Talk:Soliloquy

Suggested merger
see Talk:Monologue--Smerus 17:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Romeo, O Romeo" example of a silolquy should not be included because it counters the definition available.

-"A soliloquy is a literary device often used in drama whereby a character relates his or her thoughts and feelings without addressing any of the other characters.[1] "

Even though Juliet is talking to herself on the balcony, she is addressing Romeo and herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdroos (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I agree, this is an example of monologue, not soliloquy, and there are plenty of perfectly good and well known examples that can be used instead. I would edit, but only just made account and don't exactly know what I'm doing :p Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes in definition
The definition listed is wrong in several particulars. The term "soliloquy" comes from the Late Latin soliloquium, meaning “an act of talking to oneself” (Oxford English Dictionary). It is not necessary for the character giving a soliloquy to be physically alone on the stage, only that he/she/it utters personal thoughts aloud for the audience, without other characters being aware of what is being said.

The distinction between poetic and prose drama has nothing to do with the current, less frequent use of the soliloquy. It was the shift toward realist drama and realism in the late 18th and 19th century that “put it [the soliloquy] out of fashion” (Oxford Companion 949).

Hamlet’s lines that begin “To be, or not to be” (3.1.ff) are, in fact, the beginning of a soliloquy. Stage direction indicates that he has just entered the room. There is no indication that he is addressing (or means to address) Ophelia; Ophelia’s lines after the soliloquy: “Good my lord / How does your honour for this many a day?” (3.1.93-4) clearly show that she has not heard what Hamlet was saying during the speech. Every major edition of Hamlet and/or its primary editor, from the Norton Shakespeare, to the Riverside, to (the) Bevington, notes at some point that this speech is a soliloquy.

I should note that I am a University Shakespeare Professor, and the idea that Hamlet's speech is not a soliloquy is not an idea that is seriously considered among Shakespeare scholars.

Sources: “Soliloquy.” Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd. ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989. Print. McArthur, Tom. Ed. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.43.102 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have changed "when a character speaks to oneself", since it makes no grammatical sense whatsoever. Therefore I have changed "oneself" to the correct "himself" - the reflexive form of the third person singular, neuter, personal pronoun. Yes I know what you are thinking, but "himself" is also neuter when applied to human beings of either sex.  One should note that I am only an ordinary English speaker with an adequate grasp of the English language. That rumbling noise is Shakespeare turning in his grave ;)--62.249.233.80 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you clear something up, as an expert? The definition says that soliloquy is self-addressed monologue, which does not require the character to be alone on stage, but it doesn’t follow (if they aren’t alone) that the ‘aside’ convention applies and they can’t be overheard. What’s the basis of that further assumption?
 * ‘To be’ is a curious example. Yes Hamlet has many soliloquies but for all others he is actually alone and we don’t have to mentally apply the ‘aside’ convention. That we do so for ‘To be’ is weird: yes he’s talking as if he thinks he’s alone but (a) he’s not and (b) he might be pretending. We could clear it up if we knew what he’s saying but that’s a topic of longstanding debate. Pertin1x (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Another mistakes in definition
Is this grammatically correct?

a character speaks to themselves,

For the theological work, see Soliloquies of Augustine
Are you sure the For the theological work, see Soliloquies of Augustine is necessary? You already have a link in the See Also section, and it would be unlikely that people would confuse Soliloquies of Augustine for Soliloquy - BlueRoll18 (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Soliloquy is a singular noun in English
@Sandstein: why did you change "A soliloquy is a collection of thoughts..." to "A soliloquy are thoughts..."? A solilquy is a singular noun, the plural is "soliloquies".

Your edit states "not per the source". What source are you referring to?

- "Soliloquy in Japanese and English" uses "a soliloquy" as a singular noun (in chapter 5) - as is correct and expected.

- "The Cambridge companion to English Renaissance drama" uses "a soliloquy" as a singular noun (page 23) - as is correct and expected.

One cannot say "A soliloquy are ..." in English. One can say "A soliloquy is a collection of thoughts that are..." - but here the thoughts are the plural, the soliloquy is still singular.

One can also say in a more general statement "Soliloquies are collections of thoughts..."

...but one can't start the sentence with "A soliloquy..." and then switch to the plural and continue with "...are..."

If English is not your first language then one would understand the error but please explain and clarify your edit so we can fix this.

Thank you. 99.4.120.135 (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've rearranged the lead sentence. "A collection of thoughts" is inelegant; one does not collect thoughts.  Sandstein   10:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That's better... but others who have published on "a collection of thoughts" clearly show that it is a well known idiom. Wikipedia is not really the place for you to practice learning English. Google: a collection of thoughts 99.4.120.135 (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Illustration
I inserted a drama related illustration and it was reverted. I also attempted to give a broader context of Soliloquy beyond the narrow focus of drama and that too was reverted as Not dict. The reverter has not returned to discuss so I will propose the illustration here. The caption could be changed, or another illustration more appropriate proposed... or no illustration.
 * Support illustration as proposer. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We don't need a picture for the sake of a picture. What the statue says is difficult to read unless one clicks on the image. A better picture would be of an actor performing an actual soliloquy.  Sandstein   14:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. I see your point here. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Lemma (morphology)
@Lightburst: What exactly is the connection between the topic of this article and Lemma (morphology), which you have linked to in the "See also" section?  Sandstein  14:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have erased the See also. I see this term as narrowly defined - as it is now it is exactly a drama definition. It is duplicative to create another article with other uses. I see the same content dispute on the other article Wagon Fort. As it is Circle the wagons redirects there, but is not defined as the idiom that it is. The historical uses, it is again duplicative to create another article on the topic. There seems to be room in this article to add further uses. So etymology and historic uses of the two seem appropriate. I recently pointed you to Feeding Frenzy to see an example. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)