User talk:Xover/Archive 12

Oh, c'mon, it's a good book!
But fair enough, the source was crap and I can't find a better one (and thanks for writing a good ES). Don't remove Neil Gaiman from Puck though, I'll fight for that ;-) And the source is better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. I was really there trying to find cites for all the entries, trying to address the maint tag, but I just couldn't find any sources that discussed the book, and certainly not in that particular context. And when the description suggested the mention of Falstaff was simply in passing, the outcome was pretty much given. Do keep an eye out for references and give me a ping if you find any (or, obviously, add them directly). As to Puck, while I generally detest pop culture trivia in Wikipedia articles, and especially in the Shakespeare articles (that seem to amass them at an almost Falstaffian rate ;D), I expect that finding cites for Gaiman's use of him to be much easier. I know there's at least one book chapter (essay) that addresses The Sandman specifically in the context of Shakespeare (but I haven't read it yet). It's a pity character analysis and criticism fell out of style somewhere after Bradley (I blame Freud and Laclan). I love those perspectives on the plays, and I think they help illuminate the topic for our readers (hence the proliferation of fictional character articles in pop culture topics, where scholarly treatements are relatively less influential in determining due weight). In any case, thanks for the notice, and the kind words! --Xover (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Then this section I wrote may make you grind your teeth a little: Marlovian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship. I like broad-sense popular culture sections to an extent, they can be (and often are) crappy, Bō is really bad, but they can also be made decently WP-ish. Funny thing is that any article can have these sections: Ophidiophobia, Parasitoid, Otto_Skorzeny, Cain_and_Abel...


 * It's a little odd that Ruled Britannia is so absent in sources, it did get an award. But it's an obscure genre and there's really no reason Shakespeare-scholars should pay attention to Turtledove. BTW, pop-cult Shakespeare doesn't get much better than this . And british House of Cards. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I mostly don't care about the alternate authorship theory articles. Not really due to the articles themselves (I find conspiracy theories in general, which they mostly are, to be fascinating), but because all the… let's be polite and call it "drama"… around them has left me with an active distaste for them (the whole sad story that eventually ended up in WP:ARBSAQ darn near put me off Wikipedia alltogether). Nor is it pop culture itself I object to (quite the contrary!). It's the endless lists of trivial references ("an actor that once was an extra on Voyager played a character in a direct-to-video film that once used the words "to" and "be" in very nearly consecutive sentences, which is clearly a reference to Hamlet."), original research, invariably in context-free list format, and without a citation.Pop culture references that are significant (i.e. non-trivial), in pop culture works that are themselves significant, and which have been covered by high quality secondary sources… I love them! It's the perfect way to give a Shakespeare topic modern relevance, and make it interesting to people who would rather have a root canal then see a play, much less a Shakespeare play. Gaiman and Sir Patrick Picard (Jean-Luc Stewart?) are perfect examples here: the works have cultural significance of their own; reference and adapt Shakespeare in significant and culturally relevant ways; and the reference has been noticed and commented upon by well respected scholars (Jill Levenson, for example, edited Romeo and Juliet for The Oxford Shakespeare).And it's very much worth keeping in mind that Shakespeare himself was the pop culture of his time, and littered the plays with contemporary pop-cultural references. Take a look at the Karamazov Brothers take on The Comedy of Errors that kindly pointed out to me a few sections above. Even if you take the pure circus out of it, there's nothing even remotely high brow about it. Or, indeed, the Oldcastle—Falstaff thing. A contemporary political allusion so sharp it rivals Shakespeare in the Park having their Brutus murder a Cæsar that's the spitting image of Donald Trump.In any case, don't expect me to go on the war path against pop culture any time soon. Lists of trivia under the heading "In popular culture" on the other hand… Grr!On Ruled Britannia, I was actually a little surprised to come up empty. Any obscure detail related to Shakespeare has usually been covered by someone over the last 400 years, and Shakespeare scholars tend to be kinda desperate to appear relevant, so their pop culture reference are quite common. Sometimes disdainful and dismissive, sure, but on the whole, Shakespeare scholars love stuff like this. Case in point: A Midsummer Night's Rave. :) --Xover (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Pop culture and WP is how I came to get an interest in Shakespeare (I've only seen film-versions of a few plays). I'm sure I "miss" tons of stuff in for example Ruled Britannia, but it's fun anyway (I love Constable Strawberry). I've noted the drama around SAQ (!), it can be an interesting spectator-sport. I'm Swedish, and I can't remember a friend, teacher or colleague ever suggesting to me "you should read this by S". But he has a (not always) discreet omniprescence in fiction, and it's interesting to note it when it pops up. The St Crispin's Day Speech in Renaissance Man is a favorite of mine. First episode of Blackadder season 1 is also good.


 * Years ago my girlfriend and I was in London, and looked at discounted musical/theater tickets. First evening we saw Chicago, good enough. Second evening, we decided on what posters assured was a celebrated comedy, the title didn't mean anything to us (I actually wanted to see a theater version of Yes Primeminister but couldn't get consensus). "What's Hamlet doing? He's talking to himself!" Shakespearian english isn't always easy to understand, but I really enjoyed Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And speaking of St Crispin's Day Speech, if you're interested, it wouldn't hurt to add something about what Shakespeare scholars think about it to the article. Also, if someone would like to attempt to read a Shakespeare play, could you recommend a helpful edition, with good explanations, "translations" etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strawberry? A Dogberry-analogue I presume?And no surprise nobody ever recommended Shakespeare to you: in your neck of the woods it's all social realism and the economic plight of urban and suburban working-class youth in the seventies. Since the fall of the empire in '88, the poetry has been lacking (in spite of Thåström's best efforts). :)Shakespeare is omnipresent, indeed. Partly, I think, because he was "not of an age, but for all time." Hamlet's angsty indecision is relatable and relevant for teens (and former teens) in any era, even though your uncle murdering your father and marrying your mother to usurp your throne is somewhat less common these days. The plot of Romeo and Juliet is picked straight out of a Hollywood teen movie, even if it took Baz Luhrmann, Leonardo Di Caprio and Clare Danes to make the dialogue palatable for a modern audience. Shakespeare somehow manages to be universal, and is therefore eminently stealable, in bits or wholesale. Even in his own day a schizophrenic potpurri of high culture and low, and only more so over the years as even his low brow stuff has acquired a high brow patina.Interesting that you so enjoyed Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I haven't seen it performed (not even the movie version, but I hear that is pretty bad), but aside from the mostly modern language, I would have imagined it quite hard to follow for a non-native English speaker. When Guildenstern goes off on one of his philosophical expeditions I have trouble keeping up on the written page; not to mention the absurdist back and forth between the two. I think if you managed to keep up with that then it shouldn't take much practice to keep up with a Shakespeare performance. It's a bit more archaic, and it's in verse and more flowery, but you'll quickly learn to pic up the gist (and the details can be had at exhaustive length from the book version if needed). (oh, and Yes, Minister is, indeed, utter brilliance!)The standard editions of Shakespeare are The Arden Shakespeare and The Oxford Shakespeare, but those are primarily academic works so I wouldn't recommend them for an introduction. I haven't tried the Folger Shakespeare Library's editions, but I hear good things about them. They're aimed at roughly high school level, and contain explanations of both words and phrases as needed, and plot summaries for every scene, plus some overview material on the play (roughly equivalent to our articles on the plays, only perhaps a bit shorter). Available in an ebook edition on both iBooks and Kindle (the iBooks version looks ok, I haven't checked the Kindle and I've had mixed results there previously). I would recommend starting with Romeo and Juliet as both the most relatable, easily accessible, and readable of the plays. Alternately, Macbeth is both short and with a plot that's not too convoluted. --Xover (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Dogberry, yes, or so I'm told anyway. I may have a go at the scottish play. I have read Wyrd Sisters, seen the japanese one... no that was King Lear. But I saw the Macbeth episode of Upstart Crow and Sense and Senility, of course. I also think Elizabeth Urquhart is a fair Lady Macbeth analogue. As for Swedish poetry, I'd recommend The Long Ships and Crusades trilogy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to chime in here. As a Yank I was raised on the Folger Library publications. They are nice because they have the text of the play on the right page and the footnotes on the left. It is nice to not have to go back and forth between the front and back of the book. Kurosawa did both Lear - Ran (film) and Macbeth - Throne of Blood - there was more than 35 years between them and the storytelling and filmmaking are very different between the two. I like them both but I am a complete Kurosawa devotee so my judgment is slanted :-) I think Scotland, PA is a clever and fun take on the tale - but I know it won't be to everyone's taste so I recommend it with a grain of salt to you both. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I thought I remembered a japanese Macbeth. Christopher Walken, eh? Interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've ordered 3 Folgers, the paper kind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I hope that they work for you G. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that the character Pug Henry quotes The quality of mercy in The Winds of War, novel (p149) and TV-series? Omniprescence. Don't worry, I won't add it to the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. Omnipresent indeed. And the worst part is, once you start noticing it, you can't stop noticing! :)PS. Do let me know how you like the Folgers when they arrive and you get a chance to look at them. It'd be useful to have your perspective on them if I'm ever called upon for a similar recommendation in the future. --Xover (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I shall. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: Apart from categorypage "Cultural depictions of William Shakespeare", there's no WP-article or list for "William Shakespeare in fiction" or similar, is there? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Most alarming. I've discovered a glaring error in Locating Shakespeare in the Twenty-First Century, page 110. "When Marlowe makes a pass at a serving girl..." read that again:, it's Shaxberd doing the making of passing, and Marlowe doing the sticking with boys. Also, "a sexual preference unrecorded in historical material", that's a little over simplified, isn't it (and again, the implication in the comic is that Marlowe likes boys, not completely original)? It seems like a "Shakespeare in The Sandman" article could very well pass WP:GNG on it's own. Like you said, "Shakespeare scholars love stuff like this." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Most alarming indeed. I shall have to think about writing a sternly worded letter to the editor! :) There is nothing in the historical record indicating that Shakespeare was gay. There's a bunch of later speculation to that effect, based entirely on internal evidence in the plays and (mainly) the poems, but no actual historical record of it. There is actually more evidence for Marlowe in this regard, I believe."Shakespeare in The Sandman" might pass GNG, but it'd be kinda borderline IMO. It'd clearly merit a long section in Cultural depictions of Shakespeare—which I was sure existed, but evidently not—but a standalone article might be pushing it. --Xover (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He had an earring and hung with Tobacco and Boys, case closed, obviously (yeah yeah, "may depict" etc). Upstart Crow is having fun with that one.
 * Sure, "Depictions" is more obviously missing. Awhile back I noticed there's no Religous humor either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My Folgers have arrived, I shall try to form an opinion in the coming days. About seeing S everywhere: A while ago, I created The Bible and humor. I returned to it today, and who has sneaked into it like a thief in the night, in the lead no less. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. Everywhere! --Xover (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Xover and. I just got home from seeing this thoroughly enjoyable production of Julius Caesar. As I was driving home a couple DVD sets that I own came to mind. I was thinking that they might be worth your watching Gråbergs as you continue with your learning about Will. First is Playing Shakespeare. Made all the way back in 1982 it has many of our favorite actors as youngsters. It is an in depth look at at what goes into performing Shakespeare's works. The other one is Shakespeare Uncovered. It aired under a different title in the UK but I can't remember what it is. Hopefully you will know Xover. Each play is looked at from different angles including how they were written - what there inspiration was - etc. They also include clips from various performances through the decades. Now I know they may not be available to you in DVD form. Perhaps they are available on the net if you are interested. I should add that you may have criticisms of them Xover - feel free to correct my info as you wish. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm vaguely aware of Playing Shakespeare (which turned into a book afterwards, btw), but I don't think I've seen either of these (or at least not recently), so I'm not sure why you think I may object to either of them. I'm sure they take liberties with history, biography, textual history, and such; but that's par for the course with acting focused programmes and doesn't usually bother me. Acting and performance is a completely different perspective on the plays, and requires different priorities. McKellen for example, in the previously linked clip, reads way too much into the lines (if Shakespeare really put all that in those few lines there's no way he'd be able to produce 2–3 plays per year), but it doesn't really matter because the whole point of the clip is McKellen's approach, perspective, and performance.Shakespeare Uncovered aired, I believe, on BBC under that name (I think it's even on iPlayer). It may of course have also aired under a different name, but I'm not familiar with it. Both of them appear to be very interesting and I will definitely be on the lookout for them.The NT Julius Cæsar looks interesting too. Ben Whishaw did a magnificent Richard II in The Hollow Crown so his Brutus would be curious to see. judging by Marnette's link above the performance will be shown in various venues that may be of relevance to you (Haparanda, Karlstad, Göteborg, some in Denmark). I believe the National Theatre Live productions are live streams of the performance, intermission and all, but I wasn't aware they'd expanded outside the UK so I'm not quite sure what you can expect there. --Xover (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks Cas. Much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Xover, thank you so much. Last evening I was at the library, and I just happened to stumble across that book. When I get off to the university library, in the next couple of days, I'll get a better source. Thank you so much! Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to imply that there's any urgent need to replace it! I just meant to urge caution when using such sources in the future because there's a lot of shoddy writing about Shakespeare, and if the article ever gets to FAC the source will have to be replaced because there are higher quality sources available. But in the mean time, I didn't see any obvious problems with the bits you added, and there are far more urgent problems both in that article and in the other Shakespeare articles in general. I'd much rather see you spend your time on these other improvements and additions I see popping up in my watchlist than to go back and replace that source just to replace the source. In any case, thanks for your contributions; and please don't let my grousing deter you! --Xover (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Xover, thank you so much for the kind words! Much appreciated! Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Silent Shakespeare
Unrelated to the above (because I'm stalking you), probably you are aware of the Silent Era website, but in case not: it has pretty extensive data both on the original films and on their renditions in home video. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was aware it existed, but I had forgotten and so didn't think to check it for this. For some reason it didn't show up in my Google searches. Thanks for the links! --Xover (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)