Jump to content

Talk:Henry Hamilton (playwright)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessment

[edit]

This article is a stub, because it is just a couple of sentences then a list of works. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Private Tommy Atkins

[edit]

Not worth an edit war :) Volunteer Service Gazette and Military Dispatch of Saturday 04 November 1893 p11 c4 gives the following details: 'New Militiary Song. Private Tommy Atkins. Written by Hy. Hamilton, Composed by S. Potter. Introduced by Mr. Hayden Coffin at the Prince of Wales's Theatre in "A Gaiety Girl"'. then a full transcript of the full third verse. Advert by Willcocks & Co. Ltd [music publishers] Colin aka Henri Merton 20:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC) (Probably worth a line or two in the article!)[reply]

I mentioned that the song was interpolated into A Gaiety Girl, but more detail about it should probably go in the Tommy Atkins article. What is S. Potter's first name? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just been doing the research - Samuel Potter (b. 1851 Birmingham, d. 1934 Liverpool). Comes with images - just checking we can use. Colin aka Henri Merton 22:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you have added to the article looks good to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Safe to Use?

[edit]

To-day's Gossip

Melodrama. Mr Henry Hamilton, whose death was not unexpected, was a workmanlike constructor of melodrama as the records of many Drury Lane successes testify. He was also a deft adaptor of French libretti into English and a lyric-writer of no small capability. One of his outstanding successes in this line was "Tommy Atkins". ... Began on the stage. it is not generally known that Mr. Henry Hamilton gained his knowledge of stage technique as an actor, like Sir Arthur Pinero. he was not a great actor and finally abandoned grease-paint for the pen in 188[?] -- Daily Mirror - Thursday 5 September 1918

The part of this that seems to add something helpful is this part of the quote: According to the obituarist of the Daily Mirror, Hamilton "was a workmanlike constructor of melodrama, as the records of many Drury Lane successes testify. He was also a deft adaptor of French libretti into English and a lyric-writer of no small capability." We had already mentioned that he had been an unsuccessful actor and that "Tommy Atkins" was a popular song. We should avoid repetition. See also WP:UNDUE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Works

[edit]

In the list of works, if it was a musical work, would you please add the names of any composers that are still missing? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veronique

[edit]

Commons has an image of the programme front cover of the 300th performance of the original 1905 run. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Henry_Hamilton_(playwright)#/media/File:Veronique1a.jpg Worth changing? Colin aka Henri Merton 11:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want *two* Veronique images in the article. Currently, we have the one from the inside of the programme, which I think is more interesting than the cover, and shows Hamilton's name, although the cover is prettier. Do you disagree? The article does have room for one more image, but it should be something other than Veronique. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree there shouldn't be two Veronique pics! And no particular view on which one - the new one is from the original production, the old one has more interesting info. I just found the new one via Google images already uploaded but with only generic categories so put it into Henry Hamilton's category as well and alerted you. Noticed the old pic is not on Commons - that for a reason you know of? If I see another image from one of his more famous plays, I'll nab it. Colin aka Henri Merton 20:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "old" one may be moved to Commons if you like. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be protocol? And other editors can then find it easily? But not really a priority! Colin aka Henri Merton 21:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moving things to Commons can be problematic. It has often happened that over-zealous Commons editors make a mistake and delete an image based on a mis-interpretation of copyright law, and by then the link has gone dead and the image is lost forever. Take my word for it, this has happened many times, as there are certain editors over at Commons who do not know much about copyright but insist that an image does not comply and dedicate themselves to deleting images. But, in this case, I doubt there could be a problem, as it is both old and entirely graphical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest; "Second wife"

[edit]

Chose 'around' Scottish marriage law rather carefully (rather than 'on') as the story develops as a consequence of that act - it is the 'harvest of sins' caused by a person unfairly taking advantage of a quirk of that law. So it is not a play about Scottish marriage law where 'on' might be more accurate. Change back? Colin aka Henri Merton 22:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now clarified. By the way, you added "second wife" without adding a reference to verify that information. Would you kindly cite your source? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Centre's good (although as the rest is London etc, I'll tweak the spelling to British English). And I will source that second wife - it was such a small thing I was in two minds! Colin aka Henri Merton 09:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Bernard Beere

[edit]

Nope, Mrs BB was not the co-author. 'With' meaning she acted in the play. Edited now to clarify. Colin aka Henri Merton 21:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three Musketeers

[edit]

If this were a literature effort then the Dumas concept of romance (courtly love and the rules of chivalry) would be understood more. Just about all stage productions left out the romance and went just for swashbuckling. HH managed to integrate these romantic aspects into his production and this was duly picked up by the press as noteworthy. To a casual modern reader of Wiki, calling TTM a romance would imply the wrong thing which is why I removed it when rewriting. And we've now lost Hamilton's skill in keeping the romance of the novel. Revisit?

And did Frohman 'revive' it in NY? - it was more of a parallel production (only four months between the two) and he didn't alter the script or re-imagine it. Colin aka Henri Merton 10:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your description is apparently not referenced with a cite to a WP:RS that explains the aspect of romance that you refer to in your characterization. In fact, several of the "description" words in the list of works seem to be WP:OR, but it is hard for me to know, since I do not have access to the sources you are citing. In any case, this sort of characterization/discussion should take place in the narrative paragraphs of the article above, with citations and quotes, not in the list of works. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (as below). So I'll edit this to plain vanilla status. For reference... Colin aka Henri Merton 12:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists?

[edit]

I should note that I don't like lists of works at all. It would be much better, IMO, to describe the "significant" works narratively in the article above. Compare, for example, W. S. Gilbert. I don't expect you to do it, as it would take a lot of work, but I just thought I'd throw it out there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All very true and taken on the chin. I'm only correcting/fattening/proving the list of works that is already there. HH has got a lot of works that are not on the list yet, but I'm loathe to just add to the list for its own sake (I've only added one that I also discussed in the body). Perhaps we should just prune the list of unimportant shows? As for data in the citations, it is impossible for me to post clippings that are wrongly held under UK copyright. So almost everything I write that is behind the BNA paywall has to be taken on trust by those that are not paying. And exactly, by this example, the very original 'fact' that the novel was a 'romance' should not have been there at all as it is not referenced or discussed - the only fact should be that it was a novel (and even that fact is now referenced in my cite when it wasn't before). So I welcome things being changed for style or clarity but changes being made based on an inability to see the source... well. That's not a carp, more of the inevitable series of 'write, change, explain, change back to something like the original' is frustrating for both of us. Perhaps I should post and then we meet on Talk to discuss and justify common ground before the single edit? Colin aka Henri Merton 21:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could call it a "selected" list, but we'd have to explain the selection criteria. If something is wrongly held under a claim of copyright, it is NOT under copyright and you have every right to copy it. See Copyfraud. I have no problem with citing the BNA version of the article, it's just that I can't independently confirm what the article says about the nature of the piece, unless you quote it. I'm not saying that you can't say it, just that it should be in the narrative paragraphs of the article, rather than in the list of works. Also, there, you could quote the part of the review that gives the characterization of the work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The list is sort of 'selected' even now as I'm choosing to ignore some of his works! Better to call it 'significant' works (criteria obvious) and then individual works could be worked on one by one and walked into the main section, so to get rid of the list completely in time. BNA is awkward. They 'claim' copyright over the images so if I post them then I could easily get my subscription cancelled and UK law would support them. Wikipedia is also supping with the devil. BNA gives a handful of free subscriptions to be allocated to 'chosen' editors (not me!) who still can't post images, only transcribed text. So would Wiki defend me (or you outside the UK getting access to the clippings somehow) against the BNA? Expanding individual shows would definitely solve both problems of course! In the meantime, meeting on Talk first would mean I could quickly quote or summarise the points within to justify things! I could even privately message you somehow the actual clippings. Colin aka Henri Merton 21:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that the criteria are not obvious. We need to describe what the criteria are. Less than 50 performances? Never published? What? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well things could be in/significant for any of those reasons and countless others. Ultimately it is an agreed temporary list that will be expanded out of existence and the significance explained at that stage. Same, really, for any fact about any subject on Wiki - any trivia can be verified but the weight of the editorship will decide if that verified fact is significant enough to stay. And it is only editors that get involved on that page that will decide. So basically, at the moment, it would be thee and me! We could put any we decide are unworthy of being elevated on this talk page for future editors to weigh in on. So we discuss and justify the 'approved' list on Talk. Colin aka Henri Merton 22:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[Moving left on purpose.] To the extent that it's temporary, I agree that it shouldn't much matter. I'm happy for you to quote the key text on the Talk page so that editors can see the basis for new additions to the article. I don't think you need to supply images of the original text. Other librettists who have featured/good articles include W. S. Gilbert, Guy Bolton, Noel Coward, Honoré de Balzac, P. G. Wodehouse. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Had a good critical look at these articles (they all benefit from a copious back catalogue of sources to distill from, because they are so significant of course, so that is a major caveat). They split apart in style quite a lot, though... Noel Coward in particular has voluminous lists. But if we have decided to do without that 'works' list then we'll head the opposite way! [I think I'm going to put our lists discussion in its own heading to separate out the particular issues with The Three Musketeers.] Colin aka Henri Merton 12:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bios?

[edit]

The list of works seems fine for now. Is there no published biography on Hamilton? Or even a chapter-length piece about him in a book on dramatists of the period? BTW, do none of the obituaries give his exact date of birth? If conflicting dates are given, in my experience, the earliest one is most likely correct, as everyone in the arts lied about their age. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple near the end just need ironing out, but it is a lot more consistent. then the fun can begin! As to your queries... Nope! i would have jumped on them if there had been - it's what makes this article impossible to bring up to a good balanced effort. So no end of searching has brought up no date of birth. The only sure way to do that is to buy a birth certificate when the entry is pinned down or wait for the right newspaper to be digitised to find a birth announcement. Agree about conflicting dates (his census entries were a shocker) and I use an algorithm of 'closeness to the event', motivation and years distant to discriminate. Might have another look now. Colin aka Henri Merton 20:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
found one published bit of info on his acting published 1880: The Dramatic List: A Record of the Performances of Living Actors and Actresses of the British Stage - Charles Eyre Pascoe - D. Bogue, 1880 - p164. This is what all the 1918 obituarists copied from, basically word for word, (which is why his documented greasepaint activities stopped at 1880. But I will add the tiny bits they left out and change relevant references to the primary source.
I've now found a birth registration entry for HH. In Camberwell Registration District (that includes Nunhead) in the first quarter of 1855. Parents have six weeks to register a birth so that gives a window of mid-November 1854 to mid-March 1855 (with the likelihood being Jan/Feb 1855). I think perhaps that this info should go into a footnote not the text if we decide to include it at all! Colin aka Henri Merton 21:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slimming down lists

[edit]

For reference, edited originals listed below:

Done! Colin aka Henri Merton 13:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Litton

[edit]

Hamilton's prof. relationship with ML is now a bit skewed in the article. She was 'running the show' for the Conquer and Cynic plays (see her Wiki page), employing H just to act alongside her. When he adapted Moths, he employed her to act alongside him. It's a given that he acted in the first two (it's his acting section after all!) - it is Moths where the relationship changed. Colin aka Henri Merton 08:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've made a 2nd attempt to clarify. In which theatre were She Stoops to Conquer and The Cynic -- the Royal Aquarium? Please let me know if the text is still not correct in any respect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence now good (and I added the Globe). The next sentence doesn't really imply that H was 'returning the favour' by employing her though. Noticed on her wiki page that it was her last major part too. Another tragic end before time. Colin aka Henri Merton 09:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are the sources crystal clear that it was a quid pro quo return of a favor, or is it possible that he simply believed that she was a very good actress and wanted her to play the part on merit? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not - hence the need to word it carefully. It started off as a run of her employing him, and then he employed her. So it was more than just acting together (as we have now) but not necessarily much more, as you say. That was why I just said they had a professional relationship without detailing it. Colin aka Henri Merton 19:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what you have in there now covers it. We do specifically state that they had a professional relationship. What else do you think needs to be added? Unless the sources agree on more, it is better to just give the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. Also, because we say so much about Hamilton's first two plays, I think we have a WP:BALASP problem. See if you can bear to trim it down any, or move some of it to footnotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point so we'll indeed leave it there. I was majoring on H's first two plays because this is where he went from an 'unknown' provincial actor to a well known London playwright. I wasn't going to include anywhere so much for most of his work. I suppose this is where expanding the works list falls over! But if you think anything in particular can go then I won't complain. Maybe keep Moths as is but cut back on Sceptre? Colin aka Henri Merton 20:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just rounding off Moths as it was a hit that continued to run throughout 1882. Included its tour in the acting section with just a few additional words. You edited out 'despite the critics' in the Olympic transfer... that wasn't my view. The direct quote in the reference says "There can be no question that however the critics may differ in their estimate of Mr H. Hamilton's play called Moths the public have set the seal of their approbation on it. It draws well. On Saturday night the house was crowded from floor to ceiling, and so it has been every evening during the past fortnight." Colin aka Henri Merton 21:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. We give the end date of the tour, "December 1882", so you don't need to say it again. "Despite the critics" is not necessary. We give the critics views, and we also state that "it continued to attract large audiences" even after a transfer. And we *also* say that it toured afterwards until December. We do not need to spend more ink on Moths. Some of his later works were even more successful, running for hundreds of performances in the West End (and touring and revivals). If you want to add more to the article, the obvious place to do it would be to add material that discusses especially those shows from the early 1900s and why/how they were his most popular, longest-running shows. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_Hamilton_(playwright)&oldid=1202562694"