Talk:Hamlet Q1

Untitled

The article obviously needs much expansion and more footnotes. I have only supplied a preliminary synopsis of the debate about Q1 and its connection to questions such as the Ur-Hamlet. --BenJonson (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by BenJonson (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inferior?

"generally inferior" is a judgement which, although it was consensual or near consensual for a long time, has been less and less so for a few decades. Things have reached the point where the latest editors of the play for a major academic edition (Thompson and Taylor for Arden 3) have taken stock of the impossibility to give authority beyond dispute to any one of the three earliest texts and have therefore decided to present a three-text edition of Hamlet. Brandishing phrases such as "generally inferior" reflects bygone scholarship, not the academic standards now prevailing. User:S.Camus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.57.248 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. In fact the view that Q1 represents some "legitimate" alternate text is very much a minority one. This "bygone scholarship" is in reality the norm. The postmodernist fantasy that Q1 is somehow equally valid was a blip. That's not to say that it does not preserve useful evidence. The three text version only came about because Hamlet is such an ultra-canonical work that there is a scholarly market for detailing every variation. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]