Talk:Hamlet/Archive 6

message: 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"?
:*Hero? anyone? --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Prefer protagonist of the above three options. AndyJones (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Sorted in new draft. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *Sorted in new draft. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *I thought it was alright (sic). The "him" should go though. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Sorted in new draft. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *The explanation of the pun will work well in the language section.--ROGER DAVIES talk 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good thinking: it's already mentioned there, so it will just need a bit of expansion. AndyJones (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Done! --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Sorted in new draft. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *I'd like to re-write this bit for flow.--ROGER DAVIES talk 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *Yes. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: *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)

text: *Sorted in new draft. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *I think it's necessary. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)

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

text: *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)

text: *Thanks :) Good stuff. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

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

message: ~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"Hamlet 2.1.99 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *Thanks :) Good stuff. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft replacement synopsis

message: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *Flows better - thank you. Awadewit | talk 04:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So, are you "happy" or "much happier" with it? Big diff in those diffs. :) Awadewit | talk 15:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Other sections that need work

message: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *Never mind, then. Awadewit | talk 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. I'll work this in later when I start me edits :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small content issues:

message: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *Perhaps two sentences would be better. Awadewit | talk 12:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Re-cast this and removed redundancy. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fine. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  [by Andy] --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Fixed as part of a re-cast. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Fixed as part of a re-cast. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Fixed as part of a re-cast. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Fixed as part of a re-cast. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Still weak. Awadewit | talk 12:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do you have in mind something closer to: When Hamlet speaks of the "special providence in the fall of a sparrow",Hamlet 5.2.197–202 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *To their minds, the two are one and the same. Wrad (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So the sentence may be better again if it becomes: When Hamlet speaks of the "special providence in the fall of a sparrow",Hamlet 5.2.197–202 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)
replies: text: *Well put! Incorporated. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Fixed as part of a re-cast. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Connection between two halves of sentence is not clear yet. Awadewit | talk 12:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Roger has reworked this bit again, if you'd like to take another look, now. AndyJones (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Better. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  [by Andy] --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Fixed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Section re-written. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fixed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small prose issues:

message: *Inconsistent use of quotation marks - some single and some double.
** Wrad (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: MOS and other:

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Most notable sounds right. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest-quality 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh bugger, I thought I had fixed that. Sorry! --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph