Talk:The Country Wife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The Country Wife is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 26, 2005.
Article Milestones Date Process Result March 19, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 23, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Langlit article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Last words 2 Anecdotes? 3 Caption 4 Spoiler warning?

[edit] Last words

Magnificent article, but I think you already know what my "but" is going to be about. I so far prefer the innocence of Harold Webber's vision of the cuckolding game to Canfield or Sedgewick as to be inexpressible. This is not the place for an argument, but a generic and an ideological analysis both can suggest that there is still an "us and them" involved, that the game is between men and women of self-awareness and wit and wealth and those who have either wealth or wit, but not both. In the play, Harcourt represents the way out -- the retiring Mafiosi, as it were -- but the constant creation of class through sexuality is an attempt at ideological definition in an age of the Restoration. We forget too readily that this was not an ordinary world and not a stable one. After the Restoration, the aristocracy had to reassure itself and the commoners that there was something special involved. From the point of view of propaganda aimed at the aristocrats and against the masses, this play says, "Yes, there are rich cits around, and there are faded aristocrats who hung around England during the Interregnum, but we're the new guys. We're the wit kings. We're the aristocrats who are naturally superior." Horner is able to be most potent through impotence, and Pinchwife is most impotent with his desires of consummation. It's a war between the right kind of aristocrat and the wrong kind, and all of this transgressive class gender homosocial stuff seems to me to work only if this were a world of established verities. Geogre 02:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• What I went for wasn't my own favorites, but illustrations of what's out there, and what has had influence. And, to the extent possible, something comprehensible to someone who doesn't know the play. Complexities and fine shades would make the section, well, long. It's already too long IMO. And would make it hard. Sedgwick is a very useful illustration—influential, and can be summarized in a sentence. Keeping it simple was my big criterion. I suspect people may find it thorny anyway. It's a pity that right at the end is the only logical place for modern criticism, I'd much rather end on something potentially fun—well, for my perverted tastes—like the influence of the actors. Bishonen | Talk 03:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's just right as it is. Another cracker, Bish. Filiocht 15:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your wish was my command, Bish. I added the light literary anecdote as an end piece. I could not find an elegant way to make explicit the point that Beerbohm was hugely knowledgable about drama; if he was vague about the play, it was really out of fashion in 1899. --Theo (Talk) 08:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Aha, in that case maybe I'll take a shot at merging Beerbohm into the "Critical history" section, it should be easier to make the point there, as part of a discussion about how the play was neither acted, read, nor discussed. What is The Country Wench? I don't know it, and the British Library doesn't seem to either, at least not their online catalogue. Unless it's my search skills as usual. Maybe Swinburne really did have the only copy in existence. Thanks, Theo. Did you have any comments to share about the questions I asked on Wikipedia:Peer review/The Country Wife? Bishonen | Talk 12:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I can find no trace of The Country Wench except in this story. There is no reason to believe that Beerbohm made it up (his integrity has not been questioned, to my knowledge) but it is not listed in the British Library catalogue (according to a colleague who has checked at St Pancras) and Swinburne would still be comforted to know that the Bodleian has no copy. My last resort would be the Stationers' List but I have no imminent plans to visit the City. --Theo (Talk) 14:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdotes?

Hmmm. I do not mean to be ingracious, but the Literary Anecdotes section is problematic, to me. First, there is one anecdote, so the title is improper. Second, it kind of diverts the reader from the subject at the very end of the article. I'm going to scale it back and move the information, but I don't want to offend. The information is interesting, but it kind of sticks out right now. Geogre 13:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No offence … As I explained above, I added that section because I could not find an elegant way to weave it in. Bish, I believe, is on the case. --Theo (Talk) 14:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caption

This caption, while hilarious, is probably not appropriate for this page. Vircum 08:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. It's corrected already and I have welcomed the vandal to Wikipedia. — mark ✎ 08:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL. If all vandal edits were that funny, I'd never use rollback again. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

hahaha, that was good for a chuckle this morning. --CGW | talk 14:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ha! I liked it, too. I reverted it with a heavy heart. — mark ✎ 23:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning?

Should the article have one? —Ashley Y 23:07, 2005 May 26 (UTC) Bold text