Talk:The Tempest/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Character list?

Should we remove it and make a separate article as before? Wrad (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I still say NO on this. One of the main reasons that the character list was deleted from another article was the assetion that these works were "literature first and plays second". I strongly disagree. Shakespeare is known as the world's preeminent DRAMATIST and writer of PLAYS. Every play has one thing in common - a CAST list. Every play program has a CAST list. An integral part of ANY play is the CAST. Every edition of the play has a CAST LIST. It simply astounds me that anyone would think that a thorough article on any play should not have a cast list as part of that article. Another reason that was stated was that it made the article look amateurish. I have one question - WHY? To be frank - I think the opposite - it make the article look amateurish NOT to have a cast list. Yes - wikipedia discourages lists - but it does not BAN them. In the case of PLAY articles, a cast list not only makes sense, but makes for easier understanding of the synopsis and the various issues that the article covers. Thanks for listening.Smatprt (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's already done. Has been for a while but something was messed up with this page for me. Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 01:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See here:

• List of Characters in The Tempest

Thanks, Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 01:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comic

The following was recently added to the literature section. Clearly it needs sourcing before it's appropriate to include in the article itself:

Alan Moore's pan-fictional comic The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen features Prospero as a major character, especially in the graphic novel, The Black Dossier. In it, as in The Tempest, Prospero ends the story with a soliloquy. But unlike The Tempest, where he renounces his magic, he praises the "magic" of storytelling, voicing Moore's philosophy of fiction and summing up the goal of the League series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 2008-05-17

If it helps...

Arthur Sullivan's first hit was his incidental music to The Tempest - it largely made his reputation. I have some sheet music, and also that of Thomas Arne, if you want it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dating?

If we disregard the dissenters who favour a very early or very late date for The Tempest, and stick with the more or less common view: does anyone really date it to 1610 as the article implies? Isn't the going theory (right or wrong) that Shakespeare relied on the story of the Sea Venture—either the William Strachey letter or Sylvester Jourdan's A Discovery of the Bermudas (13 October 1610) and the London Council of Virginia's A True Declaration of the Estate of the Colonie in Virginia (8 November 1610)—for The Tempest? If that's the going theory then any date given in 1610 seems to be more a theoretical terminus post quem than a suggestion that Shakespeare wrote the play in the ~2 months remaining of the year. Since we know it was performed before the court on 1 November 1611, giving the terminus ante quem, it would seem the only practical dating would be in 1611. Non? The two good sources I have to hand on this just now—Malone and Chambers—both essentially say 1611 for the above reasons. --Xover (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

1611 is the date I've heard most often. Wrad (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1611 date is traditional and mainstream (majority opinion), but a long line of alternative conjecture can be traced back into the 19th century and the whole topic is recently becoming more contentious as a result of several recent but influential articles which are now referenced, as they should be, in the text of the wiki project article. We should acknowledge majority views as such but leave open the possibility that alternative views might ultimately turn out to be correct. This is neutral POV. --BenJonson (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I did some clean-up, only to find it all reverted. This is what I did (which I have since restored). I corrected a major error in the lead - which stated that scholars generally agreed to when the play was first "performed". This is not what scholars weigh in on and is not what the article has said for years. The "argument" is about when it was "written". We have a first "recorded" performance, but I have never seen it argued on this page (or any other article) when a play was first "performed". How on earth could anyone ever know that?? But regardless, the references cited (and the ongoing debate amoung many scholars, is "When was the play written?" and does the play depend on Strachey as a source. Regarding the dating changes I made, i rearranged several paragraphs so the opening paragraph starts with the major scholars who place the play in 1910 and 1611. Starting the paragraph with those who challenge that dating seemed to me to give undue weight to the dissenters. Let me be clear - I am a dissenter, but I still thought the undue weight argument applied. The other change I made was to cite the actual researchers, as recommended in the MOS, as opposed to continuing to say "scholars believe" or "researchers think", repeatedly through the article. Moving that information to footnotes seemed to violate MOS for no good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs)

I agree with this reasoning.--BenJonson (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Tempest (2009 film)

Moving the below text from the article. Once it's released it can go back subject to the usual criteria, but before then it's speculation.

Stage and screen director Julie Taymor is currently directing the play for the big screen, due in 2009; her partner and collaborator, composer Elliot Goldenthal, will score the film as he has done with all her other works. Taymor has adapted Shakespeare before with 1999's Titus. The cast will include Helen Mirren as the gender-switched Prospera, Ben Whishaw as Ariel, Djimon Hounsou as Caliban, Russell Brand as Trinculo and Jeremy Irons as Alonso.

--Xover (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

More:

In 2009 Julie Taymor, director of Across the Universe, will make the newest take on the Tempest. In Julie Taymor's version of 'The Tempest,' the gender of Prospero has been switched to Prospera. Going back to the 16th or 17th century, women practicing the magical arts of alchemy were often convicted of witchcraft. In Taymor's version, Prospera is usurped by her brother and sent off with her four-year daughter on a ship. She ends up on an island; it's a tabula rasa: no society, so the mother figure becomes a father figure to Miranda. This leads to the power struggle and balance between Caliban and Prospera; a struggle not about brawn, but about intellect.

--Xover (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias In Screen Section

The screen section seems overwhelmingly influenced by the critic Douglas Brode who may have valid opinions, but still dominates the section far more than he should. 158.104.208.3 (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you perhaps suggest any other good sources we could use here? Also, of about 20 citations in the Screen section, less than half are cited to Brode alone; given the book we're citing here is an overview of adaptations over film's entire history, that's not a particularly excessive number. If there are any specific balance or point of view issues, point them out so they can be addressed (if you provide sources we can check it'll be easier to fix). --Xover (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

GA-ready

I think this article is ready for GA. We have a bit to add to the themes section, but one difference between GA and FA is that FA call for comprehensiveness while GA calls for breadth. This article has more than enough breadth for GA, even without a few extra themes. Wrad (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The article needs a good copy-edit, a new lede, and a good check of the synopsis, before GA. I've been meaning to do those, but they've been pending while I try to figure out a new section or two for the Themes section. Other than that, yes, I agree; this is ready for GA (and not even too far from FA). --Xover (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point is that an expanded Themes section would not be a GA requirement. Wrad (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, sorry; that phrasing was a bit clumsy. The first sentence indicates what I thought was necessary before GA; the second sentence was merely my lame excuse for why I'd not gotten around to them yet, not an indication that I thought an expanded Themes section was a prerequisite for GA. Sorry. --Xover (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Music section ...

... looks rather bitty and confused to me - for example, operas appear in two unadjacent paras. Some subheadings (e.g. Incidental music, Opera, Ballet) would make it look tidier, and I could reference the Opera subsection to the New Grove Dictionary of Opera, where 46 operas based on the play are listed ...--GuillaumeTell 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Can I also volunteer, as a relatively fresh eye who hasn't been actively involved in the article so far, to do some copy-editing - for example, the lead has the word "written" twice in the very first line, there is a missing word further down, and so forth. --GuillaumeTell 22:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably would be good to do before GA... Wrad (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The sections down around the bits you mention are a bit choppy as a result of me merging a couple of sub-sections that were just too much. A copy-edit is definitely needed to smooth out the transitions between paragraphs; but I would strongly suggest we don't re-introduce more sub-sections. --Xover (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I'll see what I can do this afternoon, and will refer anything controversial for comment here. --GuillaumeTell 11:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me to have real problems (but I suppose as the original author of this section I do have an unnatural preference for my own version). Anyway, here's how a huge swathe of the section looks with the {cn} tags it needs:

Among those who wrote incidental music to The Tempest were:

• Arthur Sullivan: his 1862 incidental music was his first major work, and it brought him to the attention of the public;
• Jean Sibelius: his 1926 incidental music was written for a lavish production at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen. An epilogue was added for a 1927 performance in Helsinki.) He represented individual characters through instrumentation choices: particularly admired was his use of harps and percussion to represent Prospero, said to capture the "resonant ambiguity of the character".
• Lennox Berkeley, Arthur Bliss, Ernest Chausson, Engelbert Humperdinck, Willem Pijper and Henry Purcell.

Operas based on The Tempest include Fromental Halévy's La Tempesta (1850), Zdeněk Fibich's Bouře (1894), and Kurt Atterberg's Stormen (1948).

Orchestral works for concert presentation include Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's fantasy The Tempest (1873), Fibich's symphonic poem Bouře (1880), John Knowles Paine's symphonic poem The Tempest, Arthur Honegger's orchestral prelude (1923), and Egon Wellesz's Prosperos Beschwörungen (five works 1934-36).

Also, I've got to say it's got a real WP:Don't say boring things problem: it's just a lengthy list, set out in prose.

Oh, and it also has a layout problem along the lines of:

• Some of my favourite fruits are:
  • apples
  • oranges
  • pears, bananas, grapes and cherries.

Sorry if I'm being harsh. I'm afraid I'm not around enough to help out myself for a few months, so I'm throwing in my 2p worth. AndyJones (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing

• I'm slightly uncomfortable with the appearance of Ariel and Caliban in the lead without any explanation of who they are. Should they be referred to in the plot outline further up, or left where they are with some additional phrase along the lines of "the island's other inhabitants"? --GuillaumeTell 15:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of the lead - I find the one-line synopsis "Its protagonist is a magician, Prospero, who uses his magical powers to deliver himself and his daughter, Miranda, from an island on which they have lived since they were abandoned at sea by their enemies." sorely lacking. Surely we can sum up the play better, yes? Smatprt (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is something like this better?:

"Its protagonist is the marooned sorcerer Prospero, rightful Duke of Milan, who uses his magical powers to punish and forgive his enemies when he raises a tempest that drives them ashore." Smatprt (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely better, though "marooned" looks a bit odd. Doesn't address my point about Caliban and Ariel, though. --GuillaumeTell 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not very happy with the Date and text section. First, is the dating as problematic as that of The Winter's Tale (if the dating of the latter is indeed problematic)? Second, it duplicates a lot of what is said in the previous (Sources) section. Third, the final para is rather bizarre: what is the reason for going on about the play being the first one in the FF? In what way are the stage directions written more for the reader than the actors (my CJ Sisson edition of the plays says that the text is from "the play-house copy, with elaborate stage directions")? Why did Hemminges and Condell allegedly add all these directions to The Tempest and not elsewhere? Is the source for these assertions the same source as the one in the note about the masque at the end of the para or is all this actually unsourced? --GuillaumeTell 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore, the Afterlife (Shakespeare's Day) section says the following: "William Davenant states that The Tempest had been performed at the Blackfriars Theatre. Careful consideration of stage directions within the play supports this, strongly suggesting that the play was written with Blackfriars Theatre rather than the Globe Theatre in mind." How does this fit with the remarks on the stage directions in the last para of the Date and Text section that I alluded to above? I submit, m'lud, that it doesn't. --GuillaumeTell 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dramatic structure section. Is the Glencoe Study Guide really a reliable printed source? No sources for the assertions made by the "Some scholars" and the "Others" in the indented paragraph appear in the Guide, AFAICS. --GuillaumeTell 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I see Wrad has fixed that. FWIW I've recently written an essay that questions whether The Tempest actually does preserve the classical unities. But if you want a supporting source that it "roughly" does so, you could include a quotation from Vaughan and Vaughan, page 14. AndyJones (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• 20th century section. This could do with some structure: at present it looks like a ragbag of miscellaneous stuff, flitting backwards and forwards between interpretations of particular roles, different styles of production, adaptations and miscellaneous odds and ends. Actually, it looks like a Trivia section. --GuillaumeTell 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Music section. At least this does have some structure (which I've highlighted by bolding the various types of musical performance. I would be rather inclined to remove the bit about Beethoven's Tempest sonata, which doesn't fit in with anything else, but if it must be retained, there's an available citation (Donald Tovey) on the sonata's page. I still have to tidy up the opera section and rewrite the misleading and inaccurate description of Tippett's Knot Garden (The Tempest really only features in Act 3, and involves only five of the characters and a few "charades" very loosely based on bits of the play.) --GuillaumeTell 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis work

Currently this is a bit too long. We should cut it by 50-100 words or so. Wrad (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that while I agree (at a glance) that the synopsis is probably too long, the guidelines for e.g. Film and Novels suggest 900 words as the limit for articles within the remit of those projects; and ours clocks in at pretty much 700 on the dot. I haven't looked in detail at the synopsis yet (I've been avoiding it in order to be able to copyedit it later; I'm terrible at copyediting texts I'm too familiar with) so I don't know if it suffers from logorrhoea or similar problems—which, if present, should be fixed regardless of actual length, of course—but we do have a bit of headroom left there if needed. --Xover (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Here's a suggestion (624 words): AndyJones (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work, and I'm glad to see that almost all of your excisions and alterations were in the bits that I'd left intact yesterday. The only problem that I can see is with the Ariel/Sycorax sentence - too long and looks clumsy. --GuillaumeTell 11:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree - that was bothering me too. I've tried moving the sentence about Sycorax later in the paragraph, with the disadvantage that it separates it from her first mention, but on the plus side links it to her second and keeps all the Ariel stuff together. It's a bit of a compromise but I think it works OK. AndyJones (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a try. I don't think mentioning Sycorax is absolutely necessary. I fixed one part which said Caliban was the only non-spiritiual inhabitant before Prospero (Sycorax was physical as well). I also adjusted what I saw as some bias. Not all interpretations see Ariel as reluctant, or Caliban as a monster. For the most part, Ariel is willing, and we know about Caliban mostly through Prospero, who is a bit biased. I just made it clear who it was that said he was a monster. Wrad (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is going to get confusing, isn't it? Wrad, I see you've amended the top box not the bottom box, and I did the same myself once yesterday. I was only on Wikipedia yesterday due to the snow preventing me going to London, so I'm away again now. Last thing I do, I'll move the bottom box over to the article. Feel free to make further changes, there. AndyJones (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wrad and Guillaume. I'm a newbie, so I wanted to toss out a thought and let you two decide if it had any merit. The section above, with your edits, seems like a stronger lead than the current first four paragraphs--they assume the reader has substantial knowledge of the plot and details which is in the section you've been editing. Have you considered swapping the positions? --21catbird (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not waste our time...

I'm thinking that we shouldn't waste our time going for GA status and just go straight for FA. Going through a GA nomination will only slow us down and won't actually help us improve the article much, especially if we get a superficial review (which is more likely than it should be). In my experience with this project, I have yet to see one of our collaboration articles experience anything but a frustrating delay in going through a GA nomination. It just isn't worth it. We know how to make FAs now, and we don't need to give ourselves a false pat on the back by submitting to a cursory GA review. Wrad (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

I have a really good engraving of The Tempest, Act I, Scene I (I believe from the same set as the Coriolanus one). Would you like me to drop the other ones (Troilus and Cressida and some non-Shakespeare ones) I was going to do before it and get it done before the final FA push? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

I was able to get a really high-resolution image, so I've put it in the lead, replacing the low-res one (which I moved down). I hope noone minds. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna?

What is Rihanna doing in this entry? I quote from the Synopsis section: In another, rihanna works to establish a romantic relationship between Ferdinand and Miranda; the two fall immediately in love, but rihanna worries that "too light winning [may] make the prize light", and compels Ferdinand to become his servant, pretending that he regards him as a spy. In the third subplot, Antonio and Sebastian conspire to kill Alonso and Gonzalo so that Sebastian can become King. They are thwarted by Ariel, at rihanna`s command.

I'm guessing someone has put "rihanna" where it should say "Prospero" — can somebody who is 100% sure fix it? Ila28 (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good catch. I've fixed it. AndyJones (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GA/FA

I'm afraid that I've been off in other areas and have been absent from WP itself for a bit, after doing some work here back in, uh, February, was it? Is anyone still up for a push for FA? If so, I promise to help. It shouldn't be all that much work if there are enough people to join in, but I sort of sense that there's been a bit of drift, with a lot of anonymous IP contributions and the reinstatement of Sycorax as a character and so forth. (Oh, and I saw the RSC production with Antony Sher a couple of months ago.) Any thoughts, anyone? --GuillaumeTell 23:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be around to respond to concerns/ideas. Wrad (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, in the synopsis, does the sentence Caliban, provoked by the comeliness of Miranda, has proposed to her that they join in sexual union in order to create a new race to populate the island add anything useful? Also, it appears after the mention of attempted rape and looks as if it was just bunged in when no-one was looking (it doesn't appear in AndyJones's revised synopsis up above here.

Also, Prospero is described twice as a sorcerer and three times as a magician. Are they synonymous? Is he both or either (or neither)? I'm wondering whether either is quite right - I tend to think of sorcerers as bad and magicians as performers. The synopsis says "Possessed of magic powers due to his great learning", which is just fine, and I feel that the waters are muddied by trying to be any more specific. Further, Sorcery, Sorcerer, Magic (paranormal) and Magician (paranormal), not to mention the definitions in Wiktionary, aren't all that helpful either. --GuillaumeTell 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty much bogged down with IRL stuff, but if anyone wants to take the lead on this (for GA, FA, or just plain sprucing it up) I'll make sure to chip in where I have something to contribute. I don't have the available attention to keep the big picture in mind, but I should be able to scare up the time for various more limited tasks.

The "comely" sentence adds nothing, reads awkwardly, and should be removed in my opinion.

The description used for Prospero in Orgel pp.20–23 (aka. the Oxford)—appropriately titled Magic—conspicuously avoids summing him up in a word: it describes the use of magic, the differing interpretations of magic, the contemporary view of magic, and even quotes Kermode calling him a "theurgist"; but Orgel does not himself describe Prospero by any such noun. Vaughan and Vaughan (aka. the Arden), on the other hand, go so far as to place "as magician" as a subject under Prospero in their index, and routinely refer to him as such in the text. Personally I find the word “magician” brings to mind a contemporary stage magician—which, Orgel argues, may not be too far off the mark, by the way—and much prefer "sorcerer". On reflection I suspect Orgel's approach may be right: avoid the issue by not applying such a limited (connotationally speaking) label on the character.

Anyways, the article looks generally very good, so if we can get the band back together here a push for FA would be a good idea. --Xover (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Needed expansion

Just for reference, I've been looking around to see what we'd need to add to more or less complete this article and have come up with the following outline:

Themes and motifs

• The theatre
• Magic
• Nature vs. Nurture
• Love
• Power
• Reconciliation
• God and humanity
• Colonialism
• The storm
• Masque

Interpretation and criticism

• Genre
• Dramatic structure
• Postcolonialist
• Feminist
• Political
• Performance
• Psychoanalytic
• Postmodern

The headings in bold are already in the article, while the non-bolded ones are sections we should add (possibly not as separate sections, but they're themes or critical approaches that should be covered in there somewhere). As I'm a biography and hostory wonk, and my eyes tend to glaze over when presented with litcrit stuff, I'd be most grateful if someone else felt up to tackling this or at least chip in. My next step (unless someone else wants to step in) will be to try to populate that outline with some bullet points / keywords, and then some representative articles / essays that we can use to source them. But, again, I really wish someone better qualified for the litcrit stuff would step in here. --Xover (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Colonialism is largely the focus of postcolonialist theory, and is already covered, so I bolded it. Wrad (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I ran across a lot of masque stuff earlier, but it deals with drama theory that is a bit out of my league. Someone else should do that. Wrad (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And Performance criticism is already amply covered by the Afterlife section, so no need for a separate section on that. --Xover (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we even want to bother with the postmodernists? What little I've seen of it looks like sheer nonsense to me, and apart from summing up what postmodern criticism is I don't really see how we could write anything meaningful here. --Xover (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Date and Text

It is stated as an unreferenced fact that Heminges and Condell were the editors of the first folio. What is the evidence for this? I'm quite aware that two epistles which contain their names at the end of them appear in the folio, but for many decades there has been a strong suspicion that Ben Jonson actually wrote these epistles. I can supply references to this on request. I suggest that unless better reference can be provided, the article should not assume this potentially controversial point. For now I will not modify, but I invite discussion on this point. --BenJonson (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some discussions about that. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Push to GA

Hi all,

Wrad suggested on the WP:BARD talk page that we nominate this article at WP:GAC. It's been essentially good to go for GA for over a year and a half, so one of us will probably nominate it in the near future. Anyone have thoughts on this, please chime in asap; and if you're able to contribute during the GA review that would be great. Note that the ultimate goal here is Featured Article, and we have a todo list up above with some areas that need work for that, so please don't be shy about continuing to improve the article just because we happen to be in the middle of a GA review. --Xover (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, in the absence of protests or concerns I'll go ahead and nominate it as soon as I find the time to brush up on the procedure. --Xover (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

More copy-editing

I've just started looking at the article and have been through the lead/lede (comments welcome).

• Two things initially occur to me: first, why has the article been given an italic title? I thought that was only appropriate for certain mathematical formulae or something like that. I can't see what purpose the italics serve here. Second, a whole lot of the lead is devoted to the play's prehistory and not very much to the play itself - and then the prehistory is repeated at the start of the synopsis! This seems a very odd balance. --GuillaumeTell 17:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede was quite bad, as you note, so I've made an attempt at a better one that more accurately summarizes the entire article. It probably needs quite a bit of copy-editing and some further trimming before it's up to standard. --Xover (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved a few things around and reduced the number of examples. I've left the sources untouched, but do we need all those sources in the lead? --GuillaumeTell 16:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion, we do need mention of all those points in the part of the lede that summarizes the Sources section, but then I'm quite biased in that this is smack dab in the middle of my areas of interest. I also think getting all of Sources and Date and text (two full sections) summarized in a single paragraph that short is not bad. That being said, I suggest you apply your own best judgement about it and edit away. The lads `round here aren't usually very shy about voicing their opinions, and we can easily grab an older version from the edit history if necessary. --Xover (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I nearly forgot... I'm a little bit concerned that the bit about the commedia dell'arte structure got lost. It's one of those things that gets mentioned a lot, so it's the sort of thing that probably should be mentioned in the lede. Other than that I thought your edits were great. --Xover (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We..ell, I'm moderately familiar with the commedia dell'arte, and it seems a bit far-fetched to me - Prospero and Miranda, hmm! Stephano and Trinculo, OK, but they aren't dissimilar to characters in other Shakespeare plays. Caliban - rather a stretch. And so on. I don't know Vaughan and Vaughan, however, so maybe they make a good case, and I have no problem with the mention in the Sources section. Anyway, I'll put it back in the lead, but in a rather low-key sort of way.

"Sources" and "Date and text", yes indeed, well summarised. However, I'm still unhappy about those sections in the article itself (see my comments from 2009 way up above). I realise that these are part of the standard Shakespeare play template, but to my mind it would be better if the sections were "Sources and Date" (or "Date and Sources"), which would minimise the duplication, and "Text".

• Another thing. Prospero is now variously described as a sorcerer, a wizard and a magician. Could we settle on one? I'd go for magician, and would not favour sorcerer, which has bad connotations. Wizard has a kinda-old-fashioned sound to my ears. See discussion of this knotty point up above under the heading "GA/FA". --GuillaumeTell 17:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If "magician" sounds best (or least awkward) to you, then go for it. If we're at least consistent then it'll be easier to change later if somebody pipes up with strong feeling on the issue. The italic title was probably added in one of the periodic MOS shifts and never removed when the MOS solidified. I'd say just nuke it. --Xover (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Magician is probably best. The play never refers to him as a magician, but Prospero does describe himself as using magic. He is referred to as a sorcerer a couple of times, but that is by Caliban, his enemy. Wrad (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As regards the sections Sources and Date and text, I'm not entirely happy with them either, but mainly because they've amassed an excessive amount of waffling back and forth by the (presumably good-faith) addition of material related to the ongoing dueling between Stritmatter–Kositsky and Vaughan. This has shifted the focus from what is general scholarly opinion to almost handwaving vagueness and a blow-by-blow of their respective papers (which, while interesting and worth mentioning, are not, yet, settled sufficiently to shape this article). There is some apparent repetition between the two sections, but mainly because the same authors (Jourdain and Strachey) and titles get mentioned in both sections. They don't say the same things about those sources, so the repetition is more seemingly than actual. And the only reason they are in both sections in this article is that the specific sources used happen, in this case, to be so close in time to the play that they are critical for dating the play as well. In other words, I see your point, but I'm not sure there is much that can be done to address your concerns above just generally improving both sections (which I agree is needed).
As for the stage directions, I see how that could be confusing—and this may point out a need to be clearer about this in our prose—but the two bits of the article you reference are quite easy to reconcile. The stage directions, as we have them, may have been added by Heminges and Cundell in the First Folio because their aim was publication—the plays as literature, not performance—and they're written so as to avoid technical theatre jargon so that the general reader will be able to understand them; but they also make reference to things which would only be possible, or at least much more likely, in the smaller, but indoors, Blackfriars Theatre and not in the larger but outdoor The Globe. I'm somewhat fuzzy on the specifics, but I seem to recall lighting effects (indoor you can control them, even with just torches or oil lamps; outdoor… not so much) as one of the salient points. In any case, the stage directions are more detailed than earlier quarto editions of other plays and than other plays in the First Folio, and are written in a language that may suggest they were intended for a general reader rather than an actor, but the things the directions describe are considered more plausibly performed at the Blackfriars than the Globe. If that helps reconcile the two in your mind? --Xover (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've been looking through Lindley's edition (see below) again, I find that he attributes the stage directions to Ralph Crane... but I'm off to bed now. --GuillaumeTell 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Commedia dell'arte

cf. the thread above, for reference, here's what Vaughan and Vaughan (1999) actually say about it:

The commedia dell'arte of continental Europe was well known in England and may also have influenced Shakespeare's plot and characters. In 1934 Kathleen M. Lea made a case for his use of a scenario from the commedia dell'arte arguing that

the favourite setting is either the coast of Arcadia or a lost island; the dramatis personae consists of a magician who has a somewhat malicious interest in the love-affairs of a group of nymphs ad shepherds among whom one may be his daughter and another the lost son of the Magnifico or the Doctor who are shipwrecked onto the coast with the Zanni. The magician's attendants are satyrs, demons, or rustics of the cruder sort … At the denoument the magician discovers the relationship between himself, the lovers, and the strangers, ends the play by renouncing his magic and sometimes agrees to leave the island and return to his civic life. (Lea, 2.444–5)

The similarity to Prospero (the magician), Miranda (his daughter), Ferdinand (the son of a duke instead of a magnifico), Ariel (a benign satyr) and Caliban (a demonic and rustic attendant) is clear. Though Stephano and Trinculo obviously share the comic qualities of the zanni — Trinculo is a court jester, Stephano a comic drunk — the extent of Shakespeare's indebtedness to this continental scenario is necessarily hypothetical (see Fig. 2)

Figure 2 is «A. Younge as Stephano and H. Nye as Trinculo, with the latter wearing the customary jester's costume, uniform of the zanni (by permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library, Art File N994.3 No.1, copy 1)», and “Lea” is «Kathleen M Lea, Italian Popular Comedy, 2 vols (Oxford, 1934)» (which, I gather, is considered one of the authoritative works on the subject). But not being particularly familiar with the arte myself, I'm not really qualified to evaluate its merits. --Xover (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. My copy of the play (apart from one in a Complete Works) is David Lindley's 2002 volume in the New Cambridge Shakespeare, which I'm surprised to see doesn't figure here. He also refers to Lea (whose lectures on Milton I attended in 1964-5, BTW), and to Louise George Clubb's Italian Drama in Shakespeare's Time (1989). I've reinstated the mention in the lead. --GuillaumeTell 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

I added the illustration from Rowe's 1709 edition in place of the FF title page. Personally, I think it's a lot more interesting than the current image used for the lede, which seems plodding and static compared to the Rowe image. What say you all to using the Rowe as the lede image? I've got a much denser scan if you want me to upload it. And I've also got a colour scan if we want to show the aged paper. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would less precise references be considered an improvement?

When I wrote the first draft of what is now the "Afterlife" part of this article a few years ago, I gave page references for everything I added.

But clearly, at some time since then, someone has consolidated some of those refernces so that you end up with footnotes like:

46.^ a b c d e f g Vaughan and Vaughan (1999: 76–82).

Now, if I want to verify any of the seven facts reffed to this note, I need to scan seven pages of a book, even though Wikipedia "knows" exactly which page was the source

I can't work out why anyone thought it was worth going to the effort that was clearly required to reduce the precision of the footnotes. What's the rationale? AndyJones (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Without checking I'd guess I would be the one to blame. I've gone over all of the references to clean them up, and given my penchant for combined cites it's quite likely I did that at the same time. The rationale is that even 7 pages is not really that onerous on the reader (for GA you could theoretically get away with just citing the whole book) and it in some ways actually makes the citations more clear, and you can cite more things (a whole paragraph rather than a single sentence, say) to a single ref. But that's somewhat beside the point as, if I recall correctly, this was brought up on Romeo and Juliet and the consensus was in favour of precise refs rather than consolidated ones. If nobody beats me to it I'll try to fix it so they're better balanced next time I do a sweep through the refs (there are still a few that need tweaking before a possible future FAC). Sorry. --Xover (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. And while I was at it I made sure the direct quotations were directly cited, rather than cited by way of the general cite for the sentence. --Xover (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Remaining work

While I'm sure the various WikiDrama elsewhere has consumed everyone's attention to the point nobody noticed that this article is now a GA… :-)

…we did recently pass that milestone, and should now start giving some thought to how to bring it to Featured Article standard. To that end I'd like to remind everyone that we have a todo list in a template up at the top of this talk page that lists a bunch of stuff that should be addressed before we bring this to FAC. The various points there about Manual of Style compliance aren't necessarily all that important (it often consists of purely mechanical grunt-work), the issues related to our coverage are. One of the criteria for FA is that the article be comprehensive (unlike GA, which only requires broad coverage); and judging by what various introductory texts (the Cambridge Student Guide and the York Notes Advanced) list, we have a bunch of themes and critical approaches that we should address (because the FAC reviewers are likely to consult such and ask where the coverage is). That doesn't necessarily mean every bullet point needs to become its own section in the article; but it does mean we should be able to point at some point in the article and say that's where we cover that, or be able to defend why we don't cover a particuler approach or theme.

My main interest is in biography and related areas, and this is all litcrit stuff, so I'm in woefully over my head there (sorry). But if nobody feels able to take this on directly, what would help immensely is to list various bullet points under each that we should include; and to list sources (journal articles, say, or books) that cover that aspect. If I'm pointed at the right sources I may be able to extract some rudimentary text for the article that the rest of you can rip to shreds—:-)—rather than having to write it up from scratch.

Another big point to address, that I know the FAC reviewers will insist on, is the various more or less unmotivated lists in the article. We have several places where there's a series of bullet points inserted in the middle of a prose paragraph for no good reason, and that's guaranteed to give us flack come FAC time. These should be converted (back to?) prose and copyedited to flow well if we're to have any hope of reaching FA. I know some of the information is a bit listy by nature, but that's mainly unavoidable, and lists in prose is one of those things that we know by experience the FAC reviewers absolutely detest. --Xover (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

why are you deleting my contribution?

Dear Tom, I've tried to add a short snippet of info under the music section. (Progressive Rock album by Poor Genetic Material based on the Tempest). This is NOT spam but relevant information. I would appreciate it if you'd allow me to add the short extract you have now deleted twice. Many thanks for your help, Philip Griffiths — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliaseye (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The album has not been released yes, so your addition looks a bit like marketing. However, the group Poor Genetic Material does not even have its own page, so there is also a question of notability (ie how important this is. see WP:NOTE). I suggest you create a page on Poor Genetic Material first, and then once the material has evolved into a higher form it might become notable enough to include here. It would be perfectly OK to refer to a forthcoming album on the page on the group. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, I see your point; it is true that the band does not have a wikipedia page yet but the internet is full of references related to the band. I thought that it would be interesting to include the comment since the music was composed by Shakespeare scholars. The album will be released in February 2011; perhaps a short reference might be included then. Thanks for your consideration. Philip Griffiths

Anyone know about the Platonic soul in the Tempest?

I'm not informed enough to write on this myself, but from what I understand (1) Prospero = reason, (2) Miranda = anger, (3) Caliban = desire. Part of the intelligence to Shakespeare is the incorporation of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.119.113 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rhyme

Re: "With the character Caliban (whose name rhymes with 'Cariban' ":

Whoever wrote this apparently doesn't what the term rhymes means.

Whoever wrote this apparently doesn't what the term rhymes means... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.111.27 (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to say it twice. I've now rearranged the sentence and removed the offending word. --GuillaumeTell 10:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Prospero's Magic

An absolutely nit picky point, but Prospero's magic seems to be very occultist (based on the definition of the term). The distinction might be regarding aims and purposes. The Sycorax comparison is, of course, on point, but the terminology seems a bit misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.58.245 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

redirected this article to zh:暴風雨 (莎士比亞) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimalium (talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tuscon, Arizona Ban False

Or, at the very least, misrepresented in this article. http://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Curriculum-Materials-MAS-News-Rel.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.18 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)