Talk:Bertolt Brecht/Archive 2

Dubiousness of BBs Communism
Several places in the article lays very heavy emphasis on Brechts purported communism. I believe this to be misplaced and misleading. Please consider the following aspects of BBs biography:

1) A well known Brecht remark criticising the East German government: At one point the government expressed consternation at protests by East German workers, stating that the population would now have to work twice as hard to regain the confidence of the government. BBs wry remark was: "Why doesn't the government dissolve the population and elect a new one"?

2) Brecht initially expressed great enthusiasm for US society upon arriving as a refugee. It was only after the humiliation of being called to account for his alleged anti-American activities that he became more critical.

3) Whatever his ideas about how to arrange society, in his personal dealing BB was cutthroat businessman, with many collaborators complaining that he took advantage of them.

Usually people who push the notion of BB's communism point to his time in East Berlin running a theatre. But other observers point out that there was likely to have been a good measure of calculation and opportunism in this decision: Brecht liked the idea of managing his own theater, and the DDR was paying..

Brecht certainly was sympathic to some socialist ideals, but to present him as a revolutionary or an uncritical mouthpiece for party propaganda is definitely a misrepresentation. For these reasons, I am tempted to emend the text at least to present the alternative viewpoint. In keeping with standard practice, I'm asking for opinions first.

--Philopedia 05:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly. Many of the aspects of the article you're referring to were added by an editor who, from what I can see, appears stuck in McCarthy's USA waving a wee stars and stripes flag. The communist party links are there to discredit, I believe, and to enable a Cold War rhetoric. I certainly wouldn't endorse the Esslin-style depoliticization, but as you say the relation to the Party is dubious at best. Be Bold, and edit! DionysosProteus 11:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement, DionysosProteus. Three months have passed since I brought up the issue and no one has expressed a conflicting viewpoint. Today I made some modest adjustments to moderate the emphasis, POV and speculation. If no one speaks up, I may feel encouraged to make further changes.

--Philopedia (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I must agree. My mother (Sorrel Carson) and father (John Hanau) worked with Brecht in East Berlin and as a child I met Brecht and Lotte Lenya (they actually signed the wall of a room in our flat in East Berlin). Sorrel was assisting Brecht with the translation of Playboy of the Western World and my (director) father was directing at the Deutsches Theater and involved with the Berliner Ensemble.

Brecht told my father that he was very concerned about the direction that the East German Communist Party was heading and indicated that like my father "his political leanings were now towards Anarcho Syndicalism" (my father confided in me later).

Shortly after that meeting my father made remarks that offended the communist authorities (he loved offending any authority whatsoever) but having left Berlin to holiday with a mistress in Capri (he also had a wonderful sense of timing), the Stasi arrested and later deported myself (age about 7) and my mother.

It would be interesting if anyone here has access to the extensive surviving Stasi records to see how they viewed his (Brecht's) politics.

P. S. From what I now know it is highly probable that the Stasi had bugged our apartment (just near the rebuilt Stalinallee - I forget the actual street name and number) and so it is just possible a transcript of the conversation between my father and Brecht exists in their records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimulti (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit much, no?
Would someone mind changing "Olga Taxidou offers a perspicuous account" in the Biblio #3 a bit? Using "perspicuous" on Wikipedia is a little obtuse and grandiose (ha). Not to mention, the word means "clear, obvious, lucid, etc" so really, it seems out of place to tart it up so much--meaning NO offense at all to the editor. "Straight-forward" might work--I didn't want to change it myself, because I haven't read the piece, and I don't quite understand what the original editor meant. I know it's minor, but it was bugging me. Thanks. Kyraven (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It was a moment of madness. Changed to "critical". DionysosProteus (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Difficulties of style
There are a lot of interesting things in the article. However I consider the style too difficult for an encyclopedia. I have a doctorate and there are sentences I don't understand. So, if someone would like to make an effort - the article needs to be more accessible to the General reader. "Procrustean" and other such vocabulary can be avoided. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The majority of technical terms in the intro (taking no responsibility for content halfway through onwards) are wikilinked and all the intro material was taken from introductions to the subject in other works (see note #1). I'm sure the phrasing could be improved, but the aesthetic and cultural terms are important. The introduction attempts to place him in his relevant context and to mention the main ideas and practices. The example you give--"procrustean"--is not part of the article, strictly speaking, as it comes within a quotation from Willett that explains part of the context/significance (and only appears in the article in a footnote). While we may or may not excuse Willett his verbal flourish, we can't really change it (unless someone else has said more or less the same thing in a simpler way). I used the source I had to hand. Feel free to offer as many examples as you think necessary - that'll give a clearer idea of the specific sentences that could be looked at. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've spent a little while copy-editing the Introduction. I've wikified a lot more of it, trying not to assume familiarity with any critical term. The same material is there, but I think it's a little more readable. Also expanded the list of influences (Karl Korsch, Mei Lanfang, Frank Wedekind) and added those practitioners discussed in the "Brecht's Legacy" essay of the Cambridge Guide (essay by Michael Patterson). Also added those critical theory philosophers influenced by him (Louis Althusser & Roland Barthes). The old image had some copyright concerns, so I've replaced it with a free one from the commons. Take a look at the new version and see if that has helped. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Children
Shouldn't the eldest son, Frank (1920-1943) be mentioned in the introductory table as well as his three other children? The German wiki has a short article on Frank's mother, Paula Banholzer. Katie1971  (  Let's talk!!  ) 16:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Adding him now. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Theory Wrong!
The first sentence in the theory part is totally wrong and must be changed. In organum, he says the only purpose of the theater is to entertain. I could only find this page to report it and make it changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.213.182 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the whole theory section is as dodgy as a threepenny note. Haven't got around to that bit yet. Last time I had any time for the article, I was working my way through chronologically. Reached Threepenny so far. Most below that needs serious attention. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A piece by an hitheto unknown author attributed to Brecht
Perhaps someone wishes to incorporate the information in the following article in the biography:


 * Fundstük in Alter Zeitung: Wissenschaftler entdeckt bislang unbekannten Brecht-Text (Finding in Old Newspaper: Scientist discovers an hitherto unknown text by Brecht), Saturday, June 21, 2008, Spiegel Online.

Kind regards, --BF 12:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

Image copyright problem with Image:Dreigroschenoper.JPG
The image Image:Dreigroschenoper.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits to early life section
I've cleaned up the early life section, making the following changes: Removing unsourced (and US biased) statement about schools; correcting Kutscher's name to as it appears in sources; removing duplicated material on Valentin and that which narrated deleted image; kept claim about numerous visits to Valentin, but requested a citation; removed unused name for Drums (belongs on the play's page); removed this note - I'm sure it's true, but needs a source; moved McDowell citation into biblio and adopted author-date MLA system; trimed the detail about Barbershop - most of it belongs on (and is on) that article's page; turned that citation into author-date format; differentiated between Marlowe's and Brecht's plays; removed duplicate (and fuzzier) info on directorial debut (first solo, not first).

I've tried to turn this citation into MLA author-date, and realised it's missing a lot of information. I've not cut the info it gives yet:


 * Culbert, David. 1995. "Article title?." Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television volume:number (March): page start-page end.
 * [Bibliographic information on this article is missing at present - need article title, is this the author of article?, and page numbers]

DionysosProteus (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

grave picture
Is it just me, or is the grave picture an obvious fake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaj11 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean File:Brechtgrave.jpg, uploaded by in January 2006? Given File:Grab-Brecht-Weigel.JPG (see right), I doubt it's a fake. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDb as a source
IMDB is not a reliable source for biographies as per Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5 and numerous other discussions at that notice board. Please stop adding material cited from there. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
I'm curious to know why "alienation effect" is a mistranslation of "defamiliarization effect" or "estrangement effect." I don't understand how it can be called a mistranslation when they basically seem to mean the same thing, at least denotation-wise. Their connotation may be slightly different, but only slightly. This may be the wrong place to address this, I don't know. 75.65.19.49 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See the article alienation for an explanation. Alienation (Entfremdung) is an effect of the capitialist mode of production (which turns objectification into alienation). Brecht's practice hopes to contribute to undoing/countering of this effect. Hence, Brecht's term (Verfremdung) is an "anti-alienation" or "de-alienation". Not only does the bad translation invite confusion between the Marxist and the intended sense (dangerous enough with a Marxist practitioner), but to the casual reader it suggests that the intended effect on the audience is that they should feel "alienated"--in this sense of the word--which is, of course, complete nonsense.


 * The key sense for Brecht's term is that "that which is familiar to us (so much so that we barely notice it anymore) should become strange." Now, that would suggest "estrangement" as the most-appropriate translation, but I would suggest that it isn't. This is because "making strange" is a strategy that you may find in many other modernist approaches--most obviously, in the surrealists. They too make the familiar seem strange (for example, Salvador Dali's lobster telephone). Brecht's sense, however, involves a crucial second stage: in the wake of the familiar becoming unfamiliar, it is then recognised within its place in a system of social relations (this is why defamiliarisation is closely related to Gestus). In other words, for the audience, it is a two-fold experience: at first, we feel astonishment at something, then we gain knowledge about it. The Surrealist strategies do not 'follow through' with this second stage. Defamiliarisation dislocates something from its familiar associations and meanings (on the illusory surface appearance of reality) in order to reinscribe it in its true meanings (in the deep structures of reality as constituted by the social production and its relations). DionysosProteus (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Brecht in Asia
I find it strange that Brecht was involved enough in East Asia that an entire Brecht in/and Asia Conference can be held, and yet none of the words China, Japan, or Korea appear anywhere in this article. I know very little about the subject, but gather from the fact that such a conference exists that there must be a huge lacuna in this Wiki article's coverage. I wonder if someone might be able to expand it... I'd do something myself, but I truly have no knowledge or experience of the subject, and I'm sure there must be Brecht fans out there with more interest... LordAmeth (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a huge lacuna. Brecht set some of his dramas in the "East", but like the "West" in his plays, this isn't an historical but a greatly fictionalised location for him. Brecht is also part of the set of practitioners influenced by Mei Lanfang (observed during his visit to the Soviet Union, with Meyerhold, Eisenstein and others). Hence the observations on Chinese acting. Brecht's influence, though, like that of comparable theatre practitioners (such as Stanislavski) is global. There is far more important material missing from the article at present, I would suggest, though it could easily form a section at some point. Antony Tatlow's work would provide an important starting-point. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cold War Trims
I assume that "who transformed his German statements into English ones unintelligible to himself" should read "who "transformed his German statements into English ones unintelligible to himself."" This is an indirect quotation, isn't it?

I removed the following sentence from the section about Brecht and Karl Korsch--"he argued that communism was the only reliable antidote to militarist fascism and spoke out against the remilitarization of the West and the division of Germany"--because I couldn't determine who "he" was intended to be (Brecht or Korsch?). Feel free to paste it back in and replace the "he" if you know who it is. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quoted Poem
I find it strange and dubious that the only quoted poem of Brecht happens to be one of his few critical of communist leadership. I saw this mentioned somewhere else and its a very valid point. For a commited left winger and a supporter of the East German government (unfortunately) this seems quite POV. I suggest we replace it with a quote more in keeping with his style and his beliefs. Although I have to say the poem that I believe in unsuitable here (or unsuitable if it is the only quoted Brecht), to be one of my favourites and I actually agree with his indignation. But we have to be fair, we have to represent Brecht fairly. Alot of his poetry was strongly pro-communist, and so the current quoted poem is giving a false impression to the new reader. Best wishes,ValenShephard 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is no serious opposition I will be bold and remove the poem, or include some of his other fine poetry, which more accurately represent the trends in his work.ValenShephard 23:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that another user above me mention this issue. The user had support from another user. ValenShephard 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I will of course keep that he criticised (and his opinions on) the handling of the uprising which are fascinating and valid. ValenShephard 23:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ValenShephard - It's advisable to add a citation tag after unreferenced useful info than delete it (as in different country's perception of Brecht). Very little of this article is referenced. If we took out everything uncited we'd have nothing left (as with many articles at the moment, though things slowly improve). If you think there's a misrepresentation here, better to find a good source for the contradiction and add it in. Spanglej (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yes you are right, but potentially libellious statements, or very arguable ones, should be removed as I did. But I get your main argument and I agree. But you didnt talk about the poem?ValenShephard 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In what way is the poem libellious? Or have I not followed the discussion correctly? In general, along with the comments made further above, there is a misrepresentation of Brecht's views here. He was critical of party leadership and direction throughout his career. It's one of the reasons why he never joined up. I would suggest that your portrait has more in common with the cold-war American portraits (unfortunately perpetuated in a most-uncritical fashion by Fuegi more recently) than an accurate assessment of the man and his work. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ValenShephard, I've restored the poem as part of my cleaning up edit. The argument that you've offered for it's removal is highly dubious and ignores the fact that it comes as part of a paragraph discussing Brecht's response to the political events that form the subject of the poem, not an assessment of his overall contribution to poetry. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ... wow, you were a little quick to revert there. There was no talk comment because I was still writing it... DionysosProteus (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is misleading because, although like I said it is one of my favourite poems of his and is relevant to the section, because it is the only poem quoted in the whole article it doesn't give a good impression of his work. Yes he was critical of so called communist leadership, but this is often confused with general criticism of communism (the two are sometimes interchangable). So I find it misleading. I would prefer another of his poems to be quoted somewhere, which maybe represents his political beliefs or philosophy, not just his comments on an event. ValenShephard (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't answer an objection by ignoring it completely. The poem is not offered as a representative sample of the ideological perspective of his poetry. I assume this is what you mean by "a good impression of his work." It is clearly and unambigiously offered as part of an assessment of his attitudes to the events of the uprising. It would be highly POV to misrepresent the range of responses to those events that he had. And your arguments are attempting to conflate Brecht's commitment to Marxism with an unwavering support for the East German government on the basis that these things are "often confused." They are? By whom? What evidence do you have for such confusion? In what way precisely are the two "sometimes interchangeable"? This poem is a clear and unambiguous expression of his political beliefs and philosophy. It is in no meaningful way distinct from that present in any of his other poems or works. The only thing it is distinct from is the letter of public support published in the newspaper. With which it, in fact, is being directly compared in the article. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I didnt say anything about trying to link his Marxism with support for the east german regime. What did I ignore? I must have missed something. What I mean by interchangable is that criticism, in the western media (don't pretend this isn't well known) of communism is offered as a criticism of self proclaimed communist regimes. Criticism of communism sometimes masquerades as criticism of regimes. And it works the other way too. So when Brecht cricitises a 'communist' regime, to many readers I suspect, it can be taken as a criticism of communism, which is not representative of Brecht. Why didn't you mention my suggestion of adding another poem? ValenShephard (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, what you're ignoring is demonstrated by your final question: you are ignoring the context of the poem in the article. The context is a discussion of "Brecht's reactions to the events of the uprising." The poem forms part of that discusion. It is, to repeat, not being offered as a representative sample--which is why your suggestion of another poem is entirely besides the point (yes, certainly, if you want to write a critical assessment of Brehct's poetic corpus, by all means do that, it would be an important part of the article). That you consider it "unrepresentative" of his work has more to do with your own misunderstanding of the poem and Brecht's work more generally than an accurate assessment of that poem's relationship to his writing. Your suggestions about the collapse of the distinction make no sense to me. Your suspicions about how readers understand the poem, ditto. Unless, that is, you are editing this article in the depths of a nuclear bunker somewhere in the mid-West during the 1950s. In which case, relax, the world isn't black and white, and neither is the position of world-famous dramatists in communist countries during the Cold War. The paragraph as a whole, the letter in the newspaper and the subsequent poem, make that complexity perfectly clear, as far as I can see. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is a misunderstanding here. Yes, he was generally critical of estern european regimes and it is relevant in the section, but I am thinking of the bigger picture. The poem is representative of his criticism of the eastern regimes, which is true, but because its the only poem there is it representative of his poetic output? I don't think so, thats all I meant. You say it is not being offered as a representative sample, and thats true, it isn't intentionally being offered as such. But by defintion, by being the only poem in the article, it is offered as the only representation of his poetry and political ideas (in poetry). And that is simply misleading. ValenShephard (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In what way, precisely, do you understand this poem to not be representative of his poetry? The manner of its presentation in the context of the article makes the sense in which it is offered entirely clear. There is nothing "misleading" in that. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on, you're a clever person, are you going to argue that one poem can ever be representative of anyone? Especially someone with such a high output as Brecht? ValenShephard (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about why the poem should be included in the article--that is perfectly clear from its context. We are discussing your proposal that this poem's presence is misleading because it is unrepresentative. I have been demonstrating that a) it's not offered as a representative example of his poetry but rather as part of a disussion of his responses to the uprising (relevant quotation from his letter is included, so quotation from his poem that contrasts with it is also relevant); and b) that your arguments about why this poem isn't representative are confused and based on misunderstandings. There is nothing unusual in this poem by Brecht as compared with any other you care to choose. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The poem is representative of one issue, and is representative of his feelings on that single issue. That is my problem, which you seem to inflate and take for more than it really is.


 * Because only one poem, representative of only one event, one period and one current running in Brecht's thought, is not representative of his whole output as a poet or of the whole of his political ideas. In that sense, more poetry has to be included, which represents his ideas on more than one issue. Pretty simply argument I think. ValenShephard (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is when you change it from a proposal to delete to a request for more. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I stopped wanting a delete about 2/5 through this discussion. ValenShephard (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unbiasedness
You need negative criticism as well as positive criticism of Bertolt Brecht work in this article.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

25 August 2011 edits
I've tried to tackle the issue of the over-long introduction (and have removed the tag warning about this) by taking the previous introduction text down into the lower sections to which it seems to apply.

I have no specialist knowledge of Brecht (or indeed theatre theory and forms) so I hope I've done the best job that I can. If others know more, please do make any adjustments.

My personal reflection is that this article still has too much information in and that some of the detail should be moved out of an encyclopaedic article (which should just be summary and signposting) and left to follow up in the references - or more detailed articles - if that is appropriate. Too much of this article seems to me to read like a student essay. However, I'm not an expert in this area so I'll leave this to those who know better.

I hope my edits help improve clarity.

Jpmaytum (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The article needs work, no doubt. Span (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

29 September 2011: Dramaturgic
Maybe this is obnoxious and maybe I shouldn't even be asking, but I thing the repetitive use of the word "Dramaturgic" is bad in 2 respects. 1) We use oit too often so it just sounds a bit repetitive. 2) It's a very complex word. The vast majority of Wikipedia users - while they are smart to some degree at the very least - will not know what that word means. They may very easily be able to figure it out of the see similar sentence that use either a word or phrase synonymous to it, but the repetition makes it even harder to deceiver. I bring this up because it's wikipedia's job to educate the world the masses through a free, online encyclopedia. I hope this is viewed in positive light as an improvement to the site, as opposed to criticism (granted it is constructive criticism). -[User:Lanejlubell]
 * I count nine occurrences of dramaturge/dramaturgy, most of them linked to the relevant articles which will explain to the interested reader their meaning. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it will encourage them to use a dictionary. Span (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple suggestions for restructuring this article
I think that this article could reach B-class (maybe even GA status) with a little work. Looking it over, it seems (to me, at least) that it could use a few specific changes: Just to be totally clear, I'm not making these suggestions in order to barge into an article that I haven't really yet contributed to and tell people what needs to be done. These are what strike me as areas that could stand improvement, and I'm putting them down here to see what others think, in order to start the consensus process for improving this article. I hope to have some time to contribute to this article over the next several months. What do others think about this article? Sindinero (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead could be expanded (the lead of FAs on writers is generally pretty substantial, see e.g. James Joyce).
 * The references could be made uniform (for an article with this many citations, I find Harvard citations particularly useful in that they give a good oversight, but any standard will do).
 * The "primary sources" and "secondary sources" should be reorganized into "references" (used in the article) and "further reading" (not used in the article); otherwise, it suggests original research.
 * "Theory and practice of theatre" should, in my opinion, be expanded and restructured into a section called something like "literary work" with subsections on BB's theory, plays, poetry, and novels. The lack of a discussion of his poetry is a big gap in this article.


 * Go for it. No serious work has been done on the article for a long time. Your suggestions sound good to me. Span (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Polyamorous?
There is a discussion as to whether Brecht belongs in List of polyamorists and Category:Polyamorous people at Category talk:Polyamorous people. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems quite simple to me: the category only applies if there are reliable sources describing Brecht as polyamorous; otherwise it's synthesis or original research. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't know of policy precedent that addresses this for polyamory, Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality comes awfully close to addressing this, and perhaps should be extended to either include polyamory, or appropriately distinguished. I don't really have an opinion on this, but you might want to consider hitting the WikiTalk page there to get a more general consensus.  Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 06:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether he 'belongs' in the list but whether there are rock solid sources stating this. Andrew has added the cat to many other articles. All would need good refs. EGRS says the subject must self identify and "Categories that make allegations about sexuality... are not acceptable under any circumstances." Span (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a special argument for polyamory is needed at EGRS. As Spanglej points out, without rock solid sources or self-identification, the category and list entries ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, yep. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Mysterious travel Finland-USA
Brecht lives in Finland and surprisingly we find him in the USA. A black hole inbetween.Xx236 (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose herewith that Brecht's poetry be merged into Bertold Brecht. The article on the poetry is organized as an essay, the title is not properly formatted, hints of violating policies regarding original research. Currently there is very little discussion of Brecht's poetry at the Bertold Brecht biography article--a rather strange omission that stands out given is prominence in early 20th century poetry. Join the discussion and vote below.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Merger as nom. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Finland?
I'm not doubting that he was in Finland but some explanation of why he ended up there, of all places, would be useful. On the face of it Finland seems an unsafe refuge for an anti-Nazi since Finland was allied with Germany at that time against the Soviets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.71.67 (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Brecht's plays
Why does Fail-apedia have an article on every episode of The Simpsons but not all of Brecht's plays? The Beggar (play) does not even have a stump, it just redirects to the main article on Brecht. Why does anyone take Fail-apedia seriously? 72.84.198.14 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is stopping you from writing the article(s) since it is clearly important to you. There are plenty of people around here that can guide you. Regards,   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 18:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Literature on Brecht
Here are only "secondary sources". If one wants to know something biographical about Brecht, her sould perhaps read ''BERTOLT BRECHT A Literary Life'', by Stephen Parker. --13Peewit (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem with references
December 2014 - this article has major issues with its references, namely that a number of them are nothing more than surnames followed by years and page numbers (sometimes not even that). This is in dire need of correction, so I've added a clean-up tag and will check back later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobrot (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Claims of Marxism
"...was a German poet, playwright, theatre director, and Marxist." lacks parallelism. "Marxist" isn't a profession or occupation; the others are. It should be "German Marxist...." (or perhaps "Marxist German"). 88.120.130.106 (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've noticed the accusation of  Marxism  is peppered throughout this article and no references are provided for this claim. I know he was accused under the McCarthy Trials but even THEY had difficulty proving the accusation, so I'm not sure why wikipedia has picked it up and run with it. Here is Brecht denying it himself so it seems a very strange opinion for wikipedia to take. --Jobrot (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone has at some point vandalized the article to make Brecht look Communist: "Dressed in overalls and smoking an acrid cigar that made some of the committee members feel slightly ill" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bertolt_Brecht&oldid=639379647 - contrary to the fact that there are photos and videos showing him in a 3 piece suit at the hearings.


 * There is lots of confusion here among "Marxist", "communist," and "Communist Party member." Brecht was obviously a Marxist from around 1930 onward, and probably a communist, too; but those are philosophies, not organizations, and thus matters of opinion. He told HUAC that he had never been a member of the Communist Party, which is plausible. If there is evidence to the contrary, it should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoAdamite (talk • contribs) 15:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Name
The article does not say when or why Brecht altered his original forename from "Berthold" to "Bertolt". It would be worth adding this information if possible. Tim riley (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It does - third paragraph of the biography - when he started his journalism career. I seem to remember he felt it was more "punchy" or something like that, but I'd have to go dig in the biographies to confirm that.  • DP •  {huh?} 12:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa! Thanks for this. I have since read elsewhere (though not in a citable reliable source) that he changed it to a less German form "as he wanted to be identified with the heroes of American literature he so greatly admired". But if you have access to biographies it would be interesting to have this point covered in the article at some point. Tim riley (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It says: "Brecht changed his first name from Berthold to Bertolt to rhyme with Arnolt." Meaning to produce an eye-rhyme, perhaps? Because you say, "Berthold" is pronounced "Bertolt" and thus already rhymed with "Arnolt". 109.148.217.83 (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people pronounce "Bertold" and "Bertolt" differently, but your point of "eye-rhyme" is probably true. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bertolt Brecht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090204060105/http://banglapedia.search.com.bd:80/HT/F_0076.htm to http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/F_0076.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

He Lives? No, he's dead, Jim.
Vandalism continues?

"This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (December 2014)"

He died in 1956. News travels slowly in the west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renglish (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bertolt Brecht. 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 tag to http://wiu.edu/users/brecht10/brecht_english/brecht_chronology.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907042404/http://mobydicks.com/lecture/Brechthall/messages/70.html to http://mobydicks.com/lecture/Brechthall/messages/70.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Berthold Brecht in Finland
In the summer of 1938 I remember that my uncle, Laurin Zilliacus arrived at our summer house Dåvits with Berthold Brecht and his family. They remained in Finland during the war and Brecht's son went to my uncle's Swedish language school in Helsinki. After the War The Brecht family emigrated to the US. Patrick W. Zilliacus2605:E000:5ADB:9800:3521:A63E:AA47:3A18 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bertolt Brecht. 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/20070117022852/http://german.lss.wisc.edu/brecht/ to http://german.lss.wisc.edu/brecht/

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) 14:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits on 14 June 2009
Could someone please review these three edits from 14 June 2009:
 * by 76.178.233.19
 * Why exactly isn't Verfremdungseffekt part of the header to this article? Mrspaceowl (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC) (Sinebot is an abomination)

Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * by 92.28.33.227
 * by 92.28.33.227
 * I reverted to the last stable version as these appear to be pointy edits or vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be pretty difficult to have made this article any more useless. Does anyone want to edit it who actually has knowledge of Bertold Brecht, his works and his actual importance to theatre and influence upon it? Mrspaceowl (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a good page, I think it should mention Whisky Bar and Mack the Knife - they're arguably more well-known than any of the rest of his canon. I don't really know where to put it though. Bokononist (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous Foregrounding of Brecht's Supposed Marxism
Why in all that is holy and unholy should we be foregrounding whether or not this remarkable theatre practitioner may or may not have been Marxist? It's ok as an aside but it seems this whole article fails catatrophically to understand the importance of the work and instead focuses on a (currently) populist idea to the point of obscuring his real notability. You really have to drill down here to get anything of worth: it's a total shit-show abortion of an article. Mrspaceowl (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * To my mind, the only answer needed to your question comes from Brecht himself: "When I read Marx's Capital, I understood my plays. Marx was the only spectator for my plays I'd ever come across." -- HeighHo  talk 01:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Remark
Most of Berthold Brechts work was pro communist, but one poem. Surprisingly this in the only poem of Brecht quoted. I think this should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.52.186.40 (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just fyi if you post without the login people will start nmapping your IP address just to be jerks. Mrspaceowl (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * He wrote many very good poems, but this user is on the right track. This anti-SED poem was written, could then only be written to amuse Brecht himself (and maybe his closest friends), for the archives or even the waste paper bin. It was writen from true anger, but perhaps also intended to present him as a good guy in the eyes of the West and of future generations. Which, Wikipedia shows, did work.
 * It was first published by the anticommunist Springer newspaper Die Welt, in December, 1959. Then in Frankfurt/Main in 1964 (by Suhrkamp, whom Brecht had sold the rights to) and in 1969 for the first time in the GDR, in Vol. 7 of Brecht's Collected Poetry, thanks to Helene Weigel (and to the Suhrkamp rights).--Radh (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that this poem is anti-communist? The principle of self-governance by the people is one of its core principles--indeed, unlike Western "democracy" it demands social control over production by the people. Communism also promotes the dissolution of the State. The poem makes clear the East German's government's departure from communist ideals. It is critical of the government, not Marxism. Radh, your phrase "perhaps also intended" gives the game away--it's pure fantasy on your part. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

After the poem I suggest we add: "Brecht never published the poem in his lifetime.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)"
 * It's mention at the poem's article, Die Lösung. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1988, MiNr Block 091.jpg