Talk:Harriet Bosse

message: Is the Strindberg Gustaf Vasa anything like the Henry Brooke (writer) Gustavus Vasa (aka the first play banned under the 1737 Licensing Act, and about which Samuel Johnson wrote a Swiftian "condemnation")?  Surely they're about the some dude, but is there any connection between Strindberg's and the 18th century's Protestant chest thumping version?  Geogre (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In my crazed, contrary way, I've read Brooke's Gustav Vasa play, and also Catharine Trotter's (in fact I'm reading that one right now); but not Strindberg's. So I dunno. I'd say the likelihood is there's more thought in Strindberg's. But that's just a guess. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that Strindberg's has got more nuance to it.  Brooke's is ... simple.  Given the banning of it, it's pretty clearly a comment on German George 2 vs. the Great Hope of George 3.  If that family hadn't had severe Daddy issues, English politics would have ground to a halt.  Geogre (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gustaf Vasa & Gustavus Vasa? 

message: One thing missing is a circumstance, place, and date of death.  According to Shakespeare, all die, and according to the school boy's syllogism, all men are mortal.  Ending with "too dull to publish" is a bit of a let down.  She lived a long life, by anyone's standards.  Did her obituary at least glow?  Geogre (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the date (in the usual position) and place (Oslo) hard to locate, really? I don't know the other circumstances, since the author of Harriet's standard biography, Carla Wahl, rather elides them, and the other sources don't mention them at all. If you think Harriet lived a long life, check out her and Strindberg's daughter Anne-Marie: born 25 March 1902, dead 17 August 2007!  Waal dedicated the book to Anne-Marie, which might be the reason she chose not to go into the circumstances of Harriet's last years and death. One gets rather the impression they were exceptionally sad, with the loneliness and chronic melancholia. I don't entirely agree about "too dull to publish" being a let-down: it's at least individual and surprising, especially considering how, normally, any the least laundry list relevant to Strindberg will be published. I've no objection at all, though, if somebody puts in a finale with a little more bzazz in it. BTW, what I do think is a let-down in wiki bios is the way they all end with where the person's grave is. I mean, honestly, yawn. Bishonen | talk 01:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "All die" 

message: What an excellent article! At first I was somewhat put off by the b/w photo, then as of most of the times, I just had to read a few lines in order to understand what it was that was featured today. I was compelled! Good language, excellent research - overall very impressive! What an effort must've gone in to this article, as with many, many of Wikipedia's articles! Well done, well done indeed! Maxwell Rosenbaum--83.250.187.190 (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw shucks! Thank you! Bishonen | talk 14:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Very well done! Theleftorium 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I have now substituted a less grandiose phrase.  I also note that someone else has changed the phrase used in August Strindberg.  Yaris678 (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this exchange (well over a yeat after it took place). Shakespeare would be labelled an Elizabethan dramatist and not modern, the latter term being used for late XIX-century playwrights, and Strindberg was  "one of the originators of modern drama", his "particular innovation[s]" being the re-discovery of the one-act play as a serious art form and the introduction to the theatre of expressionism. — Robert Greer (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise 

message: Bishonen, the Harriet Bosse article written by you is stupendous! Sorry for the difficulties I've caused of late.  Never mind my latest temper tantrum.  I don't want the Mark Satin article removed and I doubt it would be anyway.  I am not going to contact Ann Coulter; she is likely used to having critics out there anyway.  Imagine the time the author of the Mark Satin article spent in putting it together?  100s of hours to be sure.  I can't imagine someone coming along and sabotaging my article in a similar fashion. By the way, just to be the irritant that you know so well (me), I think I put a comma in your article.  If you don't want it there just revert.  :-)  
--EditorExtraordinaire 14:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Michael W. Parker. If you want people you've mentioned to notice, you can ping them by linking their username, as I have done with yours, and they'll get a notification — a little red figure at the top of every page they look at, until they click on the notification and read it. Did you see your little red figure? Note that you must link and sign in the same edit to produce a "ping"; going back to link a name afterwards won't work. And if you don't sign at all, well, then it also won't work. Altogether do please sign. It's inconvenient to have to go to the History tab to see who's talking. Thanks for the comma, too!  Bishonen | talk 15:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Incredible Writing