Talk:Mimesis

message: I've just done a substantial cleanup, so thought I'd explain some of the decisions here. I've removed the section on artistic creation and that on Freud. The material under theatre, sculpture, music, etc. was unsourced and pretty debatable at best. Rather than mislead, I decided to cut. As indicated in a previous talk post (see archive), the material on Freud was damn-near incomprehensible. The general gist seemed to be a parallel between literary creation and dreaming, but the material was too garbled for me to be able to re-write more clearly. I've gathered all the classical definitions and debates into one section. Since the ludology reference seems to be using the word in the same way that film studies uses diegesis, I've grouped those together. I have also removed the expert tag, because although the article still requires lots of development, at least the material now presented is all sourced and correct (so far as I can tell). DionysosProteus (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent re-vamp of article 

message: Have moved following to the bottom of the discussion being a new section:
is this article plagiarised from the following link, or vice versa? substantial chunks of text are the same:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Aristotle_vs_Plato  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.64.173 (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  is article "Mimesis" a copy? 

message: It seems incomplete to jump from Aristotle to Irigaray.  Mimesis has been used in many important texts in between those thinkers.  Sidney and Coleridge stand out as good examples of Modern theorization of mimesis.  I'd like to build a section incorporating the ideas of one or both of those figures.  Thoughts?
Baxtalo4 (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do, we welcome valuable contributions. The article needs more modern examples.Dieter Simon (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Coleridge is a good addition, but I am amazed that Auerbach is only mentioned in passing here. I read him over 30 years ago and I'm not really wanting to re-read him at the moment, so I wouldn't venture to write about his ideas, but many of his ideas have stuck with me after decades, including the differences at different times of what parts of human experience are even considered worth writing about. - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can understand that. So, if anyone wants to complement what we have on Auerbach, of course, with sources. Here is your chance. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mimesis and Literary Theory 

message: I am concerned about the section on Plato in this article because it discusses what Plato says, but not what he means. In doing so, I believe it completely mis-states Plato's ideas about mimesis. The greatest part of the Plato citations here are from Republic, where Plato has Socrates quote various poets over and over and over again, and this is a clear sign that Plato does not actually oppose imitation categorically. Furthermore, everything that Plato wrote is in dialogue form, which is itself a form of imitation. There does seem to be, for Plato, a right way to imitate (and consequently some wrong ways to imitate as well), but this does not even begin to come across in the Plato section as it is now. I would have re-written that section myself, but I'm far more well-versed in Plato than Wikipedia writing. 199.89.180.254 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Plato needs re-conceiving 

message: There were some recent additions here that I've removed. If someone wants to make an attempt to better integrate them into the article, have at it. Frankly I don't see how these add to the article: a long bibliography, mostly in Italian, and a report on one Italian educational research facility that happens to attach the name "mimesis" to their techniques. Salvador Minuchin I'm iffy on. I'm not familiar with his work but this seems to be a minor aspect of his theories as it doesn't even have a mention at Structural Family Therapy. I've included the removed sections below for reference. Cheers, Lithoderm 14:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: To be honest, this article is a bit of a mess and quite confusing for the reader. I think the biggest problem is that it violates WP:NOTDICT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so article that list various meanings of a work throughout history is specifically discouraged. A clearer, more useful way to structure the article is to decide on a single definition of 'mimesis' and have the article about that. Other meaning of the word should have their own WP pages, which can be accessed via a disambig. Ashmoo (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of article