Talk:Reputation of William Shakespeare

message: Please don't nominate this for Featured article, just in case anybody drops by and thinks of doing that (a conceited idea, I know!). It's fairly new, it's in flux, and it's far from comprehensive. Please see To-do list below (please help with the tasks!).--Bishonen (talk) 19:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

message: This is a great article. I would like to read a section on the 20th and 21st century reputation as well (in particular the shift from the perception of Shakespeare as populist anti-classicist to the common modern perception of him as associated with intellectual elitism?). The Singing Badger 21:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd like to read that, too, absolutely. I'm planning to put in a few lines about the late 19th c Elizabethan Stage Society, that revolutionized Shakespeare production by excavating the plays from under the Victorian scenery and props and brought them out past the fourth wall on to an apron stage again, and returned to something within shouting distance of the original text. At least I think that was it. I've got Michael Holroyd's Shaw biography right here, I think that's where I read about it, I'll check. Hope somebody else does the next 100 years, though. Thanks very much for the compliment!--Bishonen (talk) 22:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article created

message: Surely this should be titled William Shakespeare's reputation? violet/riga (t) 22:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My theory being that names of "offshoot pages" should be based upon the full title of the original article.  Since this relates to the William Shakespeare article it should be named William Shakespeare's reputation.  Leaving this as a redirect would be fine, but I really think we should use the persons full name when referring to them in an article title. violet/riga (t) 20:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no sale. I don't think we should, and the practice is we don't. William Shakespeare already has the "offshoot pages" Shakespeare Apocrypha and Shakespeare's sonnets. Compare also the assumption made about surnames being OK on their own in article titles on this policy page: Use the title of the work as the article's title, following all applicable general conventions. To disambiguate, add the type of literary work in parentheses, such as "(novel)," "(novella)," "(short story)," etc. You may use "(book)" to disambiguate a non-fiction book. If further disambiguation is needed, add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Orwell novel)," "(Asimov short story)," etc. Thanks for bringing it up, though, I hadn't thought about it before.--Bishonen (talk) 21:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair argument – still am leaning towards the fullname version but you've made some good points. violet/riga (t) 22:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I've rearranged the small matter on popularity of staging and trimmed it and mentioned the great critical editors with the textual editors.  I've consciously left out some folks like Hanmer and Warburton, as the former used Pope's text, and the latter didn't do much to improve Theobald's, and neither have lasting critical insights.  Geogre 03:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangement 

message: Drury Lane and Covent Garden did the competing Shakespeares.  However, I can't find, yet, the exact seasons.  This was Rich vs. Cibber, and this was Garrick vs. all comers.  Bishonen, do you know when this happened?  This is what I got from the fusty musty 1911: 
"Rich's management occurred the rival performances of Romeo and Juliet--Barry and Mrs. Cibber at Covent Garden, and Garrick and Miss Bellamy at Drury Lane--and the subsequent competition between the two rival actors in King Lear. "
Bad old 1911 habit of perpetuating the 18th c. habit of not giving women's names.  Figured this might ring a bell for you. Geogre 14:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, I'm going to mention Nicholas Rowe's edition of 1709, that's the one everybody talks about as the first "modern" one. (I think you sort of hinted at that  before.) I'm writing a separate section about the split between Bill on the stage and Bill for reading, that appears so early and becomes so wide (but that's maybe healing now). If anything comes of it. I'd like to stick in a bit more about Tate's and Lee's editions (the years, the nature of them) that you mention in there, but I can't find the info. (Google has a field day with anything like Shakespeare + Tate + edition. Even if I minus "King Lear!") Do you remember where it's from, or have you got the years?--Bishonen (talk) 22:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dueling Shakespeares 

message: Kind of a warning.  I think we need to think about whether Shake in film is a good thing or not.  Once that can of film gets opened, a lot of stuff will come flying out.  My suggestion is that Shake on Film be only a hint in this article -- just as it relates to his reputation -- with possibly some suggestion that the number of adaptations (from West Side Story to King of New York) -- but that it transclude to another, separate article.  Shakespeare films is either already or should be a separate, full length article.  Geogre 21:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to do this for Shakespeare too, but Joan of Arc in art and Joan of Arc bibliography branched off from the main Joan of Arc page recently.  Shakespeare films and bibliography would make legitimate articles too.  This article at present says more about changing production customs than critical opinions about Shakespeare. Durova 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I saw it in a moooovie 

message: Maybe this could help fill a gap in the critical quotes between Johnson and Carlyle. On the other hand, it's pretty darned fulsome, which is why I didn't just go ahead and paste it in:
Thomas de Quincey, "On the Knocking at the Gate in Macbeth" (1823) (concluding paragraph):
O, mighty poet! Thy works are not as those of other men, simply and merely great works of art; but are also like the phenomena of nature, like the sun and the sea, the stars and the flowers,--like frost and snow, rain and dew, hail-storm and thunder, which are to be studied with entire submission of our own faculties, and in the perfect faith that in them there can be no too much or too little, nothing useless or inert--but that, the further we press in our discoveries, the more we shall see proofs of design and self-supporting arrangement where the careless eye had seen nothing but accident!
If that's just too much, there's probably something in Lamb that's a little more restrained that would fill the gap too. PRiis 05:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much, how could it possibly be too much? Throw off your cultured restraint, Peter, wild and crazy bardolatry is what we want here. It couldn't be better, especially the "phenomenon of nature", I was already thinking about sticking in a few 20th c de-naturalizing Shakespeare bits. You know, Cultural Materialism and that. It would be great to be able to make a real contrast with this Romantic rhapsody of yours, I'm sticking it right in. Thanks very much. (Please feel free to follow and add a full-text link like the other quotes have, if you've got it.)--Bishonen (talk) 17:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical quote from de Quincey 

message: I have just created breakout article Quotations about Shakespeare and moved the critical quotes to it, please add to it!--Bishonen (talk) 21:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The quotes have moved

message: Quotations about Shakespeare has been moved to Timeline of Shakespeare criticism, in the hope that under this title, it will be the less likely to offend as being not a proper article (in contrast to, say, List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded") and get transwikied to Wikiquote. The reason I broke out the quote section at all, if it needs stating, is that Shakespeare's reputation is already long (nudging the recommended 32k limit) and will clearly need to be longer before it's comprehensive. Notable gaps: international perspective, Elizabethan theatrical conditions, most of the 20th century.--Bishonen (talk) 18:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The nomadic quotes have moved on

message: This is a hugely impressive article, and I'm reluctant to add my tuppenyworth to it for fear that I'll disrupt the flow of it, but I have a couple of comments, and maybe I'll try to add some stuff at the weekend (just a warning!) Firstly, I think the distinctiveness of the Romantic Shakespeare is played down too much. Yes, of course, the contrast of Jonson's 'learned sock' and Shakespeare, 'fancy's child', warbling his native woodnotes is longstanding, but the the difference is, surely, that Romanticism transformed that notion of what 'nature' means - no longer simply unfettered and untutored, but rather something 'far more deeply interfused' than rules could ever achieve. This notion that there is an organic unity to S's work could, perhaps, be explored more. I think the tendency of some Victorian writers - e.g. Ruskin and Delia Bacon - to treat S as though his works are a kind of secular Bible could also be mentioned.
My main problem, though, is the British emphasis of the article. There's nothing on Shakespeare in the writings of the Schlegels, or Hugo's essay on the grotesque for example. There's nothing on the famously intense relationship that many Russian writers have had to the Shakespeare canon. There's a brief, dismissive, reference to Voltaire -- who was the primary source of Shakespeare in translation during the 18th century, not just in France but across Europe -- but that's about it.
Obviously there's a danger that the article might become unwieldy if we add too much, but at the moment there's no explanation for the fact that it is only about Shakespeare's reputation in Britain. Paul B 13.22 15 March 2005 (UTC)
*Well, no explanation in the article itself, no. The explanation is in the to-do template ("Pending tasks") at the top of this page. Also in my Peer review appeal (which garnered no response at all) and in this request on Talk:William Shakespeare (ditto). I think I asked for help on the Village Pump, too, and expressed my frustration on User:The Singing Badger's talk page... in other words, I've tried quite hard to get help. The present incomplete text is mainly my work, and the international perspective is missing because I'm not qualified to supply it, by no means because I fail to see the need for it. It's not the only thing missing, but I agree that it's the most glaring. As for the 19th century, I did a placeholder there with some reluctance, since nobody offered, but as you can probably tell from the imbalance of the whole, I feel more at home in the 17th and 18th centuries. Bishonen | Talk 14:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Britocentric?

message: Perhaps these should be a 'dissenting voices' section, otherwise this seems rather tacked-on and irrelevant,
::"Not everyone is enthousiastic about Shakespeare. Bukowski articulated another opinion when he stated:'He's (Shakespeare ed.) unreadable and overrated. But people don't want to hear that. You see, you cannot attack shrines. Shakespeare is embedded through the centuries. You can say "So-and-so is a lousy actor!" But you can't say Shakespeare is shit. The longer something is around, snobs begin to attach themselves to it, like suckerfish. When snobs feel something is safe...they attach. The moment you tell them the truth, they go wild. They can't handle it. It's attacking their own thought process. They disgust me.'"
Seems to me that bit would seem tacked on and irrelevant whatever the section, actually. Surely there must be some more articulate, analytic, and illuminating dissent to quote. Returning to the present incompleteness of the article, I hope any further passing Shakespeareans and other specialists will take the time to read my pleas for assistance with this incompleteness all over this Talk page, rather than expect explanations of shortfalls in the article itself, as that is not where such explanations appropriately go ("Avoid highlighting the incomplete state of an article", or words to that effect, is Wikipedia policy.) Please pitch in rather than point to the outrages by omission that I have committed. --Bischånen|Tåk 16:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BUKOWSKI

message: I doubt a dispute over dates is a good reason to remove all reference to Sarah Siddons.  Leading men of the eighteenth century get named in this article.  Right now the piece says nothing at all about the emergence of women in the profession, which is certainly a major change in theatrical custom.  Was there any renowned and influential actress who predates Sarah Siddons? Durova 00:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sarah Siddons]] 

message: I've added a cite and external link. I hope that's alright. Adam Cuerden talk 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[W. S. Gilbert]] cite 

message: A link to Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool somewhere in the article might not be amiss. Haukur (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool]] 

message: "In his own time, William Shakespeare (1564 – 1616) was seen as merely one among many talented playwrights and poets, but ever since the late 20th century he has been considered the supreme playwright,"
you say 20th century, but shakespeare's fame took off in the early 19th century (as is stated later in the article).  a typo?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.244.50 (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentence 

message: Per the discussions at Talk:Leonhard Euler and WikiProject Mathematics, I am removing the discussion of Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment from the body of the article, for the same basic reasons mentioned in the above discussions.  Murray's work is primary research about a topic that Murray is is not a recognized expert. aprock (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just one view regarding as it applies to Euler. See the discussion on the talk page for that article. Others have suggested that the book is an acceptable source but maybe not mention the book itself.Miradre (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing discussion of the book [[Human Accomplishment]] 

message: I propose the addition of a 21st century section. In the last twenty years the body of Shakespeare criticism have been seriously concerned with the effects of its own existence: this article, by nature, is part of that metacritical body and would benefit from such a reflection. I propose consideration of the following: Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World, Majorie Garber's Profiling Shakespeare and Shakespeare and Modern Culture. Thoughts?  Cfsibley (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What a good idea, such a section would be a great improvement. Please do add it. I created this article in 2004, and a 21st-century section didn't feel as urgent at that point, nor was I the right person for the job. I'm more of an 18th-century buff than a Shakespearean, and Greenblatt's book is the only one I've read of the three you mention. But I'm all for it, I'll cheer from the wings. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article seems to have been started as some thesis of how 18th century scholars really admired Shakespeare, contrary to later writings by 19th century Romantics that he wasn't. Which is fine, but the rest of the article just seems to be propaganda, as "communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented" Why are there literally no references to legitimate complaints about Shakespeare. Even specifically how the end of "Hamlet" just stinks, as T.S. Elliot wrote? I'm writing this in vain hope that you, Bishonen, are still around after ten years, even just to "cheer from the wings". 75.71.166.197 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st century 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William Shakespeare's influence which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no longer in progress, but has been closed as consensus for moving to the shorter form. I've moved it accordingly. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I'm unsure of the best way to improve the following sentence with citation: "After the Licensing Act of 1737, a quarter of plays performed were by Shakespeare,[citation needed] and on at least two occasions rival London playhouses staged the very same Shakespeare play at the same time (Romeo and Juliet in 1755 and King Lear the next year) and still commanded audiences." The statistic about one in four plays performed on the London stage being Shakespeare plays refers to the 1740-1741 season (source is Michael Dobson's The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, 1660-1769 p. 161. And as Dobson points out that statistic was not repeated during Garrick's time on stage (so through until his retirement in 1776). It is also significant to note that Shakespeare scholars Michael Dobson, Gary Taylor, and Emmett Avery attribute the one in four ratio of Shakespeare plays performed during the 1740-1741 season to the efforts of the Shakespeare Ladies Club, this information should be reflected in this section of the Shakespeare's reputation article.Ladytheatrehistorian (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  18th Century 

message: I clicked through the link for the Thomas Rymer material on _Othello_, and the destination all but took over my desktop, what with spawning browser windows all over the place, etc etc etc. I feel fortunate I was running Linux at the time, because I suspect more noxious things might happen to, say, a Windows machine. If anyone can uncover a replacement link for this one it'd be a Good Thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesonyrra (talk • contribs) 20:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  angelfire link for the Thomas Rymer material on Othello 

message: I was pretty disappointed not to see Tolstoy's criticisms of Shakespeare, summarized in https://bigthink.com/high-culture/tolstoy-shakespeare/ Earlier in this section Bukowski is mentioned. Also https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/complete-guide-to-hating-shakespeare/ This entire article seems to have been started as some thesis of how 18th century scholars really admired Shakespeare, contrary to later writings by 19th century Romantics that he wasn't. Which is fine, but the rest of the article seems to be propaganda, as "communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented"
Why are there literally no references to legitimate complaints about Shakespeare. Even specifically how the end of "Hamlet" just stinks, as T.S. Elliot wrote? It's like a predecessor to Game of Thrones, lol  75.71.166.197 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I like Shakespeare but there should be more mention of 20th and 21st century criticisms and dissent against Bardolatry. I think that's just as significant to the question of his reputation as discussing people lauding and reviving him, since the last 50 years or so has seen a significant amount of pushback or apathy towards the cult of Shakespeare, especially around the world as the influence of the British Empire has waned. --VolatileChemical (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Dissenting Voices at All???? Tolstoy? Shaw? 

message: I think there should be some mention in this article of the 1911 Moscow Art Theatre production of Hamlet directed by Stanislavski and Edward Gordon Craig. It's considered one of the most important and influential stagings not just of a Shakespeare play in Russia but of any play anywhere, and it had an enormous impact on both theatre in Russia and on modern productions and interpretations of Shakespeare. However there currently is no section in the article which would allow mentions of Shakespeare in 20th century Russia before the 1917 revolution, since the article is divided into "19th century" and "20th century" sections, and in the 20th century section the segment on Russia begins with the Soviet Union. I'm not sure if the 1911 MAT production should be included in the section on 19th century Russia as an example of Shakespeare's influence in the 1800s extending to the immediate early years of the next century, or in the Soviet Union section where it's mentioned as the immediately pre-revolutionary background context for later Soviet adaptations. But in any case I think it should be mentioned somewhere. --VolatileChemical (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moscow Art Theatre production of Hamlet