User talk:Nealthane/Greek tragedy

Good addition of your citation, Nealthane! I know that the section you added is moreso commentary about your source and its contributions, but just remember that when you're drafting your edits and additions, you'll want to avoid words like 'interestingly', and just present the author's argument/contribution to the field as clearly and plainly as possible. Keep up the good work! Gardneca (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello, I will be adding my version of your paragraphs with minor edits and suggestions. I will put my edits and the parts I am confused with in bold letters.

Demos: An Exploration of People and Democracy in Greek Tragedy
It is difficult (you are adding your idea when you say it is difficult and not give a citation to refer it as somebosy else's idea, therefore you might want to change this part of add it after a thought with citations) to determine what role the audience might play in a Greek Tragedy. Often, it comes down to a question whether allowing for any role at all might break that constructed theatrical illusion or whether the intention is just that, to have the audience partake in the act as if they were part of it[1]. Interestingly, one such article, "The Demos in Greek Tragedy", frequently addresses the works of Euripides[1], demonstrating how any address he makes to the audience through his plays is usually implied and never made obvious, as that would not only break the narrative that is being constructed to draw in the audience's attention, it would also fail to subject the audiences disbelief (please use either 'audience's disbelief' or disbeleif of the audience' . Interestingly, the article notes how often the audience is incorporated as being representative of the expected demos, usually by having silent actors, or individuals who are part of the Tragedy, to be seated with the audience, to ensure that the actor is engaging with the audience of the play (no need to add them) [1].

Through a further exploration into the role of the chorus, the author looks at what impact that role might have had (it might be grammatically correct but it is just confusing and it might be more clear if you add an article to 'role' e.g. ' a role' or ' the role')  when looking at it from the perspective of the demos. The author notes that it was often the case for tragic choruses to be of one type of social position (in both age, gender, nationality, and class)[1]. With regard to gender distinctions, the author finds that despite the fact that females choruses existed within Greek plays in general, they, like other enslaved and foreign individuals lacked the same kind of status as male Greeks, in the sense that they were not considered citizens and thus, not representative of the demos[1] (the sentence is too long therefore becoming confusing, I would sugegst you to break down it to sentences). In fact, the author gives the example of how a female chorus in Aeschylus' "Seven against Thebes", is criticized as bad for citizen morale[1]. Therefore, it becomes apparent that gender roles did differentiate the allocation of roles for men and women even in Greek Tragedy, most likely (I might be understanding this wrongly, however it feels like you are adding your idea, bias here so you might want to change it. As I said before I might be misunderstanding the sentence so please go over it and decide on your own) as a way of solidifying the already existing paradigm.

With regard to how choruses are thus set up in regards to male, this is done based on their "factions within the citizenry" (p.66) unlike in other cases where the chorus is not male based[1]. For example, if the chorus were comprised of boys from Argive, then one would refer to them as "Argive boys" (p.66), whereas a much clearer distinction is made with males[1]. An example include: "jury-service-loving old men (Wasps)" (p.66), which indicates that the chorus is composed entirely of older men who are part of a jury service, further indicating their role within the citizenry[1]. In this way it is key to think of the citizen chorus as distinguished in status but, in all cases, also as a subset of the demos[1].


 * 1) By saying 'Interestingly' you are adding a bias. I would suggest you to go over them and replace them.
 * 2) The last paragraph is full of citations and I am not sure if they are fit to be used in wikipedia. As the topic is on plays, or books I can undertsand the need to cite in this way, however, cannot certainly say it is correct. Please refer to the exercises or ask somebody else's idea on this topic since I cannot give you a certain answer nor criticism.

Greek Tragedy: A performance
In discussing Greek Tragedy, it can often become misleading(this part here, I kept coming back.Honestyl I don't have a suggestion for this part but please think over it) when trying to assess Tragedy as a Drama, detailing an event, or as a performance, or the simple act of conveying a message/underlying(it would be more clear if you use a coma or brackets instead of the '/') theme, moral. An article by Mario Frendo, looks at the latter as phenomena (or a phenomenon) of performance, whereby one must (if this is mentioning something Frendo said, it is understandable but still needs a bit of clearification, but if not, I would suggest you to remove or replace it)  separate the meaning of the play from what it is actually saying, nor should one attempt to approach Greek tragedy through context (e.g., conventions of performance, historical facts, etc.).[3]citation needed, (there is a number but no link attached to it In a sense approaching antiquity from a contemporary outlook, especially with regard to the construct and form of the plays themselves, would hinder any understanding of classical Greek society.[3] '''Relating to previous discussions of the origins of Greek tragedy (This part is not very clear. As not mentioned in the draft, I do not know where this section will be added, however, even though it is added to a page with these discussions, I think you need to specify these. Or at least give a link to the part you are mentioning as the 'previous discussions'), it is important to note that traditional stories/plays/songs (instead of using '/' please try to use something else to make it more clear) were mostly or originally, sung or speech based rather than written. In this way the author notes the necessity of focusing in on tragedy and its performative nature.[3] Frendo furthers his argument by drawing on previous research into Greek Tragedy. He elaborates on the musical, often sing-song nature of the plays, and looks at oral tradition as the backdrop to the construction of these plays (e.g., oral tradition may play a role in the processes that lead to the creation of Greek Tragedy).[3] Interestingly (it is better to not use these kkind of words in wikipedia, because it adds a bias into the article), Frendo draws on the notion that the experience of tragedy requires a theatrical performance and is in that sense, a separation of tragedy from literature.[3] Furthermore, it becomes essential to look at tragedy as pre-drama, in the sense that it does not fit with the more contemporary envisioning of "drama" as we would've seen under the renaissance.[3] To repeat, a more performative nature rather than a dramatic processes or one that adheres to literature.[3] However, that being said dialogue based interactions were eventually brought into development but when looking at the percentage of script read by the chorus, who tend to decrease with regard to their involvement in the play, demonstrate in a sense, not only the performative nature of Greek tragedy but also bring to light the possibility that dialogic based strategies may have been employed.[3]''' (It is a very long sentence and it is making very hard to follow and very easy to loose the focus. You should cut it to at least to sentences and use semicolon instead of tons of comas.)


 * 1) The lack of citation or in other words, link attached to the [3], I cannot confirm the references for this paragraph. Please don't forget to add the links.

Deus Ex Machina: An Intervention Technique
An article by Thomas Duncan discusses the impact of dramatic technique on the influence of Tragic plays and the conveyance of important or essential outcomes, particularly through the use of Deus Ex Machina. This is a technique in which an action is halted by the appearance of an unforeseen character or through the intervention of a god, that essentially brings about a conclusion to the play itself.[2] '''One such example can be seen with Euripides Hippolytus, a play in which Hippolytus' downfall is brought forth by the death of Phaedra, a once noble queen whose desire for her son Hippolytus was instigated by the disparaged Aphrodite stemming from her won hatred of Hippolytus' and his unending devotion to Artemis and subsequent disparagement or denial of Aphrodite. (too long. I would suggest to shorten or divide the sentence since it is hard to focus this way)'''[2] It is in this way, that we can already see how divine intervention sets in motion the main conflict of the play, unwanted desire and how that leads to the downfall of a royal family. [2] However, it is not until the end of the play, when Artemis intervenes to tell king Theseus that he has killed his son by calling upon Poseidon, that he has fallen prey to the workings of Aphrodite by believing his wife's suicide note.[2] Without this kind of divine intervention, Theseus would not have realized his mistakes and Hippolytus would not have been cleared of blame. Furthermore, it shows that if Euripides had not put forth the notion of divine intervention and its use in explaining the events then the spectator would not have been as affected by the revelation were it to have come from human insight. That furthers this notion of an underlying hubris, a way to elevate humans above gods and in that way bias divine interpretation. In this way, we can see how essential such a technique can be within the mechanisms of a Greek Tragedy and within the capabilities of the tragedian in conveying their play as more than just a story or explanation of events.


 * 1) Overall this section is very confusing. I am not sure what it is talking about, what is the point? Is it about summerizing the play? If it is, it is still very confusing because of long sentences, and if it is not, I would suggest you to summerize the play even more and/or just talk about the key elements. This part can be a lot shorter, and more clear that way.


 * 1) The link in the citation [2] is not working, when clicked it is directly going to acorn which also asks to be logged in as the person who wrote the article. Therefore the link is unuseful and cannot be added since anybody but the auther can have an access to it and even it was open to all, since acorn is only for Acadia University students, anybody else cannot use it. Please revise your link

Aeschylus: the codification
In regards to character identification in Aeschylus' plays, one such example is Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, the Titan god of forethought and the inventing fire, of which he stole from Hephaestus and gave to humanity[3]. Thus, bestowing upon humanity the knowledge of the arts, angering the gods[3]. The essential idea behind this Greek tragedy, is that Prometheus is punished by Zeus not simply for the crime of giving humanity the knowledge of the gods, but also for believing that by doing so humanity would direct its gaze towards Prometheus as their new king, that they would in some way praise Prometheus as their saviour but see Zeus as nothing more than a tyrant[3]. This play is relevant to the overall notion of character identification as it depicts a being who acts on selfish intention and is therefore punished for it. Even more so, it touches on historical aspects of human culture and of how we can through the story (is it 'go through' or you mean something else? please think over this part again), or in this case play, giving a reason and context to our existence as well as history to our society and how we have evolved.

''Overall, I think you did a good job with adding a lot of information. There are still some areas that can improve. I would suggest reading your articles out loud (maybe you are already doing it but it is just a suggestion), it would help you to catch most of the mistakes such as the sentences that are too long and becoming confusing. Please don't forget that anybody can read this page, and they might not have the same level of interest to the topic. Therefore you should try to make your sentences as clear as possible. I hope my review was also clear and helpful.''--MaVipASta (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)--MaVipASta (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback
Thank you for your review, MaVipASta, it is astute and comprehensive. Wonderful job, well done!

Nealthane You've done a really impressive amount of work with regard to the content you've added to this article already, and your job going forward will be to address all of the concerns outlined by your peer reviewer, which I agree with. There is a lot of essay-style writing in your Wiki draft, and you want to make sure that rather than long, flowery sentences you aim for concise, direct sentences. I know that when you're writing it can be easy to get caught up in long prose, but try to remind yourself of the style of Wikipedia by looking at a couple other pages that you think are well done. It will be a challenge to re-write your work, but I know you'll be able to tackle this. Remember, you are giving the facts as an encyclopedia would present them. Going forward, please incorporate all the changes your peer reviewer suggested and, once you are done with that, keep adding content to the page with the above considerations in mind (i.e. unbiased, etc.). I'm very pleased with what you've done so far, excellent work! Please let me know if you have any questions, and reply to this comment when you have seen it with your plans and goals for improvement over the next month. Don't forget to tag me and sign with 4 tildes (~)! Gardneca (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I have read and understood all of the comments and suggestions given. First, I will remove all indications of bias in my writings. Second, I will endevour to make sure my sentences are clear and concise, even I found areas where my writing completely confused me, so I understand your confusion MaVipASta! Lastly, I will find better references for my texts so that all can have access them and I will find new resources that might help clarify my points better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealthane (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great, Nealthane, I'm really looking forward to seeing your final product! Gardneca (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)