This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642 on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The first part of the article/the abstract should say why the article is important, what role The Tempest plays in the world. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, the fourth paragraph in the lead includes "in the 20th century, critics and scholars undertook a significant re-appraisal of the play's value, to the extent that it is now considered to be one of Shakespeare's greatest works." See also the Afterlife section near the end of the article. --GuillaumeTell 11:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Introductory text is inconsistent with feminist criticism section. According to intro, "Because of the small role that women play in the story, The Tempest has not attracted much feminist analysis." According to feminist criticism section, "Because of the small role women play in the story in comparison to other Shakespeare plays, The Tempest has attracted much feminist criticism." These statements are contradictory.188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Tom Reedy Why were these cites and this one deleted? These articles are published in mainstream Shakespearean journals and the book is published by an established publisher. Knitwitted (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
You need to ask these questions on your user talk page; I'm not going to chase you around WP to answer a question you already know the answer to. I suggest you read WP:RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Oxfordian Authorship stuff added by Aodhdubh
user:Aodhdubh has added some information about the position of The Tempest within the Oxfordian argument that William Shakespeare was not, in fact, the author of most/all of the work normally attributed to him. Not being an expert in the area, I'm hesitant to revert, but is the Oxfordian authorship theory not considered WP:FRINGE, and thus should probably be avoided here (from the Talk archives it looks like this was discussed fairly extensively in the past, in addition there is a large article, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, dedicated to the subject). Second, the addition includes "The connection between the play and the 1609 wreck at Bermuda of the Virginia Company's flagship, the Sea Venture (see below), has made it a primary target of proponents of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship as it enables the writing of the play to be firmly dated between September, 1610 and the play's first performance at court on the 1st of November, 1611 (making it impossible that it could have been written, as theorists propose, by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who died in 1604)." As written this is (at least) confusing. As written it would seem that the dates would make it a likely target for the opponents of the Oxfordian theory. Alternatively this may be intended to mean that the dates make The Tempest at target of the proponents of the Oxfordian theory, in the sense that the play is to be removed from the canon. Rwessel (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I noticed the edit and couldn't quite make out what it was saying. Per WP:ONEWAY I suspect Oxfordian theories should not be mentioned here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The Oxfordian theory might not have rated mention a few years ago, but since it was pushed firmly into the public consciousness in 2011 by the film "Anonymous, and numerous articles in reputable media, not mentioning the critical importance of this particular play in relation to that theory (and redirecting those interested in reading further to the appropriate Wikipedia article) would be a grave omission. As far as it being confusing whether the connection between the 1609 wrecking of the Sea Venture and the play would be attacked by proponents or opponents of the Oxfordian theory, it should be clear that, as the connection enables the date of the writing of the play to be established as between 1610 and 1611...and de Vere (Oxford) died in 1604, it would be the proponents of the Oxfordian theory who would attack the connection between the play and the Sea Venture. Aodhdubh (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
In any case, the sentence about the being target of the proponents needs to be clarified, it is confusing as written. Just being popularized is not necessarily enough to make the theory non-fringe, consider the popularization of the end-of-the-world-in-2012 "theory" by the eponymous movie, not to mention numerous other references in nominally serious media. Unless something has changed (and I'm certainly not an expert on the subject), this has always been, and remains, a fringe theory, thus deserving of minimal mention in the main WP article(s). Rwessel (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)