and therefore Arante's addition by Tate is an invaluable addition, and sound theatrical choice. One could also see in the addition of a confidant the French influence coming through Charles II's tastes from his sojourn in France. And, Arante presence for Cordelia to debate and confide in shifts the dramatic style of the piece from an Elizabethan world of soloquies to the French theatre's use of a confidant. Finally, having seen Tate's Lear on the stage, I can also assure you that that fourth woman on the stage (in an otherwise man's world) is not insignificant, but it can, and should be, quite astonishing. Don't forget, Shakespeare's Lear was played by men, with, quite possibly, the role of Cordelia played by the same young lad who played the Fool!) In the theatre that Tate wrote for, women played women's roles: hence, Arante was a 33% increase in the number of women on the stage! I'd therefore argue that you restore what you cut, but perhaps add a phrase, "in a minor, but important supporting role."

I'd like to hear your response before I make the change myself, as this is a sight that you very excellently and lovingly created.

Hey, what say we create a section including contemporary debating points, documented in the style of Wikipedia, of course, to present such points as this. For, trust me, Tate's Lear will be revived again, and soon; yes, it may read badly and appear somewhat inept on the page, but, wow!, it makes excellent theatre.

Weimar03 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Weimar, thanks for your kind words. I've moved your post here from my talk page, so that others can weigh in if they have an opinion on this. I agree that Arante's role might be slightly more important than would seem from her ten lines. But I don't think she's important enough to belong in the lead, especially in a context that might suggest that her addition in some way balances the omission of the Fool. However, all I'm saying is that I "don't think she's important enough", not that I "passionately feel that she's not important enough"! She is mentioned lower down in the article. I'll admit, though, that several of my sources mentioned her even when writing only a single paragraph about the play, so maybe scholars consider her to be more important than I do. (Funny that she's not even mentioned in the list of characters at the beginning.) Incidentally, while some of the sources referred to her as a "confidante", there was at least one that said she was a servant (or maid - I forget which). Tate isn't much help on the issue.

Anyway, all I can say is I'm not convinced, but I'm not passionately opposed either. If you feel it will improve the article, go right ahead. And thanks for the respect you showed me as creator of the article. But I think on Wikipedia, having started an article doesn't give one any extra rights over the content of it. :-) Cowardly Lion (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation formatting

I saw this article listed at GAC, and although I don't have the time to provide a review, I noticed after a quick read that Ibid is used over the preferred <ref name=""> tags. If a particular reference is used more than once, instead of using Ibid to point to the reference above it, or needlessly repeating references (ref 8 and 10 are the same, for example), we use ref tags. See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once for a better explanation than I could provide; basically it cuts down on repetition, serving the same purpose as Ibid, but it's better for our purposes. Articles are subject to change and a different source may one day be inserted between the original footnote and the Ibid, creating a mess.

Just FYI and good luck on reaching GA status. :) María (habla conmigo) 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I took a look at the Footnotes page, and it looks very complicated. Can anyone help? Cowardly Lion (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not complicated at all, it just needs getting used to, but I'll do a couple so you can get a taste for it. For book sources I tend to "name" refs with the first three letters of the author's name and the page number; that way it will be easy to add the tag and you won't have to search for what you named the ref you need. But feel free to change the ref names with whatever is easier for you. María (habla conmigo) 02:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I got carried away and did all of them... *laughs* So, yeah, it's a piece of cake once you get into the swing of things, but I hope it makes more sense now that you can see it in action. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much appreciated. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

In the spirit of giving back, here's a review of your article... I'm guided by the various good article criteria, and will add some notes at the end.

1. The article is reasonably well-written, but I have problems with its structure. For instance, I would suggest:

a. That there be a section on the plot of the play, followed by a subsequent section on the divergences from Shakespeare's. I.e. the reverse of the current layout. b. That the section on "Background and history" and that on "critical reception" were better differentiated; at present there is too much overlap. c. That there be a subsections of "contemporary critical reception" and "19th/20th Century critical reception." d. That it be made clear that the section on Nahum's Lear in the 20th Century is on its modern re-staging, not its critical fortunes.

The above would significantly help clarity.

2. There are many sources, but these are often confusedly arrayed. For example, the barrage of seven (!) notes to the first sentence is simply unhelpful: the reader has no idea which note verifies which particular piece of information. Indeed, the first sentence barely has seven pieces of information to share between its sources. Or, to take another example, we're later presented with a series of block quotations. I'd say that both problems are a symptom of the fact that the sources have been insufficiently digested.

I would also prefer for their to be a References section in which all the sources were listed, alphabetically, with their full bibliographic details. The section currently entitled References would then be re-titled "Notes."

Beyond this, I see no obvious problems with coverage, neutrality, stability, or illustrations. But the issues above seem to be major ones. I'd be happy to revisit the article when they are resolved. Until then, I am putting the review on hold.

Good luck with this, and thanks for all your work. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a little nudge here... six days have gone by since my review and I note that there's been no change to the article. I'd hate to fail this, as clearly a lot of work has gone into it and it does have the potential for GA. But if the issues I mention above aren't addressed by tomorrow, then I'll have to do so. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, something unexpected happened, but I'm back now. Would it be possible to give an extension of 24 hours? I'd love to try to address these issues tonight or tomorrow, but can't manage it any earlier. As you can see, I haven't been editing at all in the last few days. Cowardly Lion (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Take a couple of days. So long as there's active movement, I'm not too worried about the exact timeframe. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, both for the feedback and the extension. The claim that had seven references in the lead was that Shakespeare's version had been replaced by Tate's until 1838. Some doubts were expressed on this page as to how we could really know that - would records survive of every single performance? My research showed me that at least ten scholars make that claim, and I was unaware of any scholar who had expressed even a doubt (much less a contradiction) in any published source, so I was in favour of simply making that claim, with perhaps one or two references, but the seven references were a compromise to prevent a wording that said that Tate "generally" replaced Shakespeare on stage, or that "some scholars state" that Tate replaced Shakespeare on stage.

I'll work on getting the references into a separate section tonight, and also on changing the section on the plot, as you suggest. Many thanks. Cowardly Lion (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I surmised from the talk page the reason as to the multiple references in the lead. But readers shouldn't be expected to have to read the talk page. I'd suggest that you address the difficulty directly, and not in the lead (which after all, is ideally supposed to be dispensable). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And I should say that basically you do address the issue later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You can keep it if you combine the references under one footnote. I think that would be preferable, actually. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes but haven't implemented them because they're not complete and would actually make the article worse at this stage. They're saved on my hard disk. I'll add them later. Cowardly Lion (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. Another nudge. Perhaps if you don't have time at the moment, the best thing to do would be to fail the article for now, and you can come back when you're ready? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been no movement recently, so I'm failing the article. As I say, I think there is a lot of potential here, and I do hope you revise it and take it to GA Review again. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"unseasonable jests"

Dryden noted that the number of bodies piling up in the last scenes of tragedies was getting to be a joke. ("it is more difficult to save than to kill. The dagger and the cup of poison are always in readiness") Or as Tate himself put it, this play "incumbred the stage with dead bodies, which conduct makes many tragedies conclude with unseasonable Jests". One imagines the remaining players having to use stepladders so that they could be seen delivering their final lines over the suicides, murders, deaths from grief, etc. Shakespeare was one of the worst offenders. Tate's happy ending reduced the body count. This should be mentioned.

201.229.238.151 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)captcrisis