Talk:Troilus and Cressida

Troilus and Cressida in the First Folio
This article claims that the play is present in the First Folio. I was recently looking in my Facimilie, and I Troilus and Cressida is not present in my table of contents. Here is a link to a a First Folio table of contents image.

Perhaps Troilus and Cressida was in one of the following Folio editions? Is anyone familiar with the issue?

I see this is an old comment, but since nobody ever responded, I figure it might be good to clarify, seeing as how this is at the top of the talk page. Though you're correct about it not appearing in the ToC, it is still contained in the Folio. If you look through the facsimile, you should see its as the first play in the tragedies section. It was originally set to be published at the end of the section, but copyright issues held things up and Timon of Athens took its spot there, and it looked for a time like they wouldn't be able to include the play in the collection. The copyright issues were cleared up later on in the process, but after the table of contents was already set at that point (hence why it is not listed there) and inserted in the beginning of that section instead. The First Folio entry also provides details on this discrepancy. 68.192.212.80 (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Achilles Gay?
I choose to comment here rather than at the Elibethan Project because I couldn't easily locate the place to comment there.

I've just seen a staging of Troilus and Cressida that portrays the relationships between Achilles and Patroculus as a sexual one. Not knowing the play, I thought that this might be another Director trying to stretch a point, but the dialogue fitted the idea so well that I was surprised instead by how explicit and perhaps homophobic Shakespeare's language was. Thersites actually calls Patroclus a male whore (a comment not remarkable for its vitriol as Thersites doesn't seem to like anyone, but it does seem to reinforce the point).

Yet when I read the reviews--like the one here explicitly commenting on the sexuality in the play--there is no mention of it. 207.81.127.107 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because this article is too short and not very good! Achilles and Patroclus are certainly accused of being lovers in the play. Whether they are is open to debate, but I believe most major stage productions have presented them so. Barney Jenkins 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thersites
What????? In the play it is never commented that he is "ugly" perhaps as an insult but in actuality, he is a FOOL, a JESTER. Please let me know if you find otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.65.228 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 April 2007
 * Thersites, an ugly and abusive low-class person
 * I think it's a fair description. Other characters certainly refer to him as ugly, such as Ajax's humorous threat "I will beat thee into handsomeness!" It's not uncommon in Shakespeare, as in much old literature, for the physical appearance of characters to cue the readers or audience to their internal quality. Thersites is basically a social outcast, though I wouldn't be surprised if he was one of Shakespeare's favorite characters in the play. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Faithful to the Iliad?
the wiki article seems to present the play as being very faithful to the iliad however is there not some major differences? like the way in which Hector is killed for instance. or the portrayal of Achilles.
 * You are definitely right. Wrad (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section
This bit is a stub entry for now. Needs some extra work to add notable 'outside' references in modern culture.

York Shakespeare Project material
At the end of the Performance History section, there's currently a paragraph about the York Shakespeare Project's production of this play that is, I think, clearly an advertisement for this production; it includes dates of the run and a full-text link to the project's site. Under WP:ADVERT, I'm removing this paragraph. If anyone disagrees with this move, feel free to revert. --AgonRex (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible Copypaste Comment
I tagged the plot summary section because it appears to be a possible copypaste from Sparknotes' summary. However, I can't tell if Sparknotes copied Wikipedia or the reverse. Geoff Who, me? 17:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ulysses or Odysseus
In all the editions that I have ever seen, the character is named "Ulysses". The only time I saw him referred to as "Odysseus" was here, in this Wikipedia article. Isn't "Ulysses" more commonly found? Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it the Odyssey or the Ulyssey ? Therein lies your answer, perhaps ... 210.22.142.82 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The original Greek name is Odysseus, Ulysses is a Latin variation. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge The Face of Love (1954 film)?
I am concerned about the content of The Face of Love (1954 film), even when the TV film adaptation might be "notable". As is, the content is short... well, not stubby. However, amount of sources describing the adaptation is small. I believe that it can become part of the article's "Adaptations" sections. Pinging BD2412 and In ictu oculi about this. --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC); edited. George Ho (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is enough content to support a freestanding article. I'm fine either way. bd2412  T 01:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It should remain free-standing like all other Shakespeare play-based adaptations, not just a simple production. It's a notable modern adaptation by a notable dramatist presented on TV and theatre with notable actors and directors. See other Shakespeare-play based films and adaptations. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merging it into the play article is tantamount to deletion: there is simply so much to cover for Shakespeare's plays that only the few adaptations that the major critical editions call out as particularly notable will survive (or at least, that's my experience based on the Shakespeare project's two play FAs: Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet). On whether to keep it as a standalone article I would lean on GNG; but, without really looking at this particular one, my experience is that most such adaptations have enough coverage to survive at AfD. That being said, I don't particularly have an opinion on this film: I don't think there's any real problem with leaving it alone, but will also probably never miss it if goes (one way or the other). --Xover (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Each should keep its own separate page. The film page can be built up. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep separate per the previous comments - especially those by . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Plot
I tagged less plot. reverted. Not so with Shakespeare, quotha. MarnetteD evidently likes to whelm in superfluity. MarnetteD likes the plot to explain that there is an actor who is wearing a costume. MarnetteD is an expert. "All things invite To peaceful Counsels, and the settl'd State Of order, how in safety best we may Compose our present evils, with regard Of what we are and were, dismissing quite All thoughts of warr: ye have what I advise." Untitled50reg (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

World Shakespeare Festival 2012 production
The article states that this production by The Wooster Group is "The most famous production of this play in recent years". It isn't. The supplied reference is still online here and the show isn't even mentioned. I'm minded to delete this as Wikipuffery.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's Michael Billington's real review: "[…] a bizarrely disjointed spectacle". Deleted.--AntientNestor (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Now reinstated, without the puffery and with an academic reference.--AntientNestor (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)