Tony Smith (sculptor)

Template:WP1.0

citation needed tag

I know that our citation needed tag is on a fact from Halio's book. That means that the ref is available in the history of this article. Wrad (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In the GA version, the bit about the "down-to-earth Romeo" etc. isn't cited directly, but the next citation is indeed from Halio, pages 104 and 105. Could this be where it is from? -Malkinann (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Wrad (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. :) -Malkinann (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Better or Best?

Though critics have picked apart many weak points in Romeo and Juliet since the play's first writing, it is still regarded by most as one of Shakespeare's better plays

Is the word "best" to be used here instead of the word "better"? Something like that:

Though critics have picked apart many weak points in Romeo and Juliet since the play's first writing, it is still regarded by most as one of Shakespeare's best plays

Naturalis (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Zeffirelli

Page says, of Zeffirelli's stage production:

He also paid close attention to detail, making sure that nothing which would add to the realism of the performance was neglected.

This simply cannot be right. I can easily believe that he (or someone) said this of his production, but a moment's thought will demonstrate that it cannot be literally true. Can it be reframed? Or attributed? What did the source actually say? AndyJones (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the main point is that he focused on realism, trying to make it seem like medieval Italy and not to let the shakespearean language seem stilted. Wrad (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried by the logical flow of the section, also. Here is is in full:

John Gielgud's New Theatre production in 1935 featured Gielgud and Laurence Olivier as Romeo and Mercutio, exchanging roles six weeks into the run, with Peggy Ashcroft as Juliet. Gielgud used a scholarly combination of Q1 and Q2 texts, omitting only minor portions of the originals, such as the second Chorus. He also organised the set and costumes to match as closely as possible to the Elizabethan period. His efforts were a huge success at the box office, and set the stage for increased historical realism in later productions. Guthrie McClintic produced a 1935 Broadway staging in which Katharine Cornell had a triumph as Juliet opposite Basil Rathbone as Romeo and Edith Evans (who had also played the role in the Gielgud production) as the Nurse. Cornell later revived the production with Maurice Evans as Romeo and Ralph Richardson as Mercutio, both making their Broadway debuts. Peter Brook's 1947 version was the beginning of a different style of Romeo and Juliet performances. Brook was less concerned with realism, and more concerned with translating the play into a form that could communicate with the more modern world. He argued, "A production is only correct at the moment of its correctness, and only good at the moment of its success." Franco Zeffirelli mounted a legendary staging for the Old Vic in 1960 with John Stride and Judi Dench that served as the basis for his 1968 film. Zeffirelli borrowed from Brook's ideas, altogether removing nearly a third of the play's text in order to make it more accessible to a contemporary audience. He also paid close attention to detail, making sure that nothing which would add to the realism of the performance was neglected.

And here's an abridgement which I hope makes the problem clear:

John Gielgud's production in 1935... set the stage for increased historical realism in later productions. ... Peter Brook's 1947 version was the beginning of a different style of Romeo and Juliet... less concerned with realism. ... Zeffirelli borrowed from Brook's ideas... making sure that nothing which would add to the realism of the performance was neglected.

Do you see the problem? We say the most notable thing about Guilgud was his realism. Brook's main rebellion against that was to defy realism. Then Zeffirelli follows Brook in, er, being as realistic as possible. AndyJones (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

McClintic

Guthrie McClintic's produced a 1934 Broadway staging in which Katharine Cornell had a triumph as Juliet opposite Basil Rathbone as Romeo and Edith Evans (who had also played the role in the Gielgud production) as the Nurse. Cornell later revived the production with Maurice Evans as Romeo and Ralph Richardson as Mercutio, both making their Broadway debuts.

I am moving this here since it doesn't have a source. It can go back if we find one for it. Wrad (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Guthrie McClintic produced a 1935 Broadway staging in which Katharine Cornell had a triumph as Juliet opposite Basil Rathbone as Romeo and Edith Evans (who had also played the role in the Gielgud production) as the Nurse. Cornell later revived the production with Maurice Evans as Romeo and Ralph Richardson as Mercutio, both making their Broadway debuts.

I'm moving this here again, sorry, because it seems to me to have a Wikipedia: Don't say boring things problem. (Yes, I know it's a red-link, but you get my idea). It's just a list of famous people with nothing to say about them and their performance of R&J, unless you count the one word "triumph" which is a bit unspecific and a bit of a peacock. I've no objection to mentioning these productions if we have something to say on them, though. AndyJones (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Wrad asked me to do a peer review of this article. I finally had time to do so today. I've added my comments here. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What problem?

What is meant by this:

The play is about two hours long,[63] creating a problem for any playwright wishing to express longer amounts of time.[62]

I can't understand it at all, sorry. AndyJones (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Try it in the abstract, as: Plays are generally about two hours long... rather than R and J is about about two hours long... i.e., playwrights have the "problem" of showing periods of time longer than this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's nonsense, and Lucking (the cited source) doesn't actually say that (or anything like it), so I've simply removed it. --Xover (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Date and Text

(Reposting here since I'm not sure how many are following the Peer Review)

User:Awadewit's Peer Review brings up a good point:

I see why the antiquity bit is mentioned later in the "Sources" section, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't come earlier. It is a broad statement and it seems like we are going back in time over the course of the sectoin, which is a bit awkward.

The section starts with Romeo and Juliet and then works its way backwards through 16th-century sources, through 15th- and 14th-century ones, and ends up with Pyramus and Thisbe in “antiquety”. On the one hand, that's illogical and makes it a bit awkward in places; on the other it's not terrible and I hadn't even noticed the problem until Awadewit pointed it out. Opinions? Anyone feel like taking a stab at reversing the flow of time in that section? Or should we just let it be? --Xover (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of it as tracing the "genealogy" of the story back from the work itself. I don't think it's too odd. How did we do it with Hamlet? Wrad (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet and its sources is a somewhat different beast, but it starts with Hrólfs saga kraka and works its way up to Hamlet. But that section spends more time on talking about what may have been the sources (Ur-Hamlet, etc.) rather then tracing the genealogy of the story as Romeo and Juliet does. --Xover (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a go at rewriting it to read in chronological order (and expanded a bit on some details, tweaked the refs, and added back the da Porto image). Have a look over it and see what you think? --Xover (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical history?

Moved from the article's Critical history section:

Though critics have noted many weak points in Romeo and Juliet since the play's first writing, it is still regarded as one of Shakespeare's better plays. One of the most prevalent debates among critics is Shakespeare's intent. Was the play intended to be a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate and fortune, or was it a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the ultimate tragedy to which it will inevitably lead? Perhaps it was intended to show how two young lovers become instruments in the hands of fate or providence in uniting two warring families. Scholars have yet to agree on what the play is really about after centuries of analysis, though recently several have argued that it is a combination of all three.

cf. the Peer Review comments by Awadewit. I have no idea what to do with this. As best I can tell it's talking about the themes and motives of the play, rather than its critical history. I'm sure it could be rewritten to avoid the question form, but it feels odd to be ascribing too much intent to Shakespeare in writing the play. I note the Critical history section works perfectly fine without this text; perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave it out altogether?

Opinons? Anyone want to take a stab at this? --Xover (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than using the word intent, just say "what was the play about"? without the question. The fact is, early scholars debated this stuff and it's a big part of the play's critical history nowadays author's intent junk is a no-no, but back then it was all the rage. Wrad (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Every time I have a go at this I end up itching to sprinkle {{who}} after each sentence. Anyone happen to have access to:

Scott, Mark W. (1987). Shakespearean Criticism. Gale Research. ISBN 0810361299.

This para is sourced to page 410 in Vol.5 of that, and the surrounding text seems to be mostly sourced to pp. 410–415.

I'm the one who first looked it up and I don't think you're going to see any specific names, nor do I think there should be any. Were talking about summing up centuries of critical history into one paragraph. No one person has asked these questions, many have, and the source supports that. Wrad (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent Ok, taking a stab at it:

One of the most prevalent debates among critics over the years is Shakespeare's intent. Some see the play as a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate, or as a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the tragedy to which it will inevitably lead. Others argue that it shows how two young lovers become instruments of fate in uniting two feuding families. After centuries of analysis there is still no consensus on which is the intent, but recent analysis tends to consider all three themes.

Could this work, or did I merely butcher your text? :-)

Another issue here is where to put it. It was originally the opening paragraph of the section, but then midway down we find “…Rowe was the first known critic to ponder the theme of the play…” which is a bit weird. Would it fit better right after Rowe so that it reads something like “Rowe started it, and this is what they've been discussing since”? --Xover (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the issue for me. Nowadays, if a literary critic seriously discusses the author's intent or theme of any particular work, they are likely to be laughed out of publication unless they are very careful. These methods are considered more and more outmoded. I'm wondering what we want to do here, then? Do we want to focus on the older "author and theme" analysis at all? If we do, how much and in what way? I'd like to hear from Awadewit on this. Wrad (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, take a look at Hamlet's Critical history section. --Xover (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, just judging by her edit history, I suspect she has too much on her plate to be watchlisting this page. If you'd like her to comment I'd suggest dropping a note on her Talk page. --Xover (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this is an OR personal opinion, but I find the section a bit embarrassing. The genius of Shakespeare is that he doesn't take sides or offer easy answers. The play is neither saying young love is great and shouldn't be thwarted by a cruel world. Nor is it saying that young lovers should curb their enthusiasm and be guided by those who are older and wiser. Instead it says both of these things, and neither of them, and much more besides. That is what makes it a great play. Arguing that his intent was to tell us "THIS" is just reductive. AndyJones (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Andy, I don't think this is OR at all. I would be surprised to find a Shakespeare scholar who said that R&J was a play with one theme. They usually make more subtle arguments than that. If the section could reflect this idea better--that the play is about many things and different scholars have chosen to emphasize different themes--I think it would be better. There are reasons that certain scholars have focused on particular themes - if those could be uncovered and explained, it would be even better. Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the reason the section sounds silly and reductive is because most of it is from older literary critics following older literary theory. Basically from back in the day when people really did make unsustainable arguments about the author's sole intent of the piece of of the one theme that they saw as representing the whole work. Those arguments just don't hold up anymore. Wrad (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent: Ok, another try then:

One of the most prevalent debates among early critics was that of Shakespeare's intent. Some saw the play as a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate, or as a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the tragedy to which it will inevitably lead. Others argued that it shows two young lovers as instruments of fate in uniting two feuding families. After centuries of analysis there is still no consensus on which is the intent, but recent analysis tends to consider individual themes and avoid ascribing one over-arching "meaning" to the play.

Does that sit better? Or are we leaning towards leaving this bit out altogether? --Xover (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got a tweak on your tweak, mostly to do with overuse of "it":

One of the most prevalent debates among early critics was that of Shakespeare's intent. Some saw the play as a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate, or as a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the tragedy to which it inevitably leads. Others argued that the play shows two young lovers as instruments of fate in uniting two feuding families. After centuries of analysis there is still no consensus on Shakespeare's intent,<!--could also be "the intent", I'm not fussy...--> but recent analysis tends to consider individual themes and avoid ascribing one over-arching "meaning" to the play.

Howzat? -Malkinann (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes; much nicer. But I'm still not sure whether the consensus is to keep this (rewritten) para, or to just avoid it altogether. What's your feeling on this? --Xover (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, do all of the ideas contained in this paragraph come through in the article without it? I think so, so maybe we should just leave it be. -Malkinann (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so far everyone has been either negative to the text, or to its inclusion in the article (that includes Wrad, if I read him right. Wrad?), so I'm going to leave it out and tag this (these) point(s) as done on the Peer Review page. --Xover (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

From the Peer Review page:

• Image:Romeo and juliet title page.jpg - This image has no source information.
• Image:Richard Burbage Portrait at Dulwich Picture gallery.jpg - Link to source does not take us to image.
• Image:Charlotte Cushman Susan Cushman Romeo Juliet 1846.jpg - This image has no source information.

Can anyone help fix these issues? --Xover (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All done. Thanks everyone! --Xover (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

More peer review issues

I've done most of the mechanical stuff (some work on e.g. references etc. remains), but the following open points from Awadewit's excellent peer review are a bit beyond me.

• Another theory argues that the feud between the families provides a source of phallic expression for the male Capulets and Montagues. This sets up a system where patriarchal order is in power. When the sons are married, rather than focusing on the wife, they are still owed an obligation to their father through the feud. - Eh? This doesn't sound quite right for psychoanalytic criticism. I'm sensing that the writers might have had a hard time understanding this material and the paraphrasing might have lost something.

• They take into account the fact that the play is written during a time when the patriarchal order was being challenged by several forces, most notably the rise of Puritanism. - How does Puritanism work in the play? This is confusing.

• Mercutio's friendship with Romeo, for example, leads to several friendly conversations, including ones on the subject of Romeo's phallus. - What? This doesn't seem right at all. It is hard to turn queery theory into readable prose, but this doesn't do it justice, I don't think.

• What about historicist interpretations?

• The play directly influenced several literary works, both in Shakespeare's own day through the works of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher,[74] and later works such as those of Charles Dickens. - Please explain in more detail.

• The influence of the play on subsequent literature seems like it could be expanded.

Anyone up for taking a look at these? --Xover (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got some sources that discuss the queer theory point and the influences point (3rd and 5th/6th above). I'll have a look in the next day or so, hopefully. The first one should probably be removed if it can't be fixed. Historicism is totally beyond me, though.  :-( Can somebody else look at that one? AndyJones (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with the 3rd point, I think. The sources I was thinking of for influences turned out to have less on R&J than I'd thought/hoped. I'm on a Wikibreak until September but I'll be back to this article, then. AndyJones (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. Great work! --Xover (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Turning to the last two bullets above, my suggestion is that we simply remove the "Influences" section, if we don't have enough decent material to source a full section on it. We can merge anything good into other sections, if need be. The filmic influences are covered pretty thoroughly at Romeo and Juliet on screen. Goss's article on Shakespeare's influence mentions Berlioz, Delius, Tchaikovsky and Bernstein but all of them are now mentioned in the "Music" section, as are Dire Straits. Goss mentions Dickens, but doesn't make any R&J-related connection. AndyJones (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've struck two more of those bullets: those sections are now substantially reworked and different.

On the question of "historicist interpretations", do we actually need to cover it? That is, if we have between us got through reading all the books and articles in the "secondary sources" section of this article, without one of us once spotting something about historicism that we thought was worthy of inclusion, maybe it isn't a significant enough feature of the scholarly literature that a general-purpose encyclopedia article needs to cover it. (Of course I'm saying this in complete ignorance of what historicist interpretation is actually all about!) AndyJones (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I gather it's a cultural lens through which R&J may have been viewed - like the feminist or queer criticism of R&J, or the Marxist criticism of King Lear. The articles Historicism and New Historicism don't illuminate me much further. -Malkinann (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet on Screen

We have a Screen section that's 7 paras long, quite a bit longer than many other sections, and quite listy at times. You can just bet that at FAC they'd ask us to chop it down a bit. At the same time, this is a Main article section pointing to Romeo and Juliet on screen, and that article is both somewhat missing the material we have in the Romeo and Juliet article, and it probably has enough material to split it out into Romeo and Juliet on screen and List of screen adaptations of Romeo and Juliet.

In any case, I suspect it'd be a good idea to move most of the material from Screen into Romeo and Juliet on Screen and rewrite what we leave behind in summary style (and, hey, I'm itching to try out the spinout/transclude trick! ;D). Any thoughts? --Xover (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the idea of having the "list of..." article, I think that would be a spinout too far. It's a good idea trying to re-synchronise the two articles, and also trying to cut down on the film adaptations here. (One thing I don't really get is why West Side Story and R+J are listed as being very different film adaptations of the story when they're both modern updates of the story...) What's the spinout/transclude trick about? -Malkinann (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Go take a look at Pathology. Then view source for a couple of the sections. :-)

Some genious noticed that the MOS guidelines for the lede section of an article and for the contents of a Main article section within an article, were essentially the same: a summary style summary of the topic. In other words, if we make sure the lede for Romeo and Juliet on screen is good and accurately summarises its topic, we can just transclude its lede into the Screen section in Romeo and Juliet and it'll work perfectly while leaving us just one place to maintain that text (no synch issues etc.). There's a spinout template made to take care of various stylistic issues (lede should bold the first mention of the article's topic, while a main article section should not; the template takes care of this). --Xover (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this discussion until now. I wrote the screen section here, and most of Romeo and Juliet on screen. I'll take a look at reducing the screen scetion, here.

Incidentally, the suggestion that anything from the screen section is missing from the main article is definitely wrong. The screen section here is a pure abridgement: I composed it entirely from material in the main article. AndyJones (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Xover (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've abridged that quite heavily. (FWIW I don't share your enthusiasm for the transclusion trick.) Incidentally, I don't understand Malkinann's comment: "One thing I don't really get is why West Side Story and R+J are listed as being very different film adaptations of the story when they're both modern updates of the story". They are different. One is an adaptation (WSS), the other an abridged performance (R+J). Is that what you were asking? If not, let me know and I'll respond. AndyJones (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen them both, (many moons ago) and it seems to me that they're both just modern updates of the story. (although they achieve this in different ways) So why are they said in the article to be both very different? -Malkinann (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean, it's the last sentence of the lead. I'll do something with it. AndyJones (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My approach was to introduce a third, straighter, version into the list. Are you happier with that? AndyJones (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. :) I feel that highlights their diversity better. -Malkinann (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson on Romeo and Juliet

See here if anyone was interested. I have a hard copy with page numbers if necessary. The actual quote is "This play is one of the most pleasing of our author's performances. The scenes are busy and various, the incidents numerous and important, the catastrophe irresistibly affecting, and the process of action carried on with such probability, at least with such congruity to popular opinions, as tragedy requires." And on and on. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for FA?

Is this article ready for its FA application, yet?

A few questions I have:

• I see Xover and Wrad have worked hard on the page overall, and I assume one or both of you would want to make the nomination, unless you think a joint one would help.
• I see Xover particularly working on & commenting on the peer review issues. Do you think those are mostly resolved? If yes, do you think this would be a good moment to ask Awadewit if she'd be willing to take another look and comment on whether she feels her issues were addressed and if she has any more? AndyJones (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The issues that are still unstruck under More peer review issues remain to be adressed, and going into FAC with outstanding peer review issues is just begging for a speedy close. So we need to close out those and then do an “internal” review from a big picture perspective to see where we are (e.g. compare it with Hamlet to see where it differs, why, and whether/how to deal with that). I think the article is in pretty good shape, but I'm not sufficiently confident to be comfortable going to FAC just yet.

As for the actual nomination, I'd be equally happy nominating, co-nominating, or having someone else nominate it; and no particular preference either way. For the record, my contributions have mainly been mechanical stuff like typo fixing, tracking peer review issues, and simple copy-editing: credit where credit is due, and I'm due very little of it. :-) --Xover (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've practically only copy-edited the article — but I think that Wrad has contributed the most content to this article. But Xover should definitely co-nom ;) —Sunday | Testify! 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FA Quality Syopsis

Here's the current one:

It's very good: far better (for example) than the version we had to work so hard on at Hamlet when we did its FA drive. Here are some of my questions:

• It doesn't mention Juliet's age: 13. I think that's very important for numerous reasons. Shakespeare really stresses it, it's an issue in several early scenes. It's important to the modern reception of the play: its action would be illegal in most modern nations and may raise paedophilia issues (Sutherland mentions this explicity in Henry V, War Criminal?). If you accept the conventional dating, WS had a 13-year-old daughter at the time of composition. I don't think all these points need to be in the article, but I think the age does.
• Not sure about: "The Prince of Verona, intervenes and declares that the heads of the families will be held accountable for any further breach of the peace." The line is "your LIVES shall pay the forfeit of the peace": it's stronger than being "held accountable". Not sure what to do with it, though: the prince clearly doesn't follow-through on that threat after the Tybalt/Mercutio/Romeo duel (as you might expect him to do, having lost a kinsman). AndyJones (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • NB:I haven't finished. I'll doubtless add more thoughts in the next few days. AndyJones (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Afterlife

I think I've nothing more to add to the section which I've renamed "Afterlife".

It would be good if someone could come along and do a proofread and tidy-up of any of my errors, though, now. AndyJones (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not liking the renaming of the section, as I find it confusing. "Afterlife" might also be the name of the section which goes on about how R&J's death is an example of courtly love rather than orthodox Christian theology - a theme. -Malkinann (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean "afterlife" could be a discussion of whether they went to heaven or hell or wherever? Yes, I suppose. But "afterlife" tends to be the term the scholars use to discuss this issue, which is why I like it. Shakespeare Survey 49 is actually called "Romeo and Juliet: Afterlife". Has anyone got a suggestion for a term that retains this breadth but wouldn't confuse someone who wasn't used to the term? AndyJones (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)