Talk:The Winter's Tale

message: Perhaps this should go in the "Controversy" section (if so, I'll move it there- just let me know :]), but I was wondering whether Mamillius is actually resurrected/reanimated at the end of the play, because in the edition I'm currently studying (Arden, 1988) there's no reference to him. Regards. El Oscuro (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mamillius' "Resurrection" 

message: Perdita is the only character from this play who has his/her own article. This needs to be remedied. I'll start within the next couple of days on Polixines, Leontes and Antigonus, but I'll need some more help, too. --BeastKing89 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: also considered a "problem play" by many.  By many what? By many Freshmen? By many Jesuits? By many bulgarians? --Wetman 09:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By many dry individuals.--Jack Upland 09:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: problem play?

message: a sad lack. :) Morwen - Talk
:And, interestingly, a very important part of the play.  To me, anyway.  I just saw Winter's Tale at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and they decided on a different effect (roars of a bear, Antigonus covering the baby to protect it, lights go dark) and, while it created a different mood and meaning in ways, it just made me sad not to see the most famous stage direction ever. -- Masterzora 06:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. However I've never seen a stage production where the guy is, in any meaningful sense, actually exiting pursued by a bear. Some productions, or so I'm told, employ an animatronic bear, or a man in a bear suit or whatever (at the risk of unintentional comedy) but surely most productions have to resort to a theatrical convention of some sort, as they did in Oregon. Interestingly there's a lot of speculation among the learned writers that Shakespeare's company probably used a real bear - which would have been perfectly possible since there was a good deal of bear-bating going on in Southwark at that time. AndyJones 08:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't forget intentional comedy: I've seen more than one slapstick bear chase. Some writers think the bear is intended as a burst of comedy to mark the transition from the tragic first half of the play to the comic second half. The Singing Badger 13:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the stance I take, too: that it was intentionally meant to be a comic transition, if only because the idea of a man being chased off stage by a bear seems to be inherently funny from talking to various persons.  The more dramatic variation OSF used certainly drew Antigonus as a more important character, but I personally think that it served better as an ending to the Sicilia half rather than as a transition into the Bohemia half.  -- Masterzora 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, further, something I briefly forgot, it makes the Clown's words awkward.  He refers to have seen Antigonus a bit away from the baby being eaten, while the OSF made strong implications that Antigonus was eaten right there by Perdita.  -- Masterzora 01:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did she enjoy him? ;-) AndyJones 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  *cough* And now I remember why I'm supposed to proofread before hitting the almighty save button. -- Masterzora 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But don't forget, Shakepeare did not actually write the stage directions.  They were added in later.195.195.218.181 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh.  That depends on the direction.  I was given to understand that this particular direction was Shakespearean in origin. OldDaedalus 22:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "exeunt pursued by a bear"

message: Oh, come on! A deliberate mistake! And I suppose the clock striking in Julius Caesar was deliberate too! Let's face it: Shakespeare didn't know and didn't care!--Jack Upland 09:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  He did know; he didn't care.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bohemia's Sea Coast 

message: "The question of whether Hermione is genuinely brought back to life by magical means or whether the "resurrection" is some kind of trick is left unanswered in the text. She says to Perdita, "thou shalt hear that I, / Knowing by Paulina that the oracle / Gave hope thou wast in being, have preserved / Myself to see the issue.""
Under the heading of controversy.  How is this a controversy any more than the ending of "The Lady or the Tiger?"?  Especially considering that it was intentionally left ambiguous. Move to remove from the Controversies section. -- Masterzora 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed the header instead, to the less provocative 'Debates' The Singing Badger 13:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: On the page about Henry of Masovia, the duke and bishop of one of Polish regions in Middleages there is a part telling that
Part of his story was used by William Shakespeare in his piece, the The Winter's Tale, on the Polish site it's confirmed saying that W.S. just moved the plot to Sicilia and made the persons to be Czech. It would explain the mistake like Bohemia's Sea Coast as Poland has obviously a coast line.
Anybody could dig in more for it?
Merewyn 19:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Shakespeare's play is based on Robert Greene's story Pandosto. But maybe Greene's story is based on Henry of Masovia?  The Singing Badger 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot based on Polish story? 

message: According to the post  "Bohemia" was also "rarely used ancient name for Italian Calabria (the heel of the Italian boot)" (after one of Bohemunds who ruled there).
Googling finds several places where the name is used  (in text about Waldensians),  (geogology). The topic is also discussed in detail in "Bohemia in Early English Literature", a paper from 1943 .
This location would be better explanation than the landlocked province in the center of Europe. Pavel Vozenilek 17:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intriguing! I have inserted it into the text with citations. The Singing Badger 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Bohemia 

message: Shakespeare wrote three types of play: comedies, tragedies, and histories. In the contemporary collections I've seen, "romances" is the fourth category in which The Winter's Tale is included. I realize the definition is similar, but "tragicomedy" seems like a pejorative term--a meaningless mix of words.
I think it should be named as a comedy, just as represented in the complete works table. IrisWings 07:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. We could impose any number of subjective modern classifications on the play if we chose to. It's a comedy in the folio and that's how we must describe it. I've made the change. AndyJones 09:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tragicomedy? 

message: Was Rowling's Hermione character really given that name BECAUSE OF this Hermione, or do they just share the same name and this Hermione is an earlier well-known literary character?
*According to the article on Hermione Granger, J.K. Rowling says it was. It would definitely be nice to see an external reference for this, though. IrisWings 06:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a reference there now, and I've added it here too. Mooncow 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rowling connection?

message: Wouldn't Hermione surviving be a shock to the first audience of the play? Those familiar with Robert Greene's novel would have expected a different outcome. JoeBlogsDord 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to [[Pandosto]]: "uncharacteristically slight"

message: This section should be rewritten to lose it's informal style unrelated to Wikipedia. Although retorical questions are a good writing device they are not appropriate to Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddabed (talk • contribs) 09:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Who is a man dwelt by...' ?'

message: Yes, Hermione was based on the Hermione in a Winter's Tale. Rowling says she wanted an unusual name.
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-pressclubtransc.htm
Eddabed (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hermione's Origins

message: The character- or at least the name - of Autolycus is clearly re-used as the "king of thieves", Autolycus, in Xena: Warrior Princess. Rmd1023 (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And before that he's a criminal ship-captain (iirc) in Warlock comics. —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Autolycus in other media

message: In the article Mary Anderson (stage actress), it states "In 1887 in London she appeared in The Winter's Tale in the double role of Perdita and Hermione (the first actress to include this innovation)." Is this a common thing? I can't seem to find a mention of it in this article. -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Judi Dench did it for Trevor Nunn at Stratford in 1969 and Terry Hands cast Penny Downie in both rôles in his 1986 "Scandinavian" production. Not enough of itself to make a "common thing", but going by these it doesn't seem rare, either. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  double role of Perdita and Hermione 

message: According to Dr. Samuel A. Tannenbaum, "scholars had been disputing for considerably more than half a century whether The Winter's Tale was one of Shakespeare's earliest plays or one of his latest." (Source: Shakespearean Scraps, chapter: "The Forman Notes" (1933). Tannenbaum reports that "Malone had at first decided that it was written in 1594; subsequently he seems to have assigned it to 1604; later still, to 1613; and finally he settled on 1610–11. Hunter assigned it to about 1605.") Charles Barrell assigned a latest date of 1594, (Source: Barrell) while many critics believe the play is one of Shakespeare's later works, possibly written in 1610 or 1611. (Source: F. E. Halliday, A Shakespeare Companion 1564–1964, Baltimore, Penguin, 1964; p. 532.)  
Part of the above section was removed for several reasons.
1. Tannenbaum's quotation is pointless. How long scholars have been "disputing" before 1933 is  irrelevant to the article. There is no such dispute now nor has there been since Hunter, who died in 1861.
2. Barrell's opinion is irrelevant. He's not an authority on anything nor is he WP:RS.
Tom Reedy (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, some mention of early editors' attempts at dating should be noted, with a ftnote to a summary of the history.--Wetman (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.Smatprt (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no problem including the history as long as it's presented as such and not at the expence of current thinking. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of outdated and non-RS material rationale 

message: Smatprt, I'm not removing the material, I'm just removing the source. You should be able to find a WP:RS source for the statement. The Shakespeare Fellowship Quarterly is not a reliable source for Wikipedia because it is not a "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required for Wikipedia sources, as I'm sure you well know. If you think it is, go to the noticeboard and post an opinion request. This constant harassment from you about my edits without any explanation of why you are reverting them except for sharp and cursory comments reeks of WP:WAR. Your confrontational, aggressive, and disruptive behaviour is clear to all, and it wastes not only my time, but that of all the editors who are called in to weigh in on your retaliatory reversions. Quite frankly, I'm tired of it. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Smatprt, I scanned this a few days ago but haven't had the time to post it or edit much until today. I've reworded the material; you can see why Tannenbaum used the word "seems". I haven't checked the Tannenbaum ref yet; I'll look at it sometime this week, meanwhile I'll assume it's correct. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-RS 

message: This article discusses the play and some notable productions can add to our understanding of the work. In what way does this edit do this, please? Taking the long-term, historical perspective  this can only be seen as recentism. As the guideline suggests: "articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is considered a Wikipedia fault". --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no defenders: deleting. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion is a loss. The production values of Shakespeare's plays mounted within living memory are often of value. Perhaps the perceived sense of imbalance comes rather from the slenderness of the present article as a whole.--Wetman (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very happy to review any production against the WP:RECENT criteria, and to discuss them on the talk pages; I wouldn't want to lose any valuable additions to the article. My original question, above, remains unanswered, though. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minneapolis modern-dress production 

message: I've trimmed a recent addition about Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford's trip to Italy, sourced from an art historian's book about the Grand Tour. I had forgotten this discussion, which dismisses the whole connection between Oxford's art-collecting trip and Winter's Tale as an editor's conjecture. As User:Paul B puts it: "...tenuous. Basically - Oxford thought his wife was having an affair and Pandosto thinks his wife was having an affair". Would we be justified in reverting it altogether? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no defenders. Deleting. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collecting art treasures in Italy 

message: In "The seacoast of Bohemia" section we read: "some Oxfordian scholars [See: authorship], … find it significant that the Earl of Oxford was travelling in the Adriatic region". I followed the link, drilling down to this section, but found only Jonson's mockery (which  is cited there to show that Jonson, who knew Shakespeare well, was acknowledging him as the playwright). There is no mention of scholars, or significance (unless I missed it—please correct me if so). Tagged . Last year I suggested removing this sentence, but let's, once again, see if a source does turn up. If not, I think it's been left long enough now. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. More above. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford in Venice 

message: Is it worth noting in the "adaptions" section the recent YA novel Exit, Pursued by a Bear, which is a modern retelling of The Winter's Tale?  (The book's kirkus review mentions that it's an adaption.)  Margalob (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did it. Margalob (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Winter's Tale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928040838/http://www.rsc.org.uk/WhatsOn/7291.aspx to http://www.rsc.org.uk/WhatsOn/7291.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520041001/http://www.rsc.org.uk/about-us/press/releases/the-winters-tale-casting.aspx to http://www.rsc.org.uk/about-us/press/releases/the-winters-tale-casting.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This phrase is worded pretty weirdly and is somewhat vague. Any suggestions as to changing it?PiPhiTau (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Intense psychological drama" 

message: The plot summary, as it stands, seems to take large chunks word for word from Sparknotes, which isn't allowed, and it says unequivocally that the statue of Hermione magically came to life, rather than it being a ruse by Paulina in which she concealed the very much alive queen for 16 years, which I believe is the more popular interpretation. I can try to work on a rewrite, but I'm not terribly anxious to take on the matter after a just single reading of the play. Blanking the whole section as a copyvio wouldn't be completely unfair, but I'd rather not leave it blank until another is written. Anyone who watches this page have any thoughts? -R. fiend (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the plot summary