Talk:Bad quarto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Bad quarto is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the 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 not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
The article says: "He focused on four early quartos: Romeo and Juliet (1597), Henry V (1600), The Merry Wives of Windsor (1602), and Hamlet (1603). His reasons for citing these three texts(...)" Is 'three' a mistake there or is something missing in this paragraph? (forgot to login, sorry) --LodeRunner 03:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Yes, "three" was a mistake. Ugajin 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Missing Information
The bad quartos are a problem throughout Elizabethan drama, not a special Shakespearean issue. Greene's Orlando Furioso, Marlowe's Massacre at Paris, Marlowe's Dr. Faustus (1604), Beaumont and Fletcher's Philaster (1620), Peele's Edward I and the anonymous The True Tragedy of Richard III are all examples of non-Shakespearean bad quartos. Also The Taming of a Shrew is not usually considered an example of a bad quarto. And there is no mention of Leo Kirschbaum's work on the subject, which given his importance in the field, seems a glaring oversight, especially as Hardin Craig is mentioned, whose work was much less influential.
While my personal sympathies are with the POV expressed in this article, it does seem to me to be slanted against the standard mainstream view of the subject (or at least what was the standard mainstream view when I was in school). Torkmusik (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
