Talk:I, Claudius

message: Don't you think, that the article should be devided into two relating, but different articles, one about the books, and the other concetrating on the series? --Marduk
::Yes, I was thinking about that too. The problem is deciding which one should get the main page (which is more well-known), or should I, Claudius be a disambigulation page? LaurenCole 15:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have just stated the reason not to separate them. The article is not all that long now. Why split them up, and then a few months later somebody will say, "Hey, let's combine them!" Wahkeenah 16:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least for me it is quite obvious that the BBC series is much more well known than the books it is based on. It is widely regarded as one of the best TV series ever. I don't think that anything like that is ever said about the books. I think the main entry should be about the BBC series, and at the begining there should be a link to the books article.--Marduk 09:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is redundancy. The miniseries omits some of the material in the books (particularly Claudius the God), but the themes and criticisms are basically the same. In the article right now, there is no separate summary of the plot of the miniseries. That would have to be added before the article could be split. And it would have to be considerably different from the novel section. As for the books, they were voted the 14th best novel of the 20th century on the Modern Library's list, and one of the all-time top hundred novels on the Time magazine list, so it's on about even standing with the miniseries. LaurenCole 19:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general throughout Wikipedia it seems that the original medium takes the undisambiguated page, regardless of how high profile the adaptations are. In the event of a split the books should take precedence. Timrollpickering 21:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided it's probably long enough now to split, and any help disamiguating links and writing 'Plot' and 'Differences to the novels' sections for the new article would be much appreciated. Neddyseagoon - talk 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope. Not until 2055 (Graves only died in 1985). Deadlock 14:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know about violence, but the Brits are *much* more accepting of sexual themes in serious drama than the Americans. Lee M 01:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. In fact, that clause should probably be deleted. These things are relative, after all, and that does sound like an editorial comment. --Chips Critic 19:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Books/series

message: It's been a decade since I read the book, & I don't have a copy handy at the moment, but I thought it began roughly when the series does (24 BC), not 44 BC like the article says.  Could just be my mind playing tricks on me though. Binabik80 06:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first twenty or thirty pages are Claudius explaining the history of Caesar, the civil wars, and Augustus' rise to power. Kuralyov 22:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time scope 

message: What killed me about the books was his often referring to "corm" rather than "grain".
There was no corn in the "old world". Unless it was used as a generic term? User:144.228.171.154 16:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corn 

message: The article states
:Livia is charged with many more murders than even the anti-imperial ancients alleged (Tacitus only alleged that she murdered Augustus).
Tacitus, in fact, mentions rumors that she may have had something to do with the deaths of Gaius and Lucius, I'm fairly sure, and possibly some others.  This is actually too strong and too weak at the same time.  Tacitus mentions that it was rumored that she murdered Augustus (and, I think, Gaius and Lucius, too), but he doesn't actually make the allegation himself, I don't think. john k 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Livia 

message: I was wondering, why are both I, Claudius and Claudius The God  combined into one article? I think maybe having them seperate is a better idea. DamionOWA 05:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: surely this is discussed above? and the miniseries is now being repeated on BBC4 - its 30th anniversary Peter Shearan 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The two books together 

message: Isn't this section a bit stuffy? The novel is a work of fiction, which Graves himself described as a historical romance. It is written as first person narrative, and so ought to contain the narrator's prejudices and spin. And the ironic conceit that the manuscript was left lying around to be read by a later generation (coinciding with the mid-20th C) should cover any concern about misuse of terms, because any mistakes are the fault of the "translator".--Shtove 07:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been a lomg long time since I read them, but I seem to remember that Herod Agrippa was in the second book Claudius the God. This sticks in my memory because I had liked the performance by Mr Faulkner and found it odd that I wasn't reading about his character, then it all came clear when I got into the second book. Now, as I said, it was the early 1980's that I last read the books so I could be mistaken. Maybe some other wikipedian who has read them more recently will be able to clear this up for you. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Herod Agrippa is central to the second book - I don't think he's mentioned in the first one. And yes, senility could have settled in already - eat more oily fish!--Shtove 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "oily boid" catches the woim... then he puts it on a line and catches the oily fish. Wahkeenah 01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Something in the intonation suggests boids and woims from Brooklyn, heh...  (And Faulkner was superb.)  Thanks for the, uhh...what were we talking about?  Cryptonymius 06:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical accuracy 

message: I responded to the call to copyedit this article.  Unfortunately there is an abundance of unsourced comments, and  is not ready for copyediting, which really deals with prose, grammar and so forth, and is best done once the underlying content is more or less sorted out and fully sourced.
To keep the process of improving this article going, I have replaced the copyedit tag with an 'expert' tag.Trishm 09:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs expert attention  before a copyedit. 

message: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
WikiProject History or the History Portal may be able to help recruit one.
If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly."
but it's a novel, albeit historically-based. I don't know how to 'adjust the template' myself, I don't know where these templates hang out - but surely there must be a literary one somewhere? --82.153.199.122 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject History? 

message: Is it worth while adding that the foward to the book was written by Lawrence?  He was using the name T. E. Shaw at the time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.71.191 (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia ) 

message: This section absolutely does not belong in the article.  While the subject of historical accuracy may be of interest, an unsourced, unreferenced, opinionated essay is in complete violation of policy -- not guidelines -- about POV, original research and citing sources. The numerous points made were debatable or controversial and demanded citation.  Though almost every sentence called for them, there were ZERO citations.  Wikipedia has become the playground for wannabe scholars, self-appointed authorities, students showing off their school papers, and for other personal agendas, usually vanity-based, and this section was a prime example.  If someone wants to make a section on historical accuracy in I Claudius, then please find published works about it, then summarize and cite them.  Do NOT use the article as a vehicle for your opinions and criticism. —— J M Rice (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. WCCasey (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Historical Accuracy section 

message: "Graves claimed that after he read Suetonius, Claudius came to him in a dream one night ..."  This statement should either be verified by citation or deleted. Littlewindow (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dream 

message: Something perhaps for the references section: The 2000 film Memento shows an obscured (coverless) copy of I, Claudius being read and then burnt. Its appearance in the movie is symbolic as the genre of the book is 'historical fiction' and includes a manipulated, mentally-damaged man. But as it is shown without cover it is quite an obscure reference, so I suspect it is too trivial to be added to the article. Is it? (IMDB's trivia section notes it.)  58.96.54.118 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memento