Talk:Stephen Greenblatt

Tone and criticism
This article needs to be toned down considerable. Right now it reads like an uncritcal, promotional essay. Lotte Monz 15:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it was written by Greenblatt himself. While I admire the completeness of the article I question whether it's warranted given that much more important scholars barely recieve a few paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.230.63 (talk • contribs)

The article is still too hyperbolic in parts. Although a common (mis)conception, many students of theory would find it absurdly reductive to hear he 'founded' New Historicism (as just one example)! Several book-jacket-like blurbs have resurfaced under the 'quotations' section as well. As it stands at the moment, the entire section itself feels rather out of place. Heroditus13 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk about a hagiography. Will there be a section about Greenblatt's favorite restaurants as well? --69.196.140.16 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article about Greenblatt's highly questionable "Shakespeare Biography" operation (Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare), where unsupported conjectures are sold as a solid scholarly biography (mixed with factual mistakes, as Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake in Neaples, while the burning of Bruno took place in Rome). I can't see why Greenblatt should be extolled in such an enthusiastic fashion, while his shrewd commercial operation is not described for what it is. --213.140.21.227 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is in need of major revision. I think it's perfectly reasonable to include a "criticism" section containing some of the major objections to Greenblatt's scholarship (e.g., Harold Bloom's). The article is indeed hagiographic and reads like copy from one of the speaker's organizations or publishers that represents him. I seriously hope it's not Greenblatt himself editing his own page. Let's fix this. Inoculatedcities (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is (still) a joke. I'll remove the irrelevant "Literary interests, influences and personal favourites" section and make a few other small changes. Hopefully someone will add a criticism section as well. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a promotional brochure. Executive Editor at MC (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Booknotes external link
Hello - I see that this link was removed recently. I have put it back, because I want to make sure there is a discussion before removing it. It is a serious, one-hour interview with Greenblatt about his Shakespeare biography. Now, I know that there was some controversy about this book, but I still think that the link is of importance for this article. However, I am open to discussion if there are contrary views. Let's discuss. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you look at the diff you'll see I just moved it to the bibliography section. Definitely agree with you that it's a valuable interview, so I'm fine with having it in external links too! Nautica Shad es  15:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah-hah - Apologies for not looking more closely - I had never seen one of those put into a bibliography section before, but looks good to me - maybe it'll start a trend! Thanks - if you haven't happened to watch it, let me suggest you check it out and see if you find it interesting. (I liked the part where they edited together a bunch of previous Booknotes guests who all cited Shakespeare in one way or another.) KConWiki (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Pro-Zionist
added a section, headed "Controversy", in which he summarised an article by Greenblatt in the New York Review of Books as "evincing his pro-Zionist leanings". I've read that (long) article, and that summary is pure WP:SYNTH, so I removed that section with the edit summary "moved quoted article to Publications – there's no "Controversy" & Greenblatt doesn't "evince his pro-Zionist leanings." I also made numerous other improvements to the article, all of which was reverted by Masihsal with the edit summary "I have given a reference in a prestigious American paper where Greenblatt shows his pro-Zionist leanings. If truth hurts, there is no point in hiding it. It exists." I didn't remove Greenblatt's article, only Masihsal's interpretation. Instead of reverting my revert, Masihsal should have followed WP:BRD and start a discussion first; as it is now, he's started an edit war. I suggest to restore my version until sources can be found to support Masihsal's interpretation of Greenblatt's writing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Antiethical
'Some critics have charged that it is "antiethical to literary and aesthetic value ..."'. Maybe those critics meant, or maybe the writer actually wrote, "antithetical"? The source is Greenblatt, Stephen (2005). The Greenblatt Reader. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 1–3. Can anyone verify? And was it Greenblatt himself, or an editor, who wrote this? Andrew Dalby 11:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's from the marketing copy, I suspect. See his website. It may be Michael Payne (the editor) in an introduction and that bit just got lifted for the blurb, but I think just attributing it to this edition with Greenblatt as author is the least confusing option. Oh, and it is, obviously, "antithetical" and not "anti-ethical". :) --Xover (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That word got changed from "antithetical" to "antiethical" in on 4 November 2014 by User:130.226.230.7. The passage  by User:Jennifer Lynn on 10 February 2006. I suggest to change it back. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that out: I wondered, but I was too lazy to search. To judge by Google, confusion about this word is spreading. As you suggest, I've changed it back. Andrew Dalby 13:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)