Talk:The Taming of the Shrew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theatre Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance 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 Taming of the Shrew 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.
B This article has been rated as b-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.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.

Contents

[edit] Contradiction?

I cannot make sense of the following:

After the 17th century, The Taming of the Shrew greatly decreased in both popularity and performance, compared to Shakespeare’s other plays. In its rare surfacing, the play was most often an adaptation of Shakespeare’s original. In the 18th century, however, there was a revival of The Taming of the Shrew, as it was once again performed the way Shakespeare had intended.

Either it is contradictory or very poorly phrased given the chronology suggested. Could someone with more knowledge of the subject reword or clarify. Jimg (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. After the 17th century is the 18th century. Does anyone know if "in the 17th century" was intended? AndyJones (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gender politics controversy

I question whether the extended "Analysis" belongs there. It's fundamentally pov. This play is disturbingly in favor of female submission to the male, just as Titus Andronicus is disturbingly violent. Both may be worthy works of art to be re-interpreted according to contemporary needs, minimizing the submission or the violence, but that at most is a pov that should be part of a "controversy" article, e.g. The Taming of the Shrew Gender Controversy rewinn 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Induction

More importantly, it seems to be OCRed and input wholesale. It contains the word "Induction" many times where I believe it is trying to say "Introduction" and much more. I'm going to remove it right now. I think that something along these lines that explain both sides of the controversy around the play probably belongs. But this isn't it, at least in its current form. --mako 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The Taming of the Shrew DOES have an "induction". AndyJones 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hunh, so it does. I'd assumed that was a typo, but it seems to be what WS calls it. Well, if it's good enough for Shakespeare ... I'll make the change. rewinn 05:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. In any case, the large body of removed text still does not belong for other reasons mentioned in the thread. --mako 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear if Shakespeare actually gave his introductory act the title "Induction." The 1992 edition of the Folger Shakespeare Library asserts that the term was most likely added by editors later.[1]24.239.123.242 04:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen people editing this article to change induction to introduction. While the induction serves as an introduction, induction is correct. Please don't change it the article. —mako (talk•contribs) 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character list

I'm going to make a character list, feel free to add and help. User:Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsundere?

I don't think using that term to describe Kate suits this entry.

[edit] Copyvio

I have removed the text

The boastful, selfish, mercurial Petruccio is one of the most difficult characters in The Taming Of The Shrew: his behaviour is extremely difficult to decipher, and our interpretation of the play as a whole changes dramatically depending on how we interpret Petruccio’s actions. If he is nothing more than a vain, uncaring, avaricious chauvinist who treats marriage as an act of domination, than the play becomes a dark comedy about the materialism and hunger for power that dictate marriages under the guise of courtly love. If, on the other hand, Petruccio is actually capable of loving Kate and conceives of taming her merely as a way to realize a happy marriage, than the play becomes an examination of the psychology of relationships. A case can be made for either interpretation, but the truth about Petruccio probably lies somewhere in between: he is unabashedly selfish, materialistic, and determined to be his wife’s lord and master, but he also loves her and realizes on some level that domestic harmony (on his terms, of course) would be better for her than her current life as a shrew in Padua. To this extent, Petruccio goes to alarming lengths to impose his mastery on Kate, keeping her tired and hungry for some time after their marriage, but he also insists on expressing this treatment in a language of love, indicating his eagerness for Kate to adapt to her rightful, socially appointed place and his willingness to make their marriage a happy one. Above all, Petruccio is a comic figure, an exaggerated person who continually makes the audience laugh. And though we laugh with Petruccio as he “tames” Kate, we also laugh at him, as we see him satirize the gender inequalities that the plot of The Taming Of The Shrew ultimately upholds.

from the main article. It appears to be copied from [2] verbatim, except the capitalization of the play's name was changed to be incorrect. Pcu123456789 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Untamed shrews formula

Feminists = shrew × 1000

--Evgeni Sergeev 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiration

Where does the story come from? I have read an old story about a young man marrying a brave woman but I don't remember if it was from Decameron or Don Juan Manuel. --Error 18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Elizabeth and Richard.jpg

Image:Elizabeth and Richard.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The other play

I'm confused as to the title of the other play mentioned in the article. It is both referred to as The Taming of the Shrew and A Shrew, and in the Authorship section it is referred to as The Taming of the Shrew while Shakespeare's play is called The Shrew. Unless I'm reading it wrong. This should be clarified, yes? 80.161.20.196 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that it is very confusing that we mention this in two different sections and seem to reach different conclusions. That needs some work. However, at first glance I don't see the problem you describe. Shakespeare's play is "The Taming of the Shrew", sometimes abbreviated to "The Shrew", and the other play is "The Taming of a Shrew", sometimes abbreviated to "A Shrew". I cannot see anywhere those are used inconsistently, unless you can point me to one? 15:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs)
    • You're absolutely right. I need glasses. :-) 80.161.20.196 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Really?

"Just as there are dissenting opinions on the interpretation of Shrew in modern times, people often disagreed on the play’s true meaning in the 16th century." Are there some examples (quotes) we can provide? Seems OR without any. Smatprt (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but that particular paragraph is loosely referenced to Aspinall's "The Play and the Critics", with sentences just before and after attributed to that source. So probably it comes from there. I don't have that book, but if someone has access to it, perhaps the statement could be properly referenced. If we can say that Aspinall says that there were dissenting opinions in the 16th century, I'd say that would suffice. We wouldn't need to give examples ourselves, as long as we make it clear that the information comes from Aspinall. Cowardly Lion (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well....here we go again. Just because some sloppy scholar has made a controversial statement, are we obliged just to follow them blindly when, as far as most scholarship tells us, there was actually very little (if any) actual comments made about the plays that are not subject to incredibly diverse interpretations? "People often disagreed" is a pretty strong statement to accept without citing actual examples. What people? How often? Disagreed how? Smatprt (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how stating that someone said something, thereby avoiding making the claim as if it's what we are saying, means following him blindly. You seem to think I disagree with you when I'm actually agreeing with you. I'm perfectly happy with your decision to take out that statement. I'd also have been happy to have left it, but to have made it clear that this is what Aspinall says, not what we say. Cowardly Lion (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. - According to the British Library, "there are virtually no records of performances of The Taming of the Shrew". If this is so, then how can "people" hve disagreed about the play's true meaning? Scholars can't even decide whether it was Taming of THE Shrew or Taming of A Shrew that was being discussed or reacted to, since what little records there are generally mention "A" shrew, which as you know is a different work, which (again) scholars disagree over it being a "bad" quarto, early version, different author, same author, etc. See [[3]] Smatprt (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with both of you, really, but I support Smatprt's decision to take this out. Without necessary context (who disagreed and what aspect of the thing did they disagree about?) then the statement's pretty meaningless to a reader. AndyJones (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)